Search Climate Insights Directory

The GCF is developing its own Environmental and Social Safeguards (ESS) to replace the interim IFC Performance Standards. The proposed framework expands from eight to ten standards, adding dedicated standards for Stakeholder Engagement and Information Disclosure (ESS 9) and Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation (ESS 10). Key updates across all standards include a shift from a 'do-no-harm' to a 'do-good' approach, emphasizing the generation of positive co-benefits, the integration of circular economy principles, and a stronger focus on human rights, gender equality, and intersectionality. The document outlines specific structural and content changes for each standard, including new requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions disclosure, the use of a precautionary approach, and enhanced protections for Indigenous Peoples and vulnerable groups.

The document argues that treating climate mitigation and adaptation in siloes is inefficient and can lead to counterproductive outcomes. It proposes an integrated approach that aligns the planning cycles of both, starting with cross-referencing GHG emission and vulnerability assessments and moving toward joint objectives and integrated climate narratives. The brief highlights nature-based solutions (NbS) as a key instrument for achieving these synergies and provides case studies from Grenada and Haiti to illustrate the benefits of integrated climate action.

The document introduces the 'Systems Journey,' a three-phase iterative process (Engage, Explore, Learn) designed to move beyond linear thinking in conservation and sustainability work. It outlines eight core principles for systemic change and provides a toolkit of 11 practical methods—such as Systems Mapping, the Iceberg Model, and Scenario Planning—to help navigators identify leverage points and develop adaptive theories of action. The guide emphasizes the importance of co-creation, acknowledging power dynamics, and embracing a 'safe-to-fail' experimental mindset to achieve long-term structural transformation.

The document introduces a 'systems pathway' consisting of three phases: Engaging, Exploring, and Learning. It argues that complex problems cannot be solved with linear thinking and instead requires a collaborative, iterative approach. The guide details a process for understanding system dynamics, identifying high-leverage points for intervention, and developing adaptive theories of change and action. It includes a toolkit of 11 practical methods, such as the Iceberg Model and Scenario Planning, to help practitioners move from a state of 'chaos and confusion' toward systemic renewal.

The authors develop a framework to evaluate the quality of carbon offset credits, specifically focusing on whether one unit represents a genuine emission reduction of at least 1 tCO2e. This is intended to support the use of existing crediting schemes for internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) under Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement, ensuring that such mechanisms maintain environmental integrity and do not increase global emissions.

The Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) has introduced the Framework for Sustainable Finance Integrity to establish universal sustainability guardrails for the global financial system. The Framework aims to address the lack of a standardized system for tracking the integrity of net-zero commitments and coordinating action between public and private financial actors to meet the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals.

The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) proposes a certification framework to ensure company decarbonisation is rapid and robust enough to align with the Paris Agreement. The proposal introduces five 'hallmarks' of a credibly transitioning company: Paris-aligned targets, robust plans, implementation action, internal monitoring, and external reporting. This framework aims to bridge the gap between light-touch market guidance and overly complex entity-level assessments. CBI suggests differentiating between 'Green Transition' (already aligned with sectoral pathways) and 'Interim Transition' (catching up, with a proposed grace period until 2025). The framework emphasizes absolute measures tied to common sectoral transition pathways over relative 'best-in-class' benchmarking and requires the inclusion of scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.

The paper argues that while DFIs have focused on aligning direct project financing, they must also address 'indirect' investments via financial intermediaries to meet global climate goals. It proposes a four-pillar framework—mitigation, adaptation, governance, and transparency—implemented in two phases over a maximum of five years. The framework suggests sector-specific exclusion lists, physical climate risk screenings, institutional climate governance, and TCFD-aligned reporting. It also recommends a risk-tailored approach to investment instruments, suggesting that general purpose loans and equity be restricted to FIs already meeting alignment criteria, while special purpose vehicles (SPVs) can be used for clients committed to the principle of alignment but lacking immediate capacity.

The paper addresses a research gap in climate impact studies by moving beyond static, national-boundary-focused assessments to a futures-oriented framework for cross-border impacts. By combining global Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) with local drivers in a co-production process with stakeholders, the authors created "extended SSPs" to identify how climate impacts transmit across borders into Kenya and to explore adaptation activities to mitigate these global flows.

This policy brief examines the supply and demand side barriers to financing climate-smart urban infrastructure, focusing on the role of National Development Banks (NDBs). It introduces a 12-dimension 'City Maturity Model' to help city officials improve their strategic, financial, and operational capacities to attract green investment. The brief highlights that while NDBs are well-positioned as intermediaries, only 4% of Public Development Banks are specifically mandated to finance local governments. It provides recommendations for city officials to engage national policymakers, strengthen revenue capture, and build technical expertise, supported by case studies from Cape Town, Chefchaouen, and Belo Horizonte.

