Search Climate Insights Directory

The report reviews literature from 2007 to 2025 to establish a shared knowledge base for net-zero nature-positive (NZNP) finance, supporting the Net-Zero Nature-Positive Accelerator Integrated Programme (NZNPA IP).

A research paper by CPI/PUC-Rio reveals that the public support for Brazilian rural credit between 2023 and 2025 averaged R$ 59.7 billion per year, nearly five times the commonly reported cost of R$ 12.5 billion for interest rate equalization. The study identifies four primary support mechanisms: economic subsidies, tax benefits (the largest component), public funding sources, and debt renegotiations. It highlights a lack of focalization, with only 31.9% of credit linked to social, environmental, or climate goals, and a significant transparency gap, as 65.2% of contracted volumes lack essential public monitoring data in the Sicor system.

This paper analyzes six case studies of public climate finance to refine the understanding of 'high-quality' interventions. It highlights the challenges posed by inconsistent data and the inevitability of trade-offs across CPI's 10 dimensions of transformational potential. The authors conclude that climate finance quality must be analyzed by distinguishing between the quality of design and delivery versus the quality of results.

The paper identifies parametric insurance as a critical tool for strengthening the financial resilience of cities in EMDEs, where less than 10% of climate-related losses are currently insured. It highlights a structural collaboration gap between municipalities and insurers, noting that only 5 of 16 mapped programs engage directly with municipal governments. To address this, the authors propose three priority actions: supporting affordable premiums through national and international funding, strengthening municipal capacity for risk-layering, and improving legal and regulatory enabling environments. The document argues that parametric insurance is a particularly effective entry point due to its ability to provide rapid liquidity and simpler product structures compared to traditional indemnity insurance.

The report analyzes six public climate finance interventions—ranging from local adaptation grants in Africa and Asia to a debt-for-nature swap in Ecuador—to test a framework for 'transformational' finance. It argues that high-quality climate finance is not defined by the financial instrument alone but by its ability to build an 'enabling environment' and deliver results across project, market, and system levels. Key findings highlight a persistent tension between the scale of finance and the quality of subnational accessibility, as well as significant data gaps in measuring system-level impacts and the depth of integration of equity and justice dimensions.

The report analyzes the evolution of 'net zero' and 'nature positive' concepts, detailing how they are operationalized through taxonomies and methodologies in the financial sector. It highlights the interdependence of climate and nature crises, arguing for an integrated 'net-zero nature-positive' (NZNP) finance approach to manage compounding risks and leverage synergies, while noting that a unified NZNP definition and measurement protocol do not yet exist.

The report analyzes the gap between the supply and demand of climate finance in African agrifood systems, drawing on CPI's experience with 23 agribusinesses and 17 finance vehicles. It identifies a systemic misalignment where investors prioritize risk-adjusted returns and export-oriented cash crops, while enterprises often operate across the entire value chain and focus on staple crops essential for food security. The document argues that while enterprise-level technical assistance is helpful, closing the investment gap requires vehicle-level interventions that better price risk and align mandates with market realities. Key findings highlight a geographic concentration of capital in Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda, and a disconnect between the upstream focus of finance vehicles and the end-to-end operations of agribusinesses.

The report examines how Vertical Climate and Environment Funds (VCEFs)—specifically the Green Climate Fund (GCF), Global Environment Facility (GEF), Climate Investment Funds (CIF), and Adaptation Fund (AF)—can better mobilize private climate finance for emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs). It identifies three primary opportunities: implementing sequential financing to move projects from ideation to scale, increasing collaboration with the global network of public development banks (PDBs), and aligning funding with country-driven investment plans. The document emphasizes the need to address the high cost of capital in EMDEs to enable greater real-economy transformation as public climate finance becomes more constrained.

The report introduces a qualitative framework for public finance providers—including donor governments, MDBs, and DFIs—to evaluate the quality of adaptation interventions. It categorizes quality across three levels: project (direct resilience), market (incentives and scale), and system (structural shifts). The tool uses a three-stage diagnostic (Initial, Progressing, Transformative) across criteria such as climate risk integration, target population reach, and the minimization of maladaptation. The report also includes data analyses showing a disconnect between national adaptation priorities and sectoral ODA flows, particularly in energy and health, and a misalignment between sovereign debt risk and the choice of finance instruments in moderate-risk countries.

The report argues that capital mobilization for African agrifood systems is hindered by a systemic misalignment between the risk-return mandates of climate finance vehicles and the operational realities of agribusinesses. Drawing on a portfolio of 17 finance vehicles and 23 enterprises, the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) finds that effective investment requires active intermediation, demand-side intelligence in vehicle design, and TA calibrated to specific investor screening criteria. It highlights a particular gap in financing for food crop economies, which are often overlooked in favor of export-oriented cash crops. The report recommends that donors fund coordination infrastructure, integrate pre-investment TA into vehicle structures, and support blended finance mechanisms that combine cash and food crop investments to enhance food security.

The report analyzes the impact of Brazilian livestock on methane emissions, specifically enteric fermentation, and proposes a multi-axis strategy to increase productivity while reducing emissions. It highlights the potential of pasture recovery, genetic improvement, dietary additives, and integrated systems to decouple livestock growth from deforestation and climate impact.

