Search Climate Insights Directory

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.

The paper introduces a science-based approach to assess the Paris alignment of new investments by comparing the carbon intensity of new assets against thresholds required to meet specific temperature goals, accounting for locked-in emissions from existing assets. Unlike portfolio-based methods that focus on current ownership, this method attributes responsibility to the original finance providers at the time of asset creation. The authors detail the application of this methodology to the global power sector and the U.S. light road vehicle transport sector, utilizing data from the IEA and other technical sources to establish carbon intensity benchmarks and evaluate financial commitments.

The report finds that while renewable energy investment is growing, continued funding for fossil fuel power plants and the presence of 'locked-in' emissions from existing assets keep the global power sector on a temperature trajectory exceeding 3.2°C. It highlights a significant gap between actual 2018 investment carbon intensities and the negative thresholds required by 2030 to achieve Paris alignment. The analysis identifies specific misalignments among major economies like China, India, and Japan, and among financial actors such as commercial banks and export credit agencies. The document recommends halting new carbon-intensive investments, accelerating the retirement of existing fossil fuel plants, and harmonizing climate risk reporting.

The report analyzes Brazil's rural credit system, highlighting its complexity and fragmentation. It provides empirical evidence that rural credit, particularly when directed at small farmers, increases land and labor productivity and reduces deforestation by promoting the conversion of degraded pastures into cropland. The document argues for simplifying the credit system, increasing private sector participation, and strengthening the link between credit access and compliance with the Forest Code to ensure sustainable agricultural growth.

The report analyzes the Brazilian National Rural Credit System, highlighting its complexity and fragmentation. It provides empirical evidence that rural credit, particularly when directed to small farmers, increases land and labor productivity and reduces deforestation pressures by promoting the conversion of pasture to cropland. The document advocates for the integration of the Forest Code and the ABC Program into credit eligibility to foster sustainable agriculture and suggests reducing political interference and increasing private sector participation in rural finance.

The report finds that the value of Uganda's upstream oil reserves has declined by 70% since 2013 due to structural changes in the global oil market, with a further $10 billion at risk in a transition aligned with the Paris Agreement. Current commercial terms are deemed insufficient for international oil companies like Total and CNOOC to reach a final investment decision, likely necessitating costly renegotiations for the Ugandan government. The authors argue that relying on oil for economic development is increasingly risky and recommend diversifying the economy, potentially through electrification, while incorporating climate transition and physical risks into public debt sustainability forecasts.

The document analyzes COVID-19 recovery funding for cities, noting that while USD 1.1 trillion was pledged, the vast majority (USD 916 billion) targeted short-term liquidity rather than long-term climate resilience. It identifies gaps in funding programming and recommends that funders structure instruments for direct city access, utilize project preparation facilities, and leverage city networks to bridge the investment gap for green infrastructure.

The report analyzes the economic risks of palm oil monocropping for independent smallholders in Berau, Indonesia, finding that palm oil returns are often below minimum living costs. It argues that diversifying into crops like maize and cocoa can significantly increase revenue—potentially by up to 825% for maize—while enhancing regional food security and economic stability. The study recommends that the Berau government strengthen priority economic programs, facilitate access to agricultural financing and insurance, and implement environmental safeguards for alternative crops.

The 'Energizing Finance: Understanding the Landscape' report analyzes financial commitments for electrification and clean cooking in 20 high-impact countries (HICs) across Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia for the year 2018. It finds that current investment levels are significantly below the requirements to meet Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7) by 2030, with a notable misalignment between where funds are allocated and where the greatest energy needs exist.

This briefing from the Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance (The Lab) outlines the challenges and success factors associated with scaling innovative financial instruments for climate action. Based on the experience of 49 launched instruments and three specific case studies, the document identifies four critical success factors—track record, economies of scale, robust governance, and strategic partnerships—that can accelerate the transition from early-stage development to large-scale investment mobilization.

This report by the Climate Policy Initiative, supported by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), proposes a framework for measuring climate finance flows to small-scale agriculture in developing countries and provides a snapshot of international financial commitments for 2017 and 2018.

This policy brief by the Climate Policy Initiative and Inter.B analyzes infrastructure planning in Brazil, specifically within the land transport sector. It argues that current processes fail to integrate socio-environmental factors and recommends the introduction of a 'pre-viability' phase to improve project selection and prioritization, alongside a planning strategy that prioritizes sustainable development and the protection of the Amazon.

