Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that the effectiveness of global climate finance depends on democratic governance at the local level. It references experiences with the Adaptation Fund in Senegal, the Clean Development Mechanism in Chile, Thailand, the Philippines, and South Africa, and REDD in Brazil, Cameroon, Peru, and Tanzania to illustrate governance challenges and best practices.

The document outlines the need for a normative framework to govern the mobilisation and disbursement of climate finance in developing countries. It draws on a study of regional and national experiences in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to ensure that climate finance effectively addresses the impacts of climate change.

The document assesses how climate variability and anthropogenic factors drive resource scarcity and conflict in Africa, focusing on the African Union's response and specific regional crises in the Lake Chad Basin, Lesotho, the Nile Basin, the Niger Delta, Tanzania, South Africa, Kenya, Botswana, and Uganda.

The document introduces 'biocultural community protocols' as tools for Indigenous and local communities to articulate their customary laws, values, and decision-making processes to external actors. It provides a structured four-part framework for facilitators to guide communities through the process of documentation, implementation, and reflection. The toolkit emphasizes endogenous development, legal empowerment, and participatory methods—such as community mapping, participatory video, and 'Legislative Theatre'—to reduce power asymmetries and safeguard collective biocultural heritage against external threats like land grabbing and industrial resource extraction.

The document defines biocultural community protocols as participatory instruments used by Indigenous and local communities to document their customary laws, values, and decision-making processes. These protocols aim to bridge the gap between community worldviews and external actors—such as governments and companies—to prevent resource exploitation and ensure the respect of customary stewardship. The toolkit outlines a four-part process: understanding the community, documenting the protocol, using it for engagement, and reflecting on outcomes. It provides a wide array of participatory tools, including community sketch maps, trend line analysis, and participatory theatre, to empower communities through legal awareness and social mobilization.

The document provides a comprehensive overview of the safeguards and standards associated with Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), focusing on the UNFCCC's Cancun Agreements and other frameworks like UN-REDD, REDD+ SES, and the World Bank's FCPF. It examines the risks REDD+ poses to forest-dependent communities—such as land grabbing and displacement—and the opportunities it offers for tenure reform and gender equality. The guide emphasizes the importance of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) and full stakeholder participation, while detailing the challenges of translating high-level international principles into enforceable national laws. It also provides practical advice for communities to engage in advocacy, monitor national processes, and utilize grievance mechanisms.

The submission argues that indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) are the most effective guardians of biodiversity, yet they face systemic threats including non-recognition of land rights, 'fortress conservation' models, and violence against land defenders. It provides global case studies of successful community-led conservation and calls for a shift toward rights-based conservation, secure tenure, and the protection of environmental defenders.

The document provides an educational overview of REDD+, explaining its goal of providing financial incentives to developing countries to reduce carbon emissions by protecting forests. It details the debate over reference levels and funding mechanisms—specifically carbon markets versus a dedicated REDD+ fund—while highlighting significant risks to Indigenous peoples, such as forced evictions and the devaluation of non-monetary forest values. The guide compares the safeguards of UN-REDD and the World Bank, noting that UN-REDD's standards are generally stronger, though implementation remains a concern.

Natural Justice provides legal support to Indigenous peoples and local communities in Africa, specifically in South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Benin, Guinea, and Madagascar. The organization focuses on challenging rights infringements related to land, climate change, and extractive projects, and facilitating fair commercial transactions for traditional knowledge. Key initiatives include the development of 'community protocols' to help communities articulate their rights and the production of accessible legal resources, such as 34 national legal reviews and the Living Convention. Natural Justice also engages in international advocacy through the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and forums like the UNFCCC and CBD.

The document details the collaboration between IDSA and PRIO, focusing on India's perspectives on food security, nuclear governance, and climate change. It highlights India's pursuit of nuclear energy capacity, its adherence to the CBDR-RC principle in climate negotiations, and the internal challenges of food insecurity and insurgencies.

Mali's revised NDC aims for a 40% total reduction in net GHG emissions by 2030 compared to a business-as-usual scenario. The plan covers four sectors: energy, agriculture, forestry/land-use change, and waste, with specific reduction targets for each. It emphasizes a transition to a low-carbon economy through renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and intensive reforestation (REDD+). Adaptation is a priority, focusing on green economy resilience, water management (GIRE), and gender-sensitive policies. The total cost for mitigation is estimated at $4.344 billion, while adaptation is valued at $8 billion.