The report analyzes the impact of Brazilian cattle ranching on greenhouse gas emissions, specifically methane from enteric fermentation, which accounts for approximately 60% of national methane emissions. It proposes a four-axis framework for transformation: improving land use and pasture condition, increasing biological productivity through genetics and health, enhancing feed and manure management, and optimizing production system management. The document highlights that extensive ranching, predominant in the North and Midwest, often suffers from low productivity and is linked to deforestation. It recommends integrating methane reduction targets into the Agricultural Plan (Plano Safra), strengthening the link between rural credit and technical assistance, and improving supply chain traceability to decouple cattle growth from land expansion.

The report finds that Pronaf exhibits a regressive distribution of credit, where the most capitalized producers receive the bulk of resources while the most vulnerable are excluded. It highlights that 79% of family farmers did not access Pronaf credit in 2024/25, and resources are heavily concentrated in the South and Southeast regions and in conventional crops like soy, corn, and coffee. The document argues that lines for bioeconomy and agroecology remain marginal, often representing less than 1% of total credit. It emphasizes the critical but underfunded role of Technical Assistance and Rural Extension (ATER), which received less than 0.3% of the total family agriculture budget in the 2025/26 Plan Safra. To address these failures, the report recommends establishing minimum allocation targets for smallholders and the North/Northeast regions, updating outdated fiscal modules for eligibility, integrating the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy, and blocking subsidized credit for properties with recent deforestation.

Indonesia requires an estimated USD 24 billion to expand its transmission infrastructure by 47.76 thousand circuit kilometers between 2025 and 2034. Because the state-owned utility PLN cannot fund this alone, the report proposes shifting from corporate-level finance to project finance structures using special purpose vehicles (SPVs) and long-term revenue contracts. The evaluated models include leasing, joint ventures, public-private partnerships (PPPs), infrastructure investment trusts (InvITs), and collective investment schemes for infrastructure (CIS-DINFRA). Successful implementation depends on three policy enablers: a dedicated transmission fee, off-balance sheet treatment, and targeted fiscal support.

The report assesses how Indonesia can move from corporate-level financing to project finance to meet a USD 24 billion investment requirement for transmission lines and substations. It analyzes five models: leasing, joint ventures (JVs), public-private partnerships (PPPs), infrastructure investment trusts (InvITs), and collective investment schemes for infrastructure (CIS-DINFRA). While leasing and JVs are easier to implement, InvITs and CIS-DINFRA offer the highest scalability and liquidity. The report emphasizes that success depends on three policy enablers: a dedicated transmission fee, off-balance sheet accounting treatment, and targeted fiscal support.

The report argues that Brazil's primary agricultural policy instrument must be reoriented to align with national climate goals, specifically by restricting credit for illegal deforestation, expanding access for vulnerable family farmers, and reforming risk management programs like Proagro and PSR to ensure fiscal sustainability and environmental integrity.

The report finds that while significant financial flows enter the Cerrado, the current financial architecture fails to align agricultural funding with sustainability and zero-deforestation goals. Subsidized sustainable credit represents only 5.7% of total rural credit in the biome between 2020/21 and 2023/24, and is highly concentrated among large producers and a few financial institutions. The Matopiba region is particularly vulnerable, concentrating over 55% of the biome's deforestation (2013–2022) while relying heavily on Constitutional Financing Funds (FCFs), which often lack transparent sustainability criteria. Blended finance instruments show potential through risk mitigation and flexible terms but remain limited in scale compared to the economic incentives driving land conversion. The authors recommend improving transparency via the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy (TSB), expanding the role of sustainable credit, and fostering financial innovation to mobilize private capital.

The report argues that public development banks (PDBs)—including national, regional, and multilateral institutions—are uniquely positioned to overcome structural and market barriers to climate risk insurance in EMDEs. It identifies key barriers such as data gaps, underdeveloped local capital bases, and fragmented regulatory frameworks. The document proposes a tiered approach where National Development Banks (NDBs) focus on local market development and project pipelines, Regional Development Banks (RDBs) coordinate risk pooling and shared data infrastructure, and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) provide catalytic capital and credit enhancement. Key recommendations include the use of targeted premium subsidies with sunset clauses, the bundling of insurance with loans, and the creation of regulatory sandboxes to foster innovation in parametric insurance.

The report details a framework for assessing climate risks to India's power sector, distinguishing between chronic stresses (e.g., temperature, drought) and acute extremes (e.g., floods, cyclones). It introduces the Asset-Specific Climate Risk Factor (ACRF) for spatial screening and Expected Annual Impact (EAI)—measured as Expected Annual Loss (EAL) for generation and Energy Not Served (ENS) for networks—to quantify operational disruptions in MWh. The methodology includes a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) framework to evaluate the economic viability of resilience measures by comparing investment costs against avoided energy losses and repair expenditures.

The paper introduces the Climate Risk Assessment Framework (CRAF), a structured approach to quantify physical climate risks for India's power infrastructure. It addresses gaps in existing literature by moving from qualitative risk ratings to energy-denominated impact estimates, specifically Expected Annual Loss (EAL) and Energy Not Served (ENS). The methodology distinguishes between chronic stressors (causing performance derating) and acute events (causing sudden failure), providing a pathway for cost-benefit analysis of resilience investments to avoid stranded assets and unplanned retrofitting costs.