Publications

Rethinking how development can be financed to take into account the rising challenges of our time is a fastidious task, especially when thousands of experts, decision makers and practitioners want to leave their print. The outline of the new international financial architecture is being debated again this week, with more questions open for discussion than consensus on the answers. 

Since the Paris Agreement in 2015, significant strides have been made to foster the commitment of countries and financial institutions to address the climate crisis and ensure that climate risks and opportunities are considered in investments. However, with emissions required to peak before 2025, our window of opportunity is rapidly closing to keep +1.5°C within reach. Financial needs to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to address adaptation priorities are increasing rapidly in the meantime. Luis Zamarioli Santos and Diana Cárdenas Monar, from I4CE, believe that commitment must urgently translate into action, and action must bring the urgent change the world needs. Both governments and public financial institutions have a central role to play to deliver more and better finance, maximising positive impacts. This blogpost highlights some opportunities to advance in the path for a systemic transformation, involving key stakeholders with a whole-economy approach.  

At the Spring Meetings, during an event with senior climate representatives from Multilateral Development Banks, I4CE, E3G, Germanwatch and NewClimate Institute officially launched a common position paper on what ambitous Paris alignment means for public development banks. This paper summarises years of research on Paris alignment to shed light on best practice and hopefully support decision makers in taking and implementing credible climate commitments. 

A couple of months ago, COP28 called for the acceleration of efforts “towards the phase-down of unabated coal power”. Limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C requires stopping the construction of new coal power plants, that’s for sure. But it also requires retiring existing plants before the end of their lifetimes, which can be more challenging. Public development banks (PDBs) are well-positioned to help overcome barriers to coal phase-out and support countries with the transition to decarbonised electricity systems. A growing number of these banks are exploring strategies to accelerate the early retirement of coal plants. Yet these efforts may carry risks of unintended adverse impacts.

Public development banks have the potential to facilitate the transition from coal to renewable alternatives in developing and emerging countries by fostering conditions conducive to the early retirement and repurposing of coal plants. Co-written with NewClimate Institute, this report highlights the challenges associated with the early retirement of coal plants and examines public development banks' role in collaborating with national governments and power producers to support coal phase-out. 

With their historical role in funding coal capacity and public mandate, public development banks have a crucial role in enabling coal phase-out. Co-written with NewClimate Institute, this short paper explores many of the risks associated with proposals for abatement technologies and carbon credits as an input to current discussions on early coal retirement. 

France should publish mid-year its first multi-annual strategy for financing the ecological transition. This is a long way from the first 2015 climate strategy, which barely touched funding aspects. And it is good news. We at I4CE believe that such plans are essential tools to support the transition to low-emission, climate-resilient economies. Credible, multi-year public spending targets help to embark the private sector and the funders of public action (debt holders, international donors) in the transition, and redirect financial flows as demanded by the Paris Agreement. Comprehensive financing plans also avoid simplistic approaches based on case-by-case project appraisal on the basis of limited cost-benefit considerations, which can ultimately result in significant additional costs.

The Global Stocktake at COP28 in Dubai marked the start of a cycle for reviewing governments’ decarbonization trajectories. The cycle will end at COP30 in Brazil at the end of 2025, and 2024 will hopefully show progress in the ambition of these trajectories. We equally hope that this renewed ambition will be accompanied by a reflection on the financing plans for national low-carbon trajectories, covering the amounts and evolution over time of domestic and international resources, and the respective roles of the private and public sectors. Because simply put, a low-carbon transition with no associated financing plan is not a transition, it is mere wishful thinking.

COP28 in Dubai kicks off amidst a worrying climate backdrop. For the first time, the threshold of a 2°C temperature rise compared to the pre-industrial era was exceeded in one day. In addition, a report published by the UN this week warns that current policies are placing the planet on a warming trajectory of 2.9°C, and that the chances of maintaining the increase at +1.5°C are now of only 14%. The results of the first Global Stocktake, a worldwide assessment of the actions taken by countries since the Paris Agreement, will be published at the COP and should confirm the urgent need to change the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Much of the discussions at COP28 will focus on the 100 billion USD/year target decided at Copenhagen to support climate investments in the Global South, and on the new climate finance goal set to replace it. But, whilst keeping our eyes on the volumes laid on the table, we also need to look more into the impact of every dollar spent. Identifying and building on the value added of every actor in the economy is essential to avoid overlaps and maximise synergies. Three types of actors have a pivotal role to play in the paradigm shift: governments, public financial institutions and private financial institutions.

