Search Climate Insights Directory

The document critiques the EU Commission's decision to seek advice on increasing the flexibility of the EU taxonomy, arguing that such moves are concessions to polluting industries. It asserts that the taxonomy's purpose is to identify activities contributing to the ecological transition and improve disclosure, rather than to protect 'hard to abate' sectors. The author suggests that instead of weakening the framework, the Commission should develop a complementary "significantly harmful" taxonomy to help financial supervisors scale down support for climate-destructive activities.

The author criticizes the European Commission for seeking advice on making the EU taxonomy more inclusive of 'non-green' sectors, arguing that this is a concession to polluter lobbyists. The text asserts that the taxonomy's purpose is to identify activities contributing to the ecological transition and improve transparency, rather than simply rewarding marginal carbon improvements. It concludes that instead of weakening the current framework, the EU should develop a 'significantly harmful' taxonomy to actively divert funds away from environmentally damaging activities.

The guide outlines a structured process for building a national landscape of climate finance, moving from scoping and definition to data collection and final analysis. It emphasizes the importance of stakeholder engagement, the use of taxonomies to categorize climate-beneficial versus harmful flows, and the application of tools like Sankey diagrams to visualize financial flows from source to end-use. The document draws on Climate Policy Initiative's (CPI) experience in countries such as India, Indonesia, and France to provide practical examples of tracking both public and private climate finance.

The report examines the economic advantages of aggressive decarbonization in China, highlighting that solar and wind power have become more cost-competitive than coal. It argues that a faster transition to clean energy will enhance China's global export position in solar PV and electric vehicles, reduce stranded asset risks associated with coal, and provide significant co-benefits in air quality and energy security. The authors advocate for peaking emissions by 2025 and implementing a combination of carbon pricing, performance standards, and green finance to ensure a high-quality economic transition.

The document defines the technical and environmental requirements for bonds financing electrical grids and storage to be certified, emphasizing decarbonisation pathways and climate resilience.

The report identifies 23 financial transaction mechanisms and 35 enabling frameworks aimed at protecting and restoring nature. It categorizes these mechanisms into fiscal interventions, regulatory instruments, new government-enabled markets, traditional market-based instruments, and hybrid mechanisms. The authors argue that while innovation is high in identifying revenue streams, most mechanisms lack scale due to a reliance on public funding, a need for high private-value-capture potential, and a lack of performance certainty for large capital providers.

The proposal seeks USD 593,760 over 18 months to improve the operationality of Uruguay's National Designated Authority (NDA), facilitate direct access to GCF funding for national entities, and integrate climate change into subnational planning and private sector business models. Key activities include updating the Country Programme, developing a sustainable finance roadmap, and supporting the accreditation of the Corporación Nacional para el Desarrollo (CND) and Banco de la República Oriental del Uruguay (BROU).

The document argues that African nations should leverage the post-COVID-19 recovery to 'build back better' by adopting green finance mechanisms. It identifies green bonds as a primary tool for raising large-scale capital and emphasizes the need for targeted public finance to de-risk investments and attract private capital. The briefing details several pathways for a green transition, including the establishment of environmental funds, the deployment of renewable energy as an economic stimulus, and the implementation of green fiscal reforms such as carbon taxes. It also highlights the critical role of central banks in 'greening' the financial sector through macroprudential regulation and the development of green taxonomies to reduce information asymmetries.

The study examines the link between green bonds and climate targets for the twenty largest European green bond issuers in 2018. It finds a disconnect between these issuers' climate targets and their green bond frameworks, alongside deficiencies in post-issuance reporting. The author concludes that there is minimal pressure for issuers to align bond proceeds with ambitious science-based targets, suggesting a need for policy intervention to prevent greenwashing and align the market with planetary boundaries.

This report by the Climate Policy Initiative/Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (CPI/PUC-Rio) analyzes the role of rural credit policy in Brazil as a tool for increasing agricultural productivity while reducing deforestation. It argues that improving the efficiency and sustainability alignment of rural credit can allow Brazil to expand food production without further area expansion, leveraging existing cleared lands.