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 argues that existing village-level evaluation tools in Indonesia, such as the IDM and IPD, are inadequate for measuring environmental performance and mainstreaming Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). To address this, the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) proposes the Sustainable Village Development Index (IDM+), which adds 10 ecological indicators covering land-use, natural resource management, and climate actions to the existing index. Using Berau District in East Kalimantan as a case study, the paper demonstrates how IDM+ can be linked to fiscal instruments like Village Fund Allocation (ADD) and Financial Assistance (Bantuan Keuangan Kabupaten) to reward high-performing villages while providing affirmative support to low-performing ones. The author recommends that the central government incorporate IDM+ into the national IDM and that local governments ensure transparent implementation and capacity building.

The report argues that existing village-level evaluation tools in Indonesia, such as the Village Development Index (IDM), are inadequate for measuring and rewarding environmental sustainability. To address this, the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) proposes the 'IDM+', which adds 10 ecological indicators covering land-use, natural resource management, and climate actions. Using Berau Regency in East Kalimantan as a case study, the report demonstrates how this index can underpin Ecological Fiscal Transfers (EFTs) to reward high-performing villages. It recommends a mixed fiscal approach—combining reformulated Village Fund Allocations (ADD) with targeted financial assistance—to incentivize green growth while supporting low-performing villages.

The report finds that climate finance for small-scale agriculture is disproportionately low, averaging USD 10 billion annually in 2017/2018, which represents only 1.7% of total tracked global climate finance. This funding is overwhelmingly public (95%) and primarily delivered via grants (50%). The analysis highlights a significant gap between these flows and the estimated annual financial needs of small-scale farmers, which are approximately USD 240 billion. The report identifies critical barriers, including limited land tenure, high transaction costs for dispersed customers, and a lack of private sector investment. It recommends enhancing public-private collaboration through blended finance, implementing weather-indexed insurance, and improving data collection on domestic and private financial flows to better target climate-smart agricultural investments.

The report argues that independent palm oil smallholders in Berau face significant economic risks due to monocropping and low productivity, with returns often falling far below the regional minimum wage. Through financial modelling, the study finds that diversifying into maize and cocoa can substantially increase revenue—potentially up to 825% more than monocropping—while reducing sensitivity to market price volatility. It recommends that diversification begin during the peak productivity of palm oil trees (around year 10) to ensure bankability and positive cash flow. To facilitate this transition, the report suggests leveraging financial instruments such as the Kredit Usaha Rakyat (KUR) interest rate subsidy, credit guarantee schemes, and maize insurance, while strengthening local programs like PRUKADES and farmers' corporation plantation zones.

The policy brief identifies structural flaws in Brazil's infrastructure investment governance, noting a lack of long-term planning and a failure to integrate socio-environmental criteria in the land transport sector. It highlights that the Brazilian National Development Strategy (EFD) is medium-term and lacks specific targets for deforestation and biome sensitivities. To address these gaps, the authors propose a new 'pre-viability' phase for large greenfield infrastructure projects. This phase would use a structuring questionnaire and a socio-environmental complexity analysis to filter out unsustainable projects before they reach the costly viability study stage, thereby reducing investment misallocation and protecting sensitive regions like the Amazon.

The policy brief argues that Brazil's current infrastructure planning, especially in land transport, lacks long-term vision and fails to integrate socio-environmental components. It critiques the Federal Development Strategy (EFD) for being medium-term rather than long-term and for having insufficient indicators for issues like deforestation. The authors propose a new 'pre-feasibility' phase for large greenfield projects to act as a filter, using structured questionnaires and socio-environmental complexity analyses to prevent the advancement of unviable or environmentally damaging projects. This is presented as critical for the Amazon, where past infrastructure projects have been major drivers of deforestation.

The Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance (the Lab) has supported 49 instruments that mobilized over USD 2.3 billion. This document identifies four critical success factors for scaling these innovations: establishing a track record, building economies of scale, assembling a robust team and governance structure, and securing strategic long-term partnerships. Through case studies of Climate Investor One, Energy Savings Insurance, and Long-Term Foreign Exchange Risk Management, the brief demonstrates how these factors enable instruments to move beyond initial implementation to broader geographic or sectoral replication.