Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that while climate finance in Africa grew by 48% to USD 43.7 billion in 2021/22, it remains severely insufficient, meeting only 23% of the annual needs required for NDC implementation. Public finance dominates the landscape, providing 82% of total flows, while private finance is heavily concentrated in energy systems and a small number of countries. The document highlights a critical 'trilemma' where climate-vulnerable countries are also debt-distressed and conflict-affected, further hindering their ability to attract investment. Key recommendations include scaling the use of guarantees, improving domestic capital market regulations, and enhancing the transparency and equity of voluntary carbon markets.

In 2021/22, Nigeria received USD 2.5 billion in climate finance, a 32% increase from 2019/20, yet this remains far below the estimated annual need of USD 29.7 billion. Public actors provided 70% of the funding, led by multilateral development finance institutions (DFIs), while private finance accounted for 30%, primarily driven by corporate investments in solar PV. Mitigation efforts, particularly in energy systems, dominated the landscape, while adaptation finance reached only USD 735 million, covering just 6% of annual needs. The report highlights a heavy reliance on debt-based financing, which is concerning given Nigeria's high debt-servicing costs. Key barriers include the high cost of capital, a lack of bankable projects, and data gaps. The authors recommend operationalizing the National Climate Change Fund, prioritizing anticipatory adaptation, and pursuing innovative financing such as green bonds and debt-for-climate swaps.

The methodology for the Landscape of Climate Finance in Africa 2024 describes the framework used to identify and categorize climate finance flows. It employs a taxonomy to distinguish between mitigation, adaptation, and dual-benefits finance across sectors such as energy, transport, and agriculture. The approach relies on a mix of public and proprietary data from sources like the OECD, BNEF, and the World Bank, while acknowledging significant gaps in domestic public expenditure tracking and private sector reporting. The document also details the classification of African countries by subregion and income status.

The report proposes a two-step assessment approach to link financial institutions' net zero strategies to real-world impacts. It emphasizes tracking investments in new assets rather than existing portfolios to avoid the 'divestment' loophole where assets are transferred without reducing emissions. The methodology uses a multi-level ownership tree (up to Level 2) to attribute finance to indirect investors based on equity and debt weightings, utilizing data from sources like Bloomberg Terminal and CPI's Global Landscape of Climate Finance.

The report finds a positive trend in European pension funds' commitment to sustainable investing, with significant growth in the adoption of mitigation targets and climate risk management. However, a persistent gap remains between these commitments and actual real-economy impact, as pension funds rarely invest directly in projects and often hold fragmented indirect ownership. The analysis highlights that larger funds, those in net-zero coalitions, and funds in countries with strong regulatory frameworks—such as the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, and France—are leading the transition. Key challenges include the gap between asset ownership and management, the difficulty of transitioning passive investments, and limited capital flow to emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs).

The report finds that international concessional climate finance grew by 50% from 2019 to reach USD 81 billion in 2022, though it remains small compared to fossil fuel subsidies. Sub-Saharan Africa is the primary recipient of these flows. The analysis highlights a gap in adaptation finance and a lack of standardized impact metrics. Domestic concessional finance is heavily concentrated in high-income economies, particularly Western Europe, and focuses primarily on mitigation. The report recommends redirecting fossil fuel subsidies, targeting fragile and conflict-affected states, and streamlining project approval processes to enhance efficiency.

The report argues that while there is growing interest in adaptation finance, collaboration between international and national public development banks in EMDEs remains limited and often treats adaptation as a co-benefit rather than a primary goal. It identifies structural barriers—such as complex application processes, lack of shared taxonomies, and local currency risk—and proposes five strategic recommendations: complementary taxonomies, country platform approaches, regional adaptation hubs, capacity-building, and the use of blended finance to de-risk projects.

The report introduces a machine learning-based approach and a detailed taxonomy to better capture private sector adaptation finance, which is historically under-reported. By applying this new methodology, the Climate Policy Initiative increased its tracked annual average private adaptation finance for 2019-2022 from USD 1.0 billion to USD 4.7 billion.

The 2024 State of Cities Climate Finance report (SCCFR) reveals a significant gap between current urban climate finance flows and the trillions of dollars required for mitigation and adaptation. While 69% of urban climate finance is sourced domestically, international flows from developed to developing economies remain low at USD 12 billion. Mitigation needs are dominated by transport, energy, and buildings, with East Asia and the Pacific having the highest annual requirements. The report advocates for the '4C Urban Climate Finance Agenda'—Commitment, Collaboration, Capacity, and Capital Mobilization—to scale finance and improve data tracking.

The global bioeconomy, currently valued at US$4-5 trillion with potential growth to US$30 trillion by 2050, is presented as a critical complement to clean tech for achieving a just transition. The document identifies significant financing barriers, including perverse fossil fuel subsidies and limited risk capital in the Global South, while proposing a suite of sustainable finance instruments—such as nature credits and sustainability-linked financing—to bridge these gaps. It advocates for an integrated approach combining national strategies with international cooperation, specifically through the G20, to establish common principles, measurement standards, and trade rules that protect biodiversity and the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.

