Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines a strategic framework for negotiating protocols under the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (UN FCITC). It identifies two 'early protocols'—cross-border services and tax dispute resolution—and several 'possible protocols' including the digital economy, illicit financial flows, high-net-worth individuals, and environmental challenges. The report argues that the UN FCITC can provide a more inclusive and effective alternative to OECD-led frameworks, particularly for developing countries, by establishing global standards for taxing the digital economy, combating tax evasion, and coordinating climate-related fiscal policies.

The paper proposes a state-led fiscal strategy for South Africa's energy transition, centered on a climate response fund. It recommends mobilizing domestic resources through carbon taxes, fuel levies, and mineral royalties, alongside the issuance of climate bonds. The goal is to protect vulnerable workers, particularly in coal-dependent regions like Mpumalanga, and provide an estimated R100 billion annually for climate priorities.

The research paper advocates for South Africa to move away from a market-led 'blended finance model' (BFM) for its just energy transition, arguing that market failures necessitate a state-led approach. The author proposes a 'climate response fund' to be financed by a combination of carbon tax increases, earmarking the General Fuel Levy and Mineral and Petroleum Resource Royalty, and implementing public sector efficiency reforms and retirement tax deduction caps. Together, these measures could generate over R100 billion annually for adaptation and equity. The paper also suggests the issuance of sovereign green bonds to fund renewable energy grid infrastructure, arguing for a gentler fiscal deficit glide path to accommodate this strategic investment.

The policy brief contends that South Africa must move beyond the blended finance model for its just energy transition due to market failures and risks of insufficient or unpredictable private capital. It proposes a suite of domestic resource mobilisation (DRM) measures—including sovereign green bonds, carbon tax reforms, and earmarking existing revenues—to generate approximately R100bn annually for climate priorities. These funds would be pooled into a central climate response fund dedicated to adaptation, equity, and supporting displaced workers, particularly in Mpumalanga. The author argues that this assertive domestic commitment is essential for maintaining state control over infrastructure and for unlocking larger-scale international finance between 2030 and 2050.

The report analyzes the socio-economic and institutional crisis in La Jagua de Ibirico, Colombia, triggered by Prodeco's withdrawal from coal mining. It highlights severe gaps in local government powers and funding, significant environmental legacies, and the need for a coordinated national-local framework to support economic diversification and a just transition.

The report inventories major energy subsidies in South Africa, detailing fiscal support for oil, gas, electricity, coal, and nuclear energy. It highlights a significant increase in total quantified subsidies, reaching ZAR 118,317 million in FY 2022/2023, driven largely by carbon tax exemptions. The document describes specific mechanisms such as VAT exemptions for fuels, Free Basic Electricity for disadvantaged households, and various grants for state-owned enterprises like PetroSA and Eskom.

The IEJ criticizes the 2024 Budget for prioritizing debt stabilization over public services and economic growth. It highlights significant real-term cuts in non-interest expenditure, the erosion of social grant values, and underfunding of public employment and healthcare. The report proposes increasing taxes on high-income earners and corporations, expanding social grants to the food poverty line, and increasing public investment to 25% to drive infrastructure and job creation.

The Institute for Economic Justice argues that South Africa's National Treasury has unnecessarily cut social spending by failing to mobilize available resources. The brief identifies significant revenue potential through the removal of regressive tax breaks for high earners, the introduction of wealth and financial transaction taxes, and the utilization of the Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account (GFECRA). It recommends restoring the Corporate Income Tax rate to 28% and implementing a progressive Social Security Tax to fund social protections.

A coalition of civil society organisations and policy analysts opposes the South African National Treasury's plan for immediate, indiscriminate budget cuts to address revenue shortfalls and expenditure overruns. The authors argue that such cuts would stifle economic growth, worsen unemployment and hunger, and fail to reduce debt-to-GDP ratios. They propose alternative solutions, including drawing on the SA Reserve Bank's gold and foreign exchange contingency reserve account, reducing tax breaks for high earners, and implementing a wealth tax, while calling for a transparent, evidence-based budget review process over 12 months.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) argues that South Africa's projected budget deficit of 6.29% for 2023/24 is within historical norms and does not constitute a financial crisis. The IEJ estimates a revenue shortfall of R52.4 billion and an expenditure overrun between R67.9 billion and R105.8 billion, the latter driven largely by a R37.5 billion public sector wage bill increase. To close this gap without resorting to GDP-contracting budget cuts, the IEJ proposes utilizing the Reserve Bank's Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account, increasing short-term borrowing, and raising revenue by removing tax breaks for high-income earners and corporates. The IEJ warns that fiscal contractions larger than 1.5% of GDP can lead to long-term negative effects on GDP and urges the protection of social programmes like the Social Relief of Distress grant.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) asserts that South Africa's current revenue shortfall and expenditure overspend are within historical norms and do not constitute a 'fiscal crisis'. The IEJ estimates a revenue shortfall of R67.2 billion and an expenditure overspend of R67.9 billion for 2023/24, noting that the debt-to-GDP ratio of 71.4% in 2022/23 is comparable to the emerging market average of 69%. The document warns that indiscriminate budget cuts exceeding 1.5% of GDP could cause significant economic contraction. To resolve budget mismatches without austerity, the IEJ suggests utilizing the Reserve Bank’s Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account, increasing short-term borrowing, removing tax breaks for high-income earners and corporates, and restructuring Eskom debt.