The report analyzes 40 low-carbon interventions in Mexico's electric power, oil and gas, energy end-use, transport, and agriculture and forestry sectors. It finds that implementing these measures could stabilize emissions at 2008 levels by 2030, avoiding approximately 477 Mt CO2e relative to a baseline scenario. Many of these interventions are 'no-regrets' options with positive economic returns, though their scale-up is hindered by institutional, regulatory, and financial barriers.

The document evaluates Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS), identifying successful practices such as agroforestry, mangrove rehabilitation, and circular farming. It highlights significant policy gaps in water resources and disaster risk management (DRM), alongside barriers including poverty, tenure insecurity, and a preference for 'grey' infrastructure. The study emphasizes the need for cross-sectoral coordination, innovative financing like Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES), and the integration of local and indigenous knowledge to scale resilience.

The document argues that agroforestry provides a viable alternative to monoculture reforestation and intensified agriculture by creating multi-functional land-use systems. It highlights that 'land-sharing' through agroforestry can actually support 'land-sparing' by reducing the pressure to deforest for agricultural expansion. Using case studies from Sri Lanka and Vietnam, the brief demonstrates how home gardens and forest gardens increase tree cover and improve rural resilience. It also notes the success of nitrogen-fixing species in Africa and the use of rubber and cocoa agroforests in Indonesia and globally. The authors conclude that successful implementation requires secure land tenure, local context-specific choices, and inter-agency collaboration.

The document argues that multi-layered home gardens incorporating trees, shrubs, and crops enhance food security, nutrition, and climate resilience. It identifies key barriers to their development, such as insecure land tenure and water scarcity, and suggests that integrating home gardens into climate finance mechanisms like REDD+ could provide new opportunities for expansion.

The report argues that the United States can technologically and economically achieve deep emission cuts through a multi-pronged strategy. Central to this is a cap-and-trade system with auctioned allowances, which would fund clean energy investments and international forest preservation. The strategy includes implementing energy efficiency resource standards, a national renewable electricity standard of 25% by 2025, and tougher vehicle emission caps. Internationally, it emphasizes the cost-effectiveness of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) in tropical nations. The author asserts that the nation can reduce emissions by at least 35% below 2005 levels by 2020 through domestic action and international funding.

The document describes a modeled U.S. cap-and-trade program starting in 2011, aiming to reduce emissions to 3,145 MMTCO2eq by 2030. It outlines the coverage of six major greenhouse gases across multiple sectors, the use of domestic and international offsets, and the mechanisms for banking and withdrawing allowances. The report also discusses the macroeconomic assumptions of the UCS-NEMS model, including revenue recycling and the impact on GDP, and provides a detailed methodology for calculating REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) supply curves for international offsets.

The document identifies key drivers of tropical deforestation, noting that cattle and soy are primary drivers in Latin America, while palm oil and timber dominate in Southeast Asia. It highlights a shift in demand from rural to urban and export markets, driven by urbanization and global dietary trends toward meat. While Brazil has seen success in reducing deforestation through industry moratoria and REDD+ programs, the report warns that biofuel production could create new pressures on forests. Overall, tropical deforestation emissions have decreased by a third or more compared to the late twentieth century.

The paper identifies four key lessons from Annex I countries' experience with LULUCF accounting, arguing that current rules lead to under-reporting of emissions and lack the precision required for carbon markets. It recommends broader reporting requirements, a diversified financing approach for REDD beyond carbon markets, full and consistent data reporting including non-carbon factors, and the implementation of full land use emissions inventories for countries engaging in voluntary REDD Plus activities.

The paper evaluates 32 REDD+ readiness proposals, finding that while there are strong commitments to stakeholder participation and cross-sectoral coordination, significant gaps remain in addressing land tenure, benefit sharing, and vertical coordination. It recommends that countries adopt more integrated approaches, improve the sequencing of readiness activities, and establish transparent domestic tracking systems to ensure governance commitments are implemented.