The policy brief argues that climate adaptation measures often have cross-border effects that can redistribute vulnerability or create 'maladaptation' if not managed through a lens of justice and connectedness. It introduces a framework combining procedural and distributive justice with a systemic understanding of global connectivity to prevent the shifting of risks from wealthy to vulnerable actors. Using case studies from the Brazilian coffee supply chain and the Blue Nile Basin, the authors demonstrate how coordinated international action and improved efficiency can mitigate regional tensions and human security risks. The brief concludes with recommendations for strengthening multilateral cooperation, developing shared normative principles, and crafting incentives to prevent 'risk-dumping'.

The document argues that effective climate services require an intentional MEL design based on outcome mapping to foster collaboration and adaptive management. It details the use of boundary partners, outcome challenges, and progress markers to track behavioral changes rather than just direct development impacts. The briefing recommends specific tools like the 'most significant change' technique and outcome harvesting to capture complex, non-linear results. An illustrative example from the FRACTAL project in Windhoek, Namibia, demonstrates how these elements are applied to different stakeholder groups, including city officials and climate service providers.

The document argues that gender-blind climate interventions risk deepening inequalities and undermining resilience. It proposes a project cycle that begins with representative stakeholder committees and gender-disaggregated data collection to understand differential vulnerabilities. The guide details tools like 'problem tree' analysis and the 'resilience wheel' to design transformative solutions. It emphasizes the use of SMART and SPICED indicators to track progress, illustrated through five case studies in Cambodia, Tanzania, Malawi, Nigeria, and Ecuador, which demonstrate the 'double win' of achieving both climate goals and gender empowerment.

The report outlines a framework for 'rights-based climate finance,' emphasizing that funding from developed to developing countries must be ambitious in volume, equitable in distribution, and provided as grants to avoid increasing debt. It advocates for the categorical exclusion of 'false solutions' like large-scale hydropower and geoengineering, while demanding robust social and environmental safeguards, including free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for Indigenous Peoples and independent grievance redress mechanisms to ensure accountability.

The document outlines eight categories of barriers to climate change adaptation—ranging from conflicting timelines and lack of resources to institutional constraints and climate skepticism—and provides a self-assessment questionnaire and a directory of resources to help local authorities implement adaptation measures.

The authors argue for a shift in climate services from a narrow focus on products to a process-centric approach based on transdisciplinary collaboration. To facilitate this, they introduce the 'Tandem' framework, which provides structured elements and guiding questions to support the co-exploration and co-production of integrated climate information. The framework aims to improve knowledge integration across the science-society interface, identify decision-relevant needs, and build the institutional and human capacities necessary for climate-resilient decision-making.

The document establishes a framework for evaluating 'high-quality' carbon credits across six quality objectives: robust GHG impact determination, avoidance of double counting, addressing non-permanence, facilitating the transition to net zero, strong institutional arrangements, and positive environmental and social impacts. It details specific criteria for each, such as additionality, corresponding adjustments under the Paris Agreement, and the avoidance of carbon lock-in, to guide buyers in a complex market.

The report outlines a structured approach for Fiji to track 160 prioritized adaptation actions across five systems and five sectoral components. It proposes a two-part M&E methodology combining a simple 'traffic light' monitoring system for progress with a more complex process- and results-based evaluation for effectiveness. The framework emphasizes the need for interministerial coordination, the use of primary and secondary data sources, and the potential for an online National Adaptation Registry to centralize information. It also highlights the importance of aligning the NAP M&E with international commitments such as the Paris Agreement, Sustainable Development Goals, and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.

The report outlines a comprehensive framework for sustainable cooling, categorizing solutions into four pillars: technology, services, policy, and finance. It emphasizes that achieving 'cooling for all' requires an optimized approach to meet fundamental needs in comfort and safety, food and nutrition, and health and care, particularly for vulnerable populations. The document introduces a five-part solution approach—Protect, Reduce, Shift, Improve, and Leverage—to guide the selection of measures ranging from nature-based passive cooling to high-efficiency active technologies and regulatory policies.

The report argues that the bioeconomy—the use of bio-based feedstocks and processes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—requires context-specific sustainability monitoring across environmental, economic, social, and governance pillars. It highlights that while the bioeconomy can support UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it risks deepening existing social inequalities if not managed through a lens of feminist political ecology and multidimensional poverty frameworks. The authors propose a monitoring system that integrates socio-economic indicators, such as the Human Development Index (HDI) and Gini Index, to ensure benefits reach vulnerable groups in the global South.