Publications

In a challenging economic and political context, especially for the agriculture sector, some incentive schemes can still help bring stakeholders together in climate transition and resilience initiatives. This is the case with carbon certification schemes, which both ensure the credibility of the climate impact of the actions implemented and provide remuneration for farmers and foresters for changes in practices. Some of these measures, such as replacing mineral fertilisers (mostly imported) with organic fertilisers, also help to meet the sector's needs for resilience and strategic independence, which are crucial in the current context.

The implementation of carbon farming practices on European farms and in European forests is a lever for achieving carbon neutrality, but also for farm resilience, the adaptation of forest stands to climate change and for contributing to our strategic independence. Certifying and financing low-carbon practices is the objective of the CRCF (Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming) regulation, which will come into effect in 2026. Now seems the right time to draw lessons from six years of experience with a similar standard in France: the “Label Bas-Carbone” (Low Carbon Label - LBC). The results show that striking a balance between scientific rigour and accessibility for stakeholders has led to the development of a substantial range of projects. However, the real challenge is to build sufficient and appropriate demand to finance the projects. There is no miracle solution, but complementary financing channels may emerge. 

The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) came into force on 1 January 2026. It is a carbon tax applied at the borders of the European Union to imports of certain industrial products covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). Nitrogen-based mineral fertilisers are included in this initial list of products. To avoid an increase in costs for the farmers concerned, the level of the tax has been reduced for fertilisers, and they may even be temporarily excluded from the scope of the CBAM. Yet, for the climate, but also for France’s strategic independence and food sovereignty, the CBAM will ultimately have to be fully applied to mineral fertilisers. To limit or even avoid an increase in farmers’ fertiliser expenditure, we need public policies – some of which are currently under threat. Ring-fencing budgets for these policies would be a way to support farmers’ incomes and the food sovereignty of both the European Union and France, while reducing the carbon footprint of our food system. 

The year ahead promises to be electric. In a highly unpredictable geopolitical context, the European Union must balance its commitment to the long-term goals of climate neutrality and the immediate attention to security and competitiveness concerns. This puts electrification high on the agenda in Brussels. First, the Grids Package, presented in December 2025, provides for a more centralised approach to planning and is expected to be adopted by the Council in June. Second, before the summer, the Commission intends to present an Electrification Action Plan, which will focus on lowering prices and reinforcing demand. 

How distant December 12, 2015 now seems. All delegations at COP21 had then rallied behind Laurent Fabius’s little green hammer. Ten years later, the trend is closer to backlash. Climate action is now often portrayed in the public debate as too costly, because it requires major investment. Ineffective, since our share of global emissions is small. Unfair, because it cuts into purchasing power. Too divisive, supported only by part of the electorate. Too late, since keeping the planet below +2°C of warming now seems out of reach. Arguments that are partly true—yet require substantial nuance. 

A few weeks ago, COP30 concluded in Belém with all parties agreeing on a “global mobilization” (or mutirão) against climate change, proving that multilateralism remains a viable path for action, despite strong geopolitical and economic headwinds. However, Belém delivered underwhelming results: no roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels –despite a powerful push from President Lula, rallying over 80 countries, a lack of concrete decisions on deforestation –disappointing for an “Amazon COP”, and mixed results on the global goal on adaptation, among other outcomes.  

In the run up to the publication of the European Commission’s proposals for an automotive package on 10 December, car manufactures have stepped up the calls to relax the CO2 standards and the 2035 phase-out of new combustion-engine vehicles by including some flexibilities. They highlight the challenges the industry has faced in recent years, growing competitive pressure from China, and insufficient demand for electric vehicles in Europe as reasons for the sector needing more time for the transition required to meet the targets.

Recently, car manufacturers have been calling for a relaxation of CO2 emission standards for cars and vans and the 2035 phase-out target for new internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, by including some flexibilities. They point in particular to the crisis the industry has faced in recent years, growing competitive pressure from China, and insufficient demand for electric vehicles (EVs) in Europe, as reasons for the sector needing more time for the transition required to meet the targets. As the European Commission (EC) prepares to publish its package for the automotive industry, including a revision of CO₂ standards for cars and vans, this blogpost examines the realities behind the difficulties currently faced by car manufacturers and the consequences of relaxing and postponing the planned EU regulations for this sector. 

With the aim to reduce its CO2 emissions and costly fossil-fuel imports, in 2022 the European Parliament adopted a rule that, from 2035, all new vehicles must be zero-emission, which essentially means that they must be electric. However, this rule is now being questioned, with car manufacturers requesting that it be revised to allow plug-in […]

COP30 concluded with an agreement, proving that multilateralism is still alive. However, the results are underwhelming: no push to transition away from fossil fuels, no decision on deforestation, and mixed outcomes on adaptation metrics.  On climate finance, Belém failed to shift from ambition to implementation. Negotiations quickly drifted back to a battle on yet another high-level quantitative target. The decision to triple adaptation funding by 2035 disappointed many, with its distant time horizon, lack of baseline and non-binding wording. COP30 also missed the opportunity to engage with – and build consensus around – concrete measures outlined in the Baku to Belém roadmap to get to $1.3 trillion. Instead, it defaulted to launching new processes – a work programme on climate finance and a ministerial roundtable on the NCQG.  