Pennsylvania's municipal governments are projected to spend at least $15.47 billion by 2040 to adapt to climate change, with stormwater drainage capacity representing the largest expense at $7.8 billion. The report highlights that these costs will disproportionately affect rural, high-poverty, and Environmental Justice areas, with some small municipalities facing annual per capita costs exceeding $1,000. The authors argue that major oil and gas companies should be held legally accountable for these costs rather than taxpayers.

The Institute for Economic Justice describes the 2023 National Budget as an 'anti-poor budget' that redistributes wealth from the poorest 80% to the richest 20%. The analysis highlights a R162 billion real decrease in non-interest expenditure over the medium term, with significant cuts to health, basic education, and social protection. It specifically criticizes the failure to protect the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant from inflation and its removal from the budget for 2024/25 and 2025/26. The document also critiques the conditional debt relief for Eskom, arguing that restrictions on new capacity investment favor private sector profit over energy affordability, and condemns subsidies for rooftop solar as benefiting only the wealthy.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) proposes a shift away from fiscal consolidation toward a macroeconomic framework that prioritizes social infrastructure, public services, and a just energy transition. Key recommendations include expanding the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant into a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG), increasing public infrastructure investment to R900 billion, and restructuring Eskom's R400 billion debt to facilitate renewable energy investment. The IEJ also advocates for progressive taxation, including reversing the Corporate Income Tax reduction and utilizing windfall taxes to fund industrial policy and social protection.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) argues that proposals by the National Treasury (NT) and the Presidency to replace the R350 SRD grant with targeted grants are regressive, unconstitutional, and administratively unworkable. The IEJ contends that these proposals prioritize cost-cutting and the exclusion of poor citizens over the primary goal of combating hunger and poverty. Specifically, the IEJ critiques the 'jobseekers grant' for relying on the false premise that structural unemployment can be solved through job-search facilitation, and the 'household grant' for potentially deepening gender power imbalances and reducing the number of beneficiaries. The memo further challenges the National Treasury's claims of unaffordability, asserting that NT ignores the net cost of grants, available tax surpluses, and progressive financing options like a wealth tax or Social Security Tax. The IEJ advocates for a universal basic income indexed to the Food Poverty Line, arguing that income support should be a survivalist tool rather than a lever for labor market activation.

The document analyzes the impact of the Financial Compensation for Mineral Exploration (CFEM) in Pará, Brazil, between 2007 and 2020. It finds that mining royalties, which are highly concentrated in a few municipalities and subject to commodity price volatility, have not improved local development indices. Instead, a significant portion of these funds is diverted toward salaries and pensions, contrary to regulatory intentions. The authors recommend stricter spending regulations and the creation of financial instruments to smooth revenue volatility.

The document argues that Indonesia can accelerate its energy transition by redirecting fossil fuel subsidies and taxes—potentially raising up to IDR 166 trillion annually—into renewable energy, grid modernization, energy efficiency, and remote energy access.

The report finds that Indonesian government support for fossil fuels significantly outweighs support for renewable energy, with 94% of annual allocations averaging coal, oil, gas, and fossil fuel-based electricity, compared to just 1% for renewables. Between 2016 and 2020, total energy support measures rose by 38% to IDR 279 trillion, while specific support for renewable energy decreased from IDR 3 trillion to IDR 2 trillion. The analysis indicates that 77% of identified measures benefit energy producers, and that fossil fuel subsidies create a lock-in effect that hinders the competitiveness of renewable energy and drains public finances.

The report finds that British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador provided at least CAD 2.5 billion in fossil fuel subsidies in FY 2020/21 and CAD 1.5 billion in FY 2021/22. It argues that these subsidies incentivize production that might not otherwise occur and hinder Canada's ability to meet its 1.5°C climate target.

The report identifies that four major Canadian fossil fuel-producing provinces provided at least CAD 2.5 billion in subsidies in FY 2020/21 and 1.5 billion in FY 2021/22 (up to December 2021). These subsidies, consisting of royalty reductions, tax exemptions, and direct transfers, are described as incompatible with 1.5°C goals and a hindrance to Canada's Paris Agreement obligations. The authors highlight a lack of transparency in provincial budgeting and a trend of using fossil fuel support as a COVID-19 recovery strategy. The report recommends that provinces increase transparency, align with federal targets to phase out subsidies by 2023, cease creating new subsidies, and collaborate with the federal government.