Search Climate Insights Directory

The Value for Money (VfM) Framework establishes a consistent, evaluative approach for FSD programmes to determine if resources are used effectively to reduce poverty. It moves beyond simple indicators by using 'rubrics'—predefined criteria and performance standards—to make reasoned judgements. The framework is built on the 'Four Es' (Economy, Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Equity) plus Cost-effectiveness, and is aligned with Impact-Oriented Measurement (IOM) and the FSD Compendium of Indicators. It emphasizes a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative data with qualitative narratives to account for the complexity of market system changes.

The report examines the role of fund domiciles in Sub-Saharan African private equity, highlighting the dominance of Mauritius due to its tax efficiency and legal stability. While there is growing interest in onshore alternatives—particularly in South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, and Morocco—the report finds that the high standards of legal, regulatory, and tax frameworks in offshore centres create a significant barrier to entry. It argues that donors should focus on strengthening the broader business environment and supporting private equity investment in SMEs rather than solely attempting to replicate administrative offshore hubs.

The white paper argues that African capital market regulators often face a dual mandate of both developing and regulating markets, which requires a proportional approach based on the market's maturity. It introduces a five-stage analytical framework—Foundational, Nascent, Emerging Early, Emerging Maturing, and Advanced—to help regulators determine whether to focus on building blocks, commodity markets, or sophisticated financial products. The report highlights that while some regulators like Morocco's AMMC are well-aligned, others face operational deficits or inefficiencies. It suggests a fluid funding mix of government and industry fees to ensure financial sustainability and independence.

The document serves as a technical resource for designing and issuing gender bonds in Africa, aligning with International Capital Market Association (ICMA) standards. It details the issuance process for both use-of-proceeds (UoP) and performance-based bonds, emphasizing the need for gender-disaggregated data, internal working groups, and external reviews. The guide highlights the growth of the gender bond market in Africa, citing recent issuances in Morocco, Rwanda, South Africa, and Tanzania, and provides case studies and frameworks to help issuers direct capital toward women-owned MSMEs, housing, and leadership diversity.

The document serves as a practical resource for the issuance of gender bonds in Africa, detailing the process from preparatory work to post-issuance reporting. It defines gender bonds as mechanisms to channel funding toward projects reducing gender inequalities, categorizing them into use-of-proceeds (UoP) and performance-based structures. The guide emphasizes the importance of gender-disaggregated data, the role of external reviews (such as Second Party Opinions), and the support of Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) as anchor investors. It highlights emerging markets in Morocco, Rwanda, South Africa, and Tanzania, and provides specific criteria for eligible projects, particularly the financing of women-owned micro, small, and medium enterprises (WMSMEs).

The document provides a comprehensive overview of Islamic finance, detailing its foundational Sharia principles, key contracts, and the global landscape of Islamic banking, capital markets, and Takaful. It specifically addresses the under-utilization of Islamic finance in Africa—where assets represent only about 1% of the global total despite a large Muslim population—and offers strategic recommendations for governments to overcome regulatory, fiscal, and capacity barriers to foster economic growth and financial inclusion.

The document is a compilation of inputs regarding the GCF's accreditation process. Key themes include the need to prioritize National Implementing Entities (NIEs) over international ones to ensure country ownership, the demand for a more 'fit-for-purpose' approach for smaller or private sector entities, and proposals to monitor the overall carbon footprints of accredited entities to ensure they align with the Paris Agreement. Stakeholders highlight systemic delays in the accreditation pipeline and suggest streamlining processes through third-party verification and multi-language support.

The GCF approved USD 3.7 billion for 76 projects across 79 developing countries, targeting a reduction of 1.3 billion metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Key operational developments include the launch of the Simplified Approval Process (SAP) Pilot Scheme, the adoption of an Indigenous Peoples Policy, and the establishment of an Environmental and Social Policy. The fund is also preparing for its first formal replenishment process and expanding its private sector engagement through dedicated pilot programmes for MSMEs and resource mobilization at scale.

The Accreditation Panel recommends that the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) be upgraded to 'large' project size and 'high risk' (Category A/I-1) environmental and social risk categories. The assessment found that IFAD's fiduciary standards, project management capacities, and environmental and social safeguards fully meet GCF requirements for these expanded parameters.

The report form classifies the Global Subnational Climate Fund (SnCF Global), managed by Pegasus Capital Advisors (PCA), as a Category I-2 programme. It confirms that an Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) has been established and disclosed in multiple languages to accommodate target countries across Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Mediterranean.