Between 2021 and 2023, bioeconomy finance in Brazil averaged US$ 3.213 billion per year, heavily concentrated in planted forests and bioenergy. While private domestic sources provided 69% of funding, biodiversity-based products and the Northern region remain significantly underfunded compared to industrial crops and other regions.

The report argues that because Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are often viewed as public goods and are in a nascent stage of commercial development, they require a combination of ecosystem building, public sector incentives, and specific de-risking tools. It identifies guarantees as the most catalytic instruments for attracting private capital and emphasizes that technical assistance and concessional capital must be used to prove commercial viability before NbS can scale through direct investment alone.

Between 2021 and 2023, Brazil's bioeconomy received an average of R$ 16.6 billion annually, with 74% of funds concentrated in planted forests and bioenergy/biofuels. While domestic private sources provided 69% of the total, significant gaps exist in funding for native forests and biodiversity products, particularly in the North region. Innovative instruments like thematic bonds and CBIOs drive the majority of the funding, but these are limited to the most industrial bioeconomy sectors.

Between 2021 and 2023, bioeconomy finance in Brazil averaged US$ 3.213 billion per year, heavily concentrated in the planted forest and bioenergy sectors. While domestic private sources provided 69% of the funding, biodiversity products and native forests remain significantly underfunded, with the Northern region receiving only 12% of biodiversity-related finance.

Since 2014, the Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance has supported 78 instruments that mobilized over USD 4 billion, including USD 1.6 billion from the private sector. The report highlights the necessity of balancing innovation with 'actionability'—ensuring projects are bankable and scalable. Key strategies for unlocking private capital include blended finance to mitigate chronic risks, aggregation to handle small-ticket investments, and the use of Theory of Change (ToC) frameworks to quantify social and environmental impacts. Case studies illustrate successes like Brazil's Green FIDC, which achieved 100% private funding, and challenges like South Africa's Climate Adaptation Notes, which stalled due to an unreliable project pipeline. The document also emphasizes the importance of gender-responsive finance and the need for systemic regulatory shifts to make low-carbon investment the default for institutional investors.

The document analyzes the global bioeconomy, estimating its current value at US$ 4-5 trillion with potential growth to US$ 30 trillion by 2050. It proposes a tripartite spectrum—Nature-Intensive, Advanced, and High-Tech bioeconomies—to better apply distinct financing and policy strategies. The report identifies significant funding gaps, particularly for first-of-a-kind (FOAK) projects and in the Global South, and advocates for an 'integrated approach' combining national strategies, international cooperation (via the G20), and innovative financial tools like biodiversity credits and blended finance to ensure a just transition.

The report examines 12 blended finance case studies across sectors like restoration, bioeconomy, and the blue economy to demonstrate how to attract private investment into Nature-based Solutions (NbS). It argues that because nature is often a public good with difficult-to-monetize benefits, the public sector must play a critical role in creating enabling ecosystems through technical assistance and concessional capital. Key findings highlight that guarantees are among the most effective tools for mitigating risk, while engaging direct beneficiaries (such as insurance companies or utilities) can create sustainable revenue streams. The document details specific instruments, such as the Galápagos debt-for-nature swap and the Seychelles Blue Bond, to provide replicable models for G20 countries.

The study finds that the ABC Recuperação credit line has had modest effects on pasture recovery in the Cerrado, with most severely degraded areas remaining unchanged. While some pasture was converted to crops, the program's contribution to the ABC Plan's 2020 target of recovering 15 million hectares of degraded pasture was estimated at only 0.9% to 2.5%. The report highlights that technical assistance is a critical factor for success and recommends improved monitoring and the integration of credit with risk management instruments.

The report examines the application of blended finance to scale Nature-based Solutions (NbS), highlighting that while no single approach exists, tools like guarantees, technical assistance, and the engagement of direct beneficiaries are critical for de-risking investments. Through 12 case studies, it demonstrates how concessional capital can be used to build ecosystems, prove commercial viability, and mobilize private investment in nascent markets. Key examples include the Galápagos Debt Conversion and the Seychelles Blue Bond, which use credit enhancements to lower the cost of capital for marine conservation.

An evaluation of the ABC Recuperação credit line in the Cerrado biome finds that the program has had modest effects on pasture recovery and marginal impacts on land use. The analysis reveals that credit provision did not significantly improve pasture quality, and some areas were converted from native vegetation to agricultural use before credit was obtained. However, the use of technical assistance was linked to a significant reduction in degraded pasture area. The report recommends strengthening monitoring, improving pre-credit evaluations to prevent funding recently deforested areas, and combining credit with technical assistance and risk mitigation tools.