Search Climate Insights Directory

The document analyzes the ABC Cerrado project, finding that while training alone is effective for large-scale producers (over 100 hectares), small-scale producers require the addition of technical assistance to implement sustainable practices. It suggests a cost-effective policy approach of providing universal training while focalizing expensive technical assistance on small producers to maximize pasture restoration and reduce deforestation pressures.

The document argues that urban climate adaptation is severely underfunded compared to mitigation, with only 9% of global urban climate investments flowing to adaptation projects as of 2017-2018. It highlights the extreme vulnerability of cities to flooding, heat, and water stress, noting that coastal cities could face annual costs of USD 1 trillion by 2050. To address this, the brief recommends that national governments declare climate emergencies, integrate local governments into national planning (NAPs and NDCs), boost technical project preparation, collaborate with development banks, mobilize private capital through PPPs and insurance, invest in early warning systems, and develop standardized adaptation metrics.

IDFC members reported a record $224 billion in green finance commitments in 2021, with climate finance accounting for 95% of the total. Mitigation finance reached $186.6 billion, while adaptation finance decreased by 24% to $20.9 billion. Biodiversity finance grew by 31% to $18.4 billion. The majority of climate finance was provided by non-OECD institutions and directed toward the East Asia and Pacific region.

In 2019/20, Ethiopia's tracked climate finance averaged USD 1.7 billion, representing only 7% of its estimated annual needs of USD 25.3 billion. The landscape is heavily dominated by international public finance (92%), with a strong preference for adaptation projects (56%) over mitigation (38%). While the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector received the most sectoral finance (29%), it remains significantly underfunded relative to its 83% contribution to national GHG emissions. Key barriers to scaling finance include a highly regulated financial sector, lack of a stock market, unfavorable collateral policies for SMEs, and a heavy reliance on grants over private capital. The report recommends establishing a comprehensive climate budget tagging system, conducting bottom-up needs assessments, and developing capital markets to mobilize private investment.

The report finds that while global climate finance almost doubled between 2011 and 2020, reaching a cumulative USD 4.8 trillion, current growth rates are insufficient to meet climate goals. Preliminary 2021 estimates show an all-time high of USD 850–940 billion, driven largely by electric vehicle demand. However, a significant gap remains in adaptation finance, and continued fossil fuel subsidies in 51 major countries exceeded total global climate finance investment for the 2011-2020 period. The report argues that annual flows must reach USD 4.3 trillion by 2030 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

This report by the Climate Policy Initiative analyzes climate finance flows in Burkina Faso for the 2019/2020 period. It identifies a significant investment gap, noting that the USD 567 million invested represents only 13% of the USD 4.1 billion required by 2050 to meet the country's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). The analysis highlights a heavy reliance on international public funding and suggests policy and financial reforms to mobilize private capital and improve fiduciary standards.

This report analyzes climate finance in Nigeria for the 2019/2020 period, highlighting a significant investment gap between current funding levels and the requirements to meet the country's conditional Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) targets.

The report finds that public financial institutions are lagging behind private counterparts in setting credible climate targets. While some Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) show leadership, national and subnational development banks, as well as institutions in non-OECD countries, have very few Paris-aligned or net-zero commitments. Key barriers include a lack of government guidance and insufficient accountability mechanisms within global coalitions.

In 2019/2020, Burkina Faso received USD 567 million in climate finance, covering only 13% of the USD 4.1 billion needed by 2050 to meet its NDC targets. Public finance dominated the landscape, accounting for 80% of total flows, with a heavy reliance on international multilateral and bilateral DFIs. Energy systems and Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) were the primary recipients of funds, though significant gaps remain in water and wastewater sectors. The report highlights critical barriers, including political instability, a lack of domestic climate budget tagging, and the absence of a robust Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) framework, which hinders the attraction of further donor funding and private investment.

In 2019/2020, Nigeria received an average of USD 1.9 billion annually in climate finance, representing only 11% of the USD 17.7 billion needed annually for its conditional NDC. Public finance dominated at 77% of total flows, primarily delivered as concessional debt. Mitigation finance (USD 1.1 billion) outweighed adaptation finance (USD 663 million), despite high vulnerability to climate shocks. Energy systems received the most investment, particularly solar, while sectors like waste and industrial processes remained severely underfunded. The report highlights a significant contradiction between climate finance flows and continued heavy investment in fossil fuels, noting one LNG project alone received USD 2.77 billion. Key barriers include limited private sector mobilization, capacity constraints in GHG reporting, and a lack of national climate budget tagging.

The methodology brief describes a framework for tracking public financial institutions' climate commitments, categorizing them into targets and pledges (such as Paris-aligned, net zero, and exclusion policies) and institutional strategies. It details a data collection process involving automated scraping of institutional websites, news articles, and the analysis of over 120 sustainability and annual reports for 70 entities representing USD 20.4 trillion in assets.

Africa requires USD 277 billion annually to meet its 2030 climate goals, yet annual flows stand at only USD 30 billion. While the region shows a better balance between adaptation and mitigation than other global regions, private sector contribution remains low at 14%. The report recommends increasing concessional finance for hard-to-abate sectors, improving data tracking through 'climate tagging', and enhancing sub-national investment capabilities to bridge the financing gap.