The briefing argues that the COVID-19 crisis exposed systemic fragilities and provides an opportunity to build resilience against climate change, biodiversity loss, and inequality. It outlines ten priority options, including the adoption of green economy principles, the use of 'Green Deals', the removal of fossil fuel subsidies, and the implementation of gender-responsive recovery plans. The authors emphasize that recovery spending must align with the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement, particularly in the global South where public debt may limit fiscal space.

The document advocates for the adoption of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a 'shared language' to harmonise fragmented sustainability data across governments, businesses, and investors. It identifies three primary barriers to this alignment: the proliferation of disconnected datasets, tenuous links between data suppliers and users, and data inequalities affecting the poorest populations. To overcome these, the report proposes five principles: setting direction through benchmarking, connecting stakeholders, sharing open data, integrating goals into institutional DNA, and communicating progress through integrated reporting. The text highlights the systemic risk of ignoring these goals, using the 2011 Thailand floods as an example of how environmental shocks create global economic disruptions.

The report details the long-term struggle to pass the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) in Nigeria, starting from 2000. It highlights how political disagreements and institutional distrust have led to significant economic losses, estimated at $120 billion over eight years. The document analyzes the transition to the Petroleum Industry Governance Bill (PIGB) under the Buhari administration, which aims to unbundle the NNPC and limit the discretionary powers of the Petroleum Minister to improve transparency and attract investment.

The policy brief examines the nature of China's energy investments in Africa, contrasting upstream extractive projects with downstream power generation. It highlights a problematic bias toward large-scale hydroelectric dams, which the author suggests may be a way for China to export its own domestic overcapacity in dam building while ignoring environmental and geopolitical risks. The document calls for African agency in agenda-setting to transition toward greener technologies like solar and fuel cells, ensuring that investments create local jobs and support structural transformation rather than merely facilitating resource export.

The document examines Zowasel's pilot initiative in Kenya and Tanzania, which aims to build resilience for small-scale sorghum farmers through a digital marketplace and physical Crop Centres. The program addresses challenges such as limited market access, poor grain quality, and the need for supply chain transparency driven by global regulations like the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). By connecting farmers and cooperatives directly to corporate buyers, Zowasel seeks to reduce reliance on intermediaries, promote regenerative agriculture, and enable farmers to access carbon credit markets. The analysis evaluates the initiative's transformative potential across five dimensions: alignment with contexts, resource enablement, relationship building, shifting power structures, and supporting systems learning.

The document highlights how EU-based financial institutions, including banks and pension funds, invest in projects that cause land grabs and environmental damage, often in violation of their own policies. It argues that voluntary measures are insufficient and that the EU is falling behind countries like Brazil and China in implementing social and environmental risk management. The text asserts that a lack of robust regulation increases financial risks for investors, noting that community opposition can increase operating costs by 29 times. It calls for mandatory due diligence, a broader sustainability taxonomy beyond climate risks, and harmonised public reporting requirements.

The document alleges a systemic pattern where oil and gas companies fund police and political entities to silence opposition to fossil fuel infrastructure. It highlights the Line 3 pipeline in Minnesota, where Enbridge is permitted to invoice police for security, and notes a trend of increasing criminalization of climate protests across the US, UK, and Australia. The text also cites historical allegations of corporate-backed state violence by Shell and Chevron in Nigeria, and Frontera Energy in Colombia.

The document outlines a framework for analyzing payments made by oil, gas, and mining companies to governments. It details ten specific tests—ranging from simple checks of payment types to complex revenue forecast comparisons—designed to identify 'red flags' or discrepancies that may indicate revenue loss due to bad deals, tax avoidance, or lack of enforcement. The guide emphasizes the use of supplementary data, such as fiscal terms and international commodity prices, to verify the accuracy of company disclosures.

Global Witness asserts that the influence of corporate money in US politics, exacerbated by the Citizens United decision, has led to climate inaction and the failure to implement the Cardin-Lugar anti-corruption provision. The organization argues that the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) proposed rules are insufficient because they do not require project-level payment disclosure, which is essential for detecting corruption in the extractive industries, as evidenced by cases involving Shell, Eni, and Glencore.

A Global Witness and Public Eye investigation reveals that the world's top three commodity traders—Vitol, Glencore, and Trafigura—engaged middlemen linked to Brazil's 'Car Wash' corruption scandal. The report details how these intermediaries, including the 'Deacon of Bribes' and professional money-launderers, allegedly facilitated bribery schemes and insider information trades to secure oil and fuel contracts with Petrobras. While the companies deny wrongdoing, the report highlights 'corruption red flags' and calls for investigations by authorities in the UK, US, and Switzerland.