After several years of strong growth, the revenue generated by carbon pricing mechanisms (carbon taxes or markets) worldwide, as reported in our 2023 edition of the Global Carbon Accounts, stabilized at nearly USD 100 billion. This stabilization could not be more deceptive.  The future has rarely been so uncertain for carbon prices, caught between very strong opposing trends, and the next two years could mark a major turning point, for good or bad, for the use of these climate policy instruments worldwide. 

What are the carbon taxes and markets around the world, the range of carbon prices, the revenues generated, the emissions covered by these mechanisms? Find the answers to these questions, and many more, in the new edition of the Global Carbon Accounts from I4CE.

NewClimate Institute and the Institute for Climate Economics (I4CE) submitted a response to a public consultation on the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero’s proposed set of voluntary guidance for financing the early retirement of coal-fired power plants in Asia-Pacific. This blog post highlights key points from our submission. Preventing the worst impacts of the climate crisis, particularly for the most vulnerable, requires halting coal-fired power plants (CFPPs) in the pipeline and retiring a substantial portion of the existing global coal fleet before the end of their technical lifetime. While countries have committed to phase out unabated coal in the Glasgow Climate Pact, 350 GW of new capacity is proposed globally with an additional 192 GW under construction.

The reform for a new global financing pact - as it was ambitiously designated by the French President Emmanuel Macron - allows little time for rest, combining several agendas that collectively seek to rethink how the Global South can finance its low-emission development pathways, with support from the Global North. The sequence of international events that starts this week with the Finance in common Summit, the African climate summit, G20 and followed by World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund’s Annual Meetings will be key to see if the multiple resolutions to reshape development finance outlined during the first semester of 2023 were merely wishful thinking or if they can be seen as the first bricks of a new international financial architecture. 

Sustainable development and climate change are two pressing and interconnected issues that countries have committed to address at the international level. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) including climate action, at its core was adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 2015. The same year, the Paris Agreement was adopted by Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Both instruments have clear global and national targets in the medium- and long-term that are still far from being met.

On 22nd and 23rd of June, the Summit for a new Global Financing Pact, initiated by Emmanuel Macron and Mia Mottley, Prime Minister of Barbados, will take place in Paris. This Summit will be a success for climate if it enables us to spend more on the climate transition, to spend better, and if it influences the ongoing reform of international development financing.

National budgets, as the main driver of public action, need to be ‘greened’ by governments to achieve the transition to low-carbon, climate-resilient, and sustainable economies. That is, budgeting processes need to ensure sufficient funds are directed towards green activities and are directed away from environmentally harmful ones.

This blog-post is conducted by [i4ce] and IDDRI. The international community recognizes that the global development finance architecture is no longer fit for purpose. The World Bank, the IMF, and other institutions of the broader development finance system are today asked to invest more in global goods (specifically to fight against climate change and to preserve biodiversity, but their internal structure and the paradigms on which they ground their decisions have not changed since they were created with development – poverty and macroeconomic stability notably – as their main mandate. In this context, it should be no surprise that the response of these international institutions remains inadequate in terms of volume, structure and accessibility. 

This is it. In a few days, thousands of people from around the world will be gathering in Washington to look back on the latest achievements and discuss the future of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund – the two institutions that structure international cooperation for development. But this isn’t just one of a series of biannual get-togethers. These Spring Meetings will be the last for future ex-President of the World Bank David Malpass, who is leaving at what might be a turning point for the institution’s history. The expectations are high: this is the moment where the World Bank’s shareholders will confirm their vision and ambition for the institution by officially including climate in its global mission

After years of waiting, the World Bank finally approved and released its alignment approach with the mitigation and adaptation goals of the Paris Agreement. Presented by the World Bank as “the most comprehensive institutional undertaking ever done by the Bank Group to reconcile development and climate”, this alignment approach is an important step towards the reform of the World Bank currently under discussion. But this approach won’t be sufficient, argue Alice Pauthier and Sarah Bendahou in this blog post. It could be more ambitious.