In 2019, IDFC members committed $197 billion in green finance, a 47% increase from 2018. Climate finance dominated this total at 95% ($187 billion), with mitigation projects receiving the largest share ($163.5 billion), primarily in transport and renewable energy. Adaptation finance grew for the third consecutive year to $19 billion. The majority of finance (74%) originated from non-OECD institutions and was largely deployed domestically, with the East Asia and Pacific region receiving the largest geographic share (69%). Loans remained the primary instrument, accounting for 95% of commitments.

The report analyzes the tracking of 'high-emissions finance'—defined as primary investment in assets with a material contribution to global GHG emissions—focusing on the power sector in 2017 and 2018. Using project-level datasets, the authors tracked USD 40.8 billion in annual average commitments, representing roughly one-third of the total fossil fuel power investment estimated by the IEA. The analysis reveals that public institutions, particularly export credit agencies and state-owned banks, and private commercial banks are major sources of this finance. Significant data gaps exist because investments made through corporate balance sheets are not captured in project-level data, particularly in Europe and China. The report recommends that public authorities mandate the disclosure of capital expenditures for high-emissions assets and establish technical emission thresholds to deter harmful investments.

Reclaim Finance critiques the third technical report for the EU Ecolabel for financial products, stating that new 'transition' and 'green growth' categories allow companies to continue investing in polluting activities without requiring Paris-aligned phase-out plans. The organization argues that the report's loosened restrictions on deposit accounts and reduced 'greenness' thresholds for UCITS equity funds undermine the label's ambition and could mislead savers.

This case study examines the clean cooking landscape in Bangladesh, highlighting the country's success in attracting finance despite significant gaps in access and the investment requirements needed to reach universal access by 2030.

The Climate Policy Initiative calls on development banks and global financial actors to move beyond immediate COVID-19 relief and utilize recovery finance to address climate change and inequality. It advocates for linking loans to sustainable outcomes, funding energy efficiency and resilient infrastructure, and ending fossil fuel financing. To guide this transition, the organization has convened an Advisory Council to develop 'Principles for Financing the Sustainable Recovery' aligned with the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals.

The document outlines key messages and strategies for enhancing resilience in Latin America, emphasizing the need for a regenerative economy, nature-based solutions, and the integration of urban and rural efforts. It identifies challenges such as the need for greater private sector engagement, the operationalization of the 'resilience' concept, and the impact of climate change on food insecurity. Proposed solutions include regenerative agriculture, impact-oriented investment funds, and the combination of traditional knowledge with modern science to support vulnerable populations.

The report finds that international and domestic public finance for forests is significantly lower than the sector's climate mitigation potential. It highlights a gap where 'grey' finance for agriculture far outweighs 'green' finance for forest protection. Additionally, the document notes that most major financial institutions lack deforestation policies, and private investment in sustainable commodity production remains difficult to quantify and insufficient in scale.

An analysis of 442 savings funds marketed in France reveals that 86.2% are exposed to companies with critical environmental or social risks, including major greenhouse gas emitters, arms manufacturers, and coal companies. The report highlights a significant gap between French citizens' desire for sustainable investments and the reality of current financial products, noting that 94% of studied ISR-labeled funds still finance these problematic companies. Reclaim Finance calls for mandatory climate requirements for all financial products in France, stricter standards for 'green' or 'sustainable' labels, and the implementation of a 'nutri-score' for financial products to increase transparency.

The policy brief analyzes the socio-economic and environmental vulnerabilities of Latin America exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It argues that traditional economic reactivation measures risk perpetuating structural crises and instead proposes a 'just and resilient recovery' based on four principles: climate action, decent employment, social inclusion, and long-term financing. The document outlines four priorities for governments: applying the 'no-regression' principle to avoid environmental deregulation, ensuring short-term measures align with long-term sustainability, maximizing investment in strategic sustainable sectors (such as renewable energy and regenerative agriculture), and increasing systemic resilience through economic diversification and new progress indicators beyond GDP.

The document argues that the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the critical link between ecosystem health and human health, urging policymakers to adopt nature-based solutions for both pandemic prevention and economic recovery. It recommends ending ecosystem degradation, reforming livestock production, regulating wildlife trade, and ensuring that economic stimulus packages include green conditionalities to avoid further environmental damage.