Search Climate Insights Directory

The guidance document details how the Net Zero Finance Tracker (NZFT) monitors financial institutions' (FIs) transition to net zero. It maps NZFT indicators against nine global and regional frameworks—including GFANZ, UN HLEG, and the TPT—to ensure a robust tracking approach. The NZFT aims to exceed standard recommendations by applying more stringent criteria for target coverage, accountability, and evidence of positive climate engagement. While it covers most key transition elements, the document notes current data gaps regarding Just Transition and specific 2030 emission reduction thresholds.

The South African Climate Finance Landscape 2025 reports an annual average of ZAR 188.3 billion in climate finance for 2022-2023, dominated by energy mitigation (74.1%). While flows have increased since previous tracking periods, they remain below the estimated ZAR 499 billion per year needed to meet NDC and net-zero targets. Adaptation finance is significantly lagging at 11.3% of total flows, and just transition-aligned investment remains modest at ZAR 16.0 billion annually. The landscape is characterized by a strong domestic financial sector, with nearly 60% of flows originating domestically, while international finance is primarily driven by public sources and the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP).

This guide from the Climate Policy Initiative explains debt-for-climate swaps, detailing how debt payments are redirected to fund domestic climate projects to reduce fiscal pressure and sovereign risk.

The document outlines how equity capital, particularly concessional public or philanthropic equity, is used to absorb risk and improve risk-return profiles for early-stage climate technologies and resilient infrastructure. It details the stakeholders involved, the impact of equity on sovereign debt, and the varying strategies for different market maturity levels. Additionally, it provides timeframes for structuring fund-level and project-level equity and suggests methods to optimize capital stacks through layered equity to attract institutional investors.

The document provides a toolkit on carbon finance, detailing the use of carbon taxes, credits, and trading systems to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It categorizes instruments into commercial options like Voluntary Carbon Markets and public systems such as the EU ETS and Colombian Carbon Tax, while specifying the capacity requirements and timelines for establishing these mechanisms.

The document describes first-loss and second-loss capital facilities as mechanisms to absorb initial investment losses to encourage co-investor participation in high-risk climate sectors. It outlines the roles of commercial and concessional stakeholders, the impact on sovereign fiscal space, and the typical timelines for establishing blended funds.

Risk pooling aggregates risks to reduce reinsurance costs and secure liquidity, typically using a joint reserve for first losses and transferring higher risks to global markets. The document outlines the roles of commercial and concessional instruments, the progression from minimum to advanced implementation, and the financial impact of subsidies and pool diversification.

The document describes how securitization—pooling assets like loans into securities via special purpose vehicles—increases liquidity and capital recycling for low-carbon transportation, buildings, water, and renewable energy. It details commercial and public examples, the role of technical assistance, and the capacity requirements for issuers and regulators to scale these instruments.

The document outlines green bonds as fixed-income instruments for environmental projects, noting that energy and buildings each account for approximately 30% of recent allocations. It identifies institutional investors as the core demand source and highlights the role of Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) in providing cumulative issuances, such as the World Bank's over USD 200bn. The text details the issuance process, noting a typical 'greenium' of 2–5 bps and a timeline of 6–12 months for sovereign framework preparation.

The document describes grants as non-repayable transfers used primarily when commercial potential is low or to achieve investment readiness. It categorizes grants into development grants, technical assistance, and project preparation facilities, and identifies key providers ranging from philanthropic organizations like the Gates Foundation to multilateral funds like the Green Climate Fund. The guide outlines the application of grants in sectors such as energy transition and adaptation, while detailing the fiduciary and regulatory capacity needed for effective deployment, noting that overheads can range from 10% to 35% depending on state fragility.

Parametric insurance provides rapid liquidity by triggering pre-agreed payouts based on measurable events rather than loss assessments, complementing traditional indemnity insurance. The document outlines commercial and public instruments, the roles of government and regulatory bodies, and a maturity model for adoption ranging from joining regional pools to utilizing advanced fintech tools.

The report highlights that natural regeneration in the Brazilian Amazon could capture up to 26 GtCO2, presenting a significant economic opportunity. It proposes the Reversing Deforestation Mechanism (RDM), a jurisdictional results-based payment system that could mobilize up to US$ 784 billion over 30 years at a carbon price of US$ 50 per ton. The RDM is designed to complement other financial tools: JREDD+ for reducing deforestation and the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) for maintaining standing forests. The analysis emphasizes that states like Pará and Mato Grosso have the highest restoration potential due to cumulative deforestation, while Amazonas is the primary beneficiary of standing forest payments.