Climate change does not conform to business, political or supervisory regime cycles– its adverse long-term impacts lie beyond such horizons. Ten years ago, when Mark Carney highlighted this paradox in his landmark Tragedy of the Horizons speech, climate change was not considered a financial stability risk. Today, European supervisory stress tests estimate up to €638 billion in banking losses over 8 years, while the European Central Bank (ECB) reveals that over 90% of eurozone banks face climate and environmental risks. A key question arises: Is the supervisors’ primary focus on greening the financial system sufficient in the face of rising risks, especially stranded assets? 

The climate and development finance gap is large and widening, as Official Development Assistance (ODA) declines and needs multiply. With shrinking fiscal space in vulnerable countries, solidarity levies are gaining attention as a predictable source of international finance. Launched at COP28 by Barbados, France, and Kenya, the Global Solidarity Levies Task Force (GSLTF) is the main initiative in this space.

National Public Banks (NPBs) and Subnational Public Financial Institutions (SPFIs), including development banks and agencies as well as climate and green funds at the subnational level, play an increasingly vital role in financing climate action and the just transition. While national governments provide frameworks aligned with nationally determined contributions (NDCs), actual implementation occurs largely at the subnational level, which currently lacks sufficient funding. SPFIs can work as financial intermediaries, as they not only understand local needs and have stronger ties with local governments and businesses, but also access much larger volumes of capital from more diverse sources. 

"What agreement will the negotiators reach?” is the question that is usually on climate practitioners’ minds at this time of the year. However, this time, it is a new impetus that is needed, not another agreement. 10 years after the Paris Agreement, the Brazilian COP30 presidency has rightly shifted the focus to execution, making this edition “the implementation COP.” On financing, the objectives set at COP29 are clear: developing countries should receive $300 billion per year by 2035 from developed countries (NCQG), and mobilise $1.3 trillion per year from all actors. The newly published "Baku to Belém" roadmap proposes solutions to meet the targets. We now have objectives and a list of (theoretical) means to achieve them. How do we move to implementation? 

Nearly a decade has passed since the Paris Agreement elevated finance to the heart of the climate agenda, embedding in Article 2.1(c) the ambitious goal of aligning global financial flows with low-emission, climate-resilient development. But for all the talk of “shifting the trillions,” we remain far from course. 

Financial institutions, including banking and funding institutions, have a pivotal role to play in driving low-emissions and climate-resilient development. They need to adopt practices that support climate mainstreaming in local financial systems, from committing to climate strategies to improving their climate performance. Support from development finance institutions often proves to be an enabling or even a crucial factor.

We were proud to contribute to the inaugural Paris Climate & Nature Week hosted by Sciences Po from 27 to 29 October, marking the 10 years of the Paris Agreement. I4CE weighed in on some of our core topics– lessons learnt over the past decade of climate action which can accelerate the  transition; the links between climate and development finance; as well as adaptation and the cost of inaction.

Ten years after the adoption of the Paris Agreement, what progress has been made to make financial flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development (the ambition set out in Article 2.1(c) of the Agreement)? And what is needed going forward? Although we still lack a comprehensive assessment of progress, this article draws on existing analysis of what can help align financial flows and examines the efforts made by governments and the financial sector to this end. It highlights a development in the debate towards a country-driven approach and a focus on real investment needs. It explores ways to overcome existing barriers to action despite a challenging global context. The article advocates that Article 2.1(c) should be viewed not as a stand-alone provision, but as something that requires full implementation of all the provisions of the Paris Agreement. It also calls for a shift from a target-focused to an action-focused finance agenda and discusses how the COP30 in Belém can contribute to this.

Cette étude s’inscrit dans la continuité des travaux d’I4CE engagés depuis plusieurs années sur la qualification et la quantification des besoins et des moyens pour l’adaptation en France. Elle propose une vision d’ensemble de ce que l’on peut dire à date sur ces aspects, basée sur le suivi et l’analyse d’une quinzaine de domaines d’action publique concernés par le changement climatique. Alors que l'adaptation est souvent un grand oublié des PLF, ce rapport apporte des éléments sur l’effort consenti aujourd’hui, les besoins identifiés pour demain et les modalités de répartition des coûts.

One year ago, Mario Draghi warned that Europe was becalmed in treacherous waters. Fading competitiveness, trade disputes to east and west, and a growing political mutiny against the green transition make the way forward hard to navigate. This year, however, the EU has begun to find its bearings – guided by the Competitiveness Compass, with decarbonisation as the north star of the Clean Industrial Deal.