The report examines the bioeconomy in Brazil and the Amazon through three conceptual lenses: biotechnology, bioresources, and bioecology. It finds that while Brazil possesses a broad set of regulations covering these areas, it lacks a unified national strategy and coordinated governance. The analysis highlights that the 'various Amazons'—conserved, deforested, under pressure, and urban—require different bioeconomy approaches. Key regulatory tensions exist within the Biodiversity Law, which is viewed as too bureaucratic by the biotechnology sector and insufficient in protecting traditional knowledge by bioecology advocates. The report concludes that effective governance must integrate multiple ministries and prioritize land tenure regularization to ensure sustainability and legal security.

The report finds that air quality is severely underfunded, accounting for only 0.5% of international development funding and less than 0.1% of philanthropic spending between 2015 and 2020. While 72% of development funding for air quality also addresses climate change, only 2.2% of international public climate finance explicitly targets air pollution. The analysis highlights a critical misalignment in priorities, noting that international development funders committed $46.6 billion to projects prolonging fossil fuel use between 2015-2021, more than four times the amount spent on air quality. Geographically, funding is concentrated in Asia, the US, China, and India, leaving Africa and Latin America underserved; in Africa, funding for fossil fuel-prolonging projects was 36 times higher than for clean air measures from 2015-2021.

CILRIF is a novel financial instrument developed by the UNCDF and partners to address the lack of affordable, long-term climate insurance and resilient infrastructure funding for cities in emerging markets. It operates through two linked facilities: an insurance facility providing 10-15 year coverage with premiums that decrease as cities meet resilience milestones, and a financing facility providing below-market rate loans for adaptation projects. The instrument uses a hybrid parametric and indemnity insurance model to provide immediate post-disaster liquidity while rewarding risk reduction. A financial model for 40 cities suggests that resilience interventions, such as drainage systems for flood risk or cooling networks for heat risk, can reduce annual premiums by 5% to 10% per intervention. The pilot phase targets Makati, Durban, and Freetown, with a goal of mobilizing USD 1 billion in commercial and concessional investment.

The Financing Steel Decarbonization (FSD) mechanism is a proposed dual-entity structure consisting of the Steel Decarbonization Financing Facility (SDF), a blended debt fund, and the Steel Decarbonization Initiative (SDI), a service company. The SDF aims to invest nearly USD 1 billion over five years to support both commercially available technologies (CATs) and new and innovative technologies (NITs), with a goal of mobilizing an additional USD 3.4 billion in private investment. The SDI provides non-financial support, including technical assistance, impact monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV), and deal brokerage to reduce investment risks. The mechanism targets the Indian steel sector, which contributes approximately 10% of the country's total emissions, aiming to reduce emission intensity by 25% and mitigate up to 250 MtCO2 against the baseline.

The Green Affordable Housing Finance instrument uses a two-pronged approach—a Guarantee Facility and an Enabling Environment Facility—to unlock local private finance for sustainable housing. It addresses the 'chicken-and-egg' problem where a lack of mortgage finance for low-income households disincentivizes developers from building affordable homes. The instrument will be piloted in Kenya in 2023, targeting the mobilization of USD 48 million in local loans during the pilot and over USD 400 million long-term. It requires all supported homes to be IFC EDGE certified, ensuring at least 20% reductions in embodied energy, energy use, and water use.

The Green Guarantee Company (GGC) is designed to unlock private institutional capital for climate projects in emerging and frontier markets by providing full hard-currency guarantees for bonds and loans of USD 50-200 million with maturities of 5-20 years. To address technical barriers, the GGC includes a USD 10 million technical assistance (TA) facility to build issuer capabilities and support certification against the Climate Bond Standard (CBS). The instrument will pilot in South Africa before expanding to other large emitters like Brazil, India, and Indonesia, and eventually to more vulnerable least developed countries. Financial modeling suggests the GGC can catalyze up to USD 10.6 billion in climate debt over 20 years, achieving operating breakeven within 3 to 7 years across various scenarios. Expected impacts include the addition of 7.97 GW of renewable energy capacity and the avoidance of approximately 75 Mt of carbon dioxide equivalent.

The report identifies subnational pension funds as a significant source of untapped capital for urban climate action, estimating at least USD 9.5 trillion in assets across Brazil, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, the UK, and the US. It details structural barriers such as low risk appetite and limited fund size, as well as external barriers like a lack of bankable project pipelines and ticket size mismatches. To overcome these, the document recommends the use of financial instruments such as blended finance, green bonds, and supply-side aggregation (pooling), while urging funds to make net zero commitments and build internal capacity.

The report finds a massive gap between Africa's annual climate finance needs (USD 277 billion) and actual flows (USD 29.5 billion). While international public finance dominates, private sector contribution is low at 14%. Finance is heavily concentrated in a few countries and sectors, with energy receiving the most investment, while agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) remains underfunded. The report recommends scaling up concessional finance, improving data tracking, and catalyzing private investment to meet 2030 goals.