The report argues that tropical forests must be transitioned from being viewed as climate risks to central climate solutions. Based on an assessment of 91 countries, it highlights that restoring areas deforested since 2001 could capture up to 49 GtCO2. To achieve this, the authors propose the Reversing Deforestation Mechanism (RDM), a results-based financial tool designed to reward net carbon removals at the jurisdictional level. RDM is intended to complement existing frameworks like Jurisdictional REDD+ (JREDD+) and the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF). At a carbon price of US$ 50 per ton, the RDM could remove up to 2 GtCO2 annually, potentially closing 11–13% of the 2035 emissions gap and generating US$ 100 billion in annual revenues.

The report argues that the Amazon forest is a strategic economic asset for Brazil because it regulates the 'flying rivers' that distribute rainfall across the country. Deforestation of approximately 20% of the biome has already led to significant financial losses in the hydroelectric sector and increases vulnerability in agriculture, urban water systems, and logistics. The authors conclude that protecting the forest is a national strategic imperative to ensure economic stability and development.

The document outlines a framework for financing a just energy transition in Indonesia, emphasizing the need to address socioeconomic risks for workers and communities affected by the retirement of coal power plants. It highlights the potential for renewable energy to create between 2.1 million and 3.7 million direct jobs by 2030 and notes a total investment requirement of approximately USD 97 billion to meet 2030 climate targets. The proposed framework focuses on 'restorative justice' through preventative actions, such as reskilling and debt refinancing, and transformative actions, such as green job creation and the development of renewable energy cooperatives.

The report identifies that while Brazil has immense biological potential, biodiversity-based biotechnology is constrained by a complex and fragmented regulatory environment. The Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) framework, particularly the SISGEN system and benefit-sharing rules, is described as a barrier to innovation that creates legal uncertainty and discourages investment. In the Amazon, these hurdles are compounded by infrastructure gaps and weak institutional coordination. The authors argue that the forthcoming National Bioeconomy Development Plan (PNDBIO) is a critical opportunity to explicitly integrate biodiversity-based biotechnology into Brazil's national strategy to unlock economic value and support conservation.

The report finds that international adaptation finance for SIDS is severely insufficient, averaging just over USD 2 billion annually in 2021–2022, while assessed needs are approximately USD 12 billion. It highlights that 44% of this finance was provided as debt, posing macroeconomic risks, and notes a high concentration of funds, with 10 SIDS receiving 67% of tracked finance. The document calls for a six-fold increase in flows, a shift from ODA eligibility to a multidimensional vulnerability index, and improved tracking of both public and private investments.

The report examines agriphotovoltaics (AgriPV) as a solution to land-use conflicts between solar energy and agriculture in India. It identifies significant technical potential, ranging from 3,156 GW to 13,803 GW, but notes that adoption is hindered by high capital costs, rigid land-use laws, and a lack of a formal regulatory definition. The study models feed-in tariffs between INR 3.67/kWh and INR 5.49/kWh, concluding that AgriPV is economically viable and offers lower levelized tariffs than non-DRE grid-connected projects. Key recommendations include mandating AgriPV under Renewable Purchase Obligations (RPO), defining it as a distinct renewable energy source, and adopting cost-plus tariff frameworks that account for elevated structures and farmer lease payments.

The document details the methodology used to evaluate investment risks and attributes for the livestock sector in Latin America and the Caribbean, categorizing risks into governance, financial, physical climate, market, infrastructure, and nature. It establishes a framework for matching these risks with the preferences of public and private investors and models three capital scenarios: business-as-usual (BAU), improved financial strategies (IFS), and improved financial and political strategies (IFPS). The analysis distinguishes between small-scale farms (2-10 hectares) and large-scale commercial operations, noting that small-scale systems are more dependent on public funding. Geographically, it segments the region into Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and the 'rest of LAC', highlighting Brazil's role as the region's primary beef producer and the significant underreporting of private climate finance in the sector.

The document outlines a comprehensive methodology for evaluating investment risks and attributes in the livestock sector across Latin America and the Caribbean, specifically distinguishing between small-scale and large-scale commercial farms. It establishes a scoring system across six risk categories—governance, financing, physical climate, market, infrastructure, and nature—and compares these against the risk tolerances of public and private investors. The annexes also model three financial scenarios: Business-as-Usual (BAU), Enhanced Financial Strategies (IFS), and Enhanced Financial and Policy Strategies (IFPS), predicting how targeted interventions can shift capital composition from predominantly public to increased private investment. Geographic analysis highlights Brazil's relative stability and market dominance, while noting higher risks in Argentina and Mexico.