The public financial institutions tasked with funding sustainable development worldwide have outlined a framework for aligning operations with the Paris agreement, but they need to start announcing when they'll move off unaligned projects, and how projects will qualify.
multilateral development banks
Development banks committed record funds to climate finance in 2018, but key vulnerabilities in adaptation finance, cofinancing and portfolio alignment persist, and some institutions even backslid. To meet 2020 goals, MDBs need to kick it into overdrive.
Development banks can align their investments in electricity grids with the Paris Agreement by incorporating a shadow carbon price and making sure their investments support long-term plans for decarbonizing the electricity sector.
Analysis of 35 large banks found that, by and large, they are unable to convey their overall climate progress. Many report on their climate-friendly investments, but few offer the full picture by also reporting their financing of activities that add emissions, too.
Multilateral development banks can put a charge into climate finance through expanded use of de-risking approaches, like guarantees and similar instruments.
Multilateral development banks are key pistons in the climate finance engine, providing significant international financing for climate adaptation and mitigation and mobilizing private sector capital. Our analysis of the latest snapshot of MDB climate finance for 2016 offers cause for celebration – and concern.
WRI researchers analyzed energy supply investments from the World Bank, International Finance Corporation and Asian Development Bank. While only 3 percent of this financing is misaligned with the goal of limiting temperature rise to 2⁰C, about half fell into a “conditional” category; its alignment with a low-carbon future depends on how projects are designed.
A G20 communique on green finance and new national guidelines on greening China's financial system could help shift investments from high-carbon to low-carbon sectors.
People watched closely when China launched the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) last year, with a mandate to be “lean, clean and green.” After its first annual general meeting and seminars this week, it appears that the AIIB is starting to move in a positive direction.
The new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has committed to being "lean, clean and green." Will its new Environmental and Social Framework achieve that goal? Researchers Gaia Larsen and Sean Gilbert investigate.
A new report lays out clear recommendations for how the Chinese government can put the right policies in place to shift investments from polluting to sustainable industries.
The China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and other new multilaterals are becoming an important part of the development finance landscape. How they answer these five questions will have far-reaching implications.
Leaders at COP20 can explore a range of sources for financing low-carbon urban development including multilateral investment banks, private investors, and innovative initiatives like the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions or climate-themed bonds.
Investors face growing pressure to reduce the negative environmental and social impacts of their investments. In trying to do so they are confronted with the question of how to interact with governments in the countries where they invest.
One of the biggest successes from 2009’s COP 15 conference was securing funding for climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. Donor nations agreed to “provide new and additional resources […] approaching $30 billion for the period 2010–2012, with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation.” They also committed to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020.
But the agreement left a key question unresolved: how should funding be “balanced” between adaptation and mitigation? Should the funding balance be 50/50 between adaptation and mitigation or should it based on each country’s needs? Should funding include both private and public sector investment? These are some of the questions that negotiators will need to address during COP 19 in Warsaw.
But whatever they decide as being a “balanced commitment,” one thing is clear: finance for adaptation needs to increase in the coming years.
Developing countries are calling for greater ownership of climate finance and a greater voice in climate finance decisions. Decades of evidence with official development assistance shows that when support is aligned with country development plans and priorities—and funding
U.S. public financing for overseas coal-fired power is likely coming to an end.
That’s the clear signal from the U.S. Department of Treasury’s announcement earlier this week. At institutions like the World Bank, where the United States is the largest shareholder, this decision holds real significance.
On July 16, 2013 the World Bank agreed to support universal access to reliable modern energy and limit the financing of coal-fired power plants to rare circumstances in an effort to address climate change concerns.
Few countries are unaffected by China’s overseas investments. The country’s outward foreign direct investments (OFDI) have grownfrom $29 billion in 2002 to more than $424 billion in 2011. While these investments can bring economic opportunities to recipient countries, they also have the potential to create negative economic, social, and environmental impacts and spur tension with local communities.
To address these risks, China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) and Ministry of Environment (MEP)—with support from several think tanks—recently issued Guidelines on Environmental Protection and Cooperation. These Guidelines are the first-ever to establish criteria for Chinese companies’ behaviors when doing business overseas—including their environmental impact. But what exactly do the Guidelines cover, and how effective will they be? Here, we’ll answer these questions and more.
The High-Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda provided a welcome injection of energy and ambition into the future of development with its final report released last week. While the details will be parsed over the coming months, the report’s recommendations were at once bold and practical. The Panel sees that the promise of a world free of extreme poverty is within reach, and achieving this vision requires that sustainability and equity should be at the core of the global development agenda.