Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines four strategic propositions for Sweden's 2023 EU presidency: ensuring energy crisis responses align with long-term climate goals, integrating enforceable sustainability standards into trade agreements, promoting 'just resilience' to address transboundary climate risks, and establishing an EU-wide approach to monitoring consumption-based emissions.

The authors contend that the UNFCCC process must tackle global power dynamics and colonial legacies to become more resilient. They highlight how the Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated existing inequities, creating barriers to participation for Global South representatives and increasing the power imbalance between the Global North and Global South, which in turn eroded trust due to vaccine inequality and unmet climate finance targets.

The report argues that current climate finance is inadequate for loss and damage due to accessibility barriers, a reliance on loans, and a lack of focus on slow-onset and non-economic losses. It proposes six guiding principles—historical responsibility, equitable support, grant-based finance, accessibility, recipient ownership, and transparency—to inform a new UNFCCC-hosted facility. The authors recommend a phased approach, prioritizing small grants and unconditional cash transfers to empower vulnerable communities.

The document argues that the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated existing inequities in the UNFCCC process, particularly for Global South negotiators and civil society organizations. It highlights how travel restrictions, vaccine inequality, and the digital divide hindered participation and coordination, while broader geopolitical power dynamics and aid dependencies allowed Global North countries to maintain disproportionate influence over negotiation outcomes. The authors recommend short-term funding and logistical reforms, long-term institutional changes such as capping delegation sizes and shifting COP venues to the Global South, and a broader effort to decolonize research and build allyship to shift global power dynamics.

The report estimates that the global military carbon footprint is approximately 5.5% of global emissions, which would make the global military sector the fourth largest national carbon footprint in the world, exceeding that of Russia. The authors argue that military emissions are systematically under-reported due to voluntary reporting obligations under the Paris Agreement and a lack of robust data collection. Using a methodology based on personnel numbers, stationary emissions, mobile-to-stationary ratios, and supply-chain multipliers, the study estimates operational GHG emissions (scopes 1 and 2) at approximately 500 MtCO2e, or 1.0% of global GHGs. The report notes these figures are conservative as they exclude the 'global military carbon bootprint'—emissions from warfighting impacts such as infrastructure damage and ecosystem destruction.

The document argues that integrating National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs) reduces duplication and optimizes limited resources. It highlights that biodiversity protection increases ecosystem resilience, aiding human adaptation to climate change, and cites Eswatini, Fiji, Peru, and Rwanda as examples of countries that have successfully linked these strategies to enhance social and ecosystem resilience.

The authors argue that the current USD 100 billion climate finance target has been fraught with difficulties due to ambiguous definitions and contrasting interpretations regarding investment mobilization versus resource transfer. To improve transparency, accountability, and trust, they propose setting a specific sub-target for grants alongside other targets. The paper identifies five priority elements for negotiations: the relation to Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement, the adaptation-mitigation balance, financial instruments, the mobilization of private finance, and the concept of "new and additional" finance.

The report highlights that forest degradation in the Brazilian Amazon—defined as the partial loss of vegetation—is a critical but neglected threat to climate goals. It asserts that degradation often exceeds deforestation in terms of annual area affected and carbon emissions, driven by selective logging, forest fires, and the edge effects of deforestation. The author argues that Brazil possesses the technical capacity to monitor this phenomenon but fails to include it in official environmental performance metrics or greenhouse gas inventories. The document calls for Brazil to integrate degradation measures into its policies and international reporting to reclaim a global leadership role in climate action.

The policy brief highlights that forest degradation in the Brazilian Amazon is a critical but overlooked driver of greenhouse gas emissions, often exceeding the impact of clear-cut deforestation. It identifies selective logging, fire, and the edge effects of deforestation as primary drivers. The author contends that while Brazil possesses the technical capacity to monitor degradation, it fails to include these emissions in national inventories or set specific reduction targets. The document calls for the integration of degradation metrics into environmental performance indicators and the application of Brazil's experience in combating deforestation to address this complex phenomenon.

The document serves as an adaptation communication for Madagascar, detailing the national social, environmental, and economic circumstances that shape climate adaptation challenges. It assesses climate-related impacts, risks, and vulnerabilities, while reviewing the institutional governance frameworks and strategic policies in place. Additionally, it provides an overview of the implementation of adaptation measures, highlighting the progress made, existing challenges, and remaining needs.

The report finds that 97% of developing countries submitting NAPs to the UNFCCC now integrate gender considerations, with 29% specifically referring to gender responsiveness—a significant increase from zero in 2018. Additionally, about 50% of NAPs recognize women as agents of change in adaptation planning.

The report details the evolution of the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG) from its founding in 2000 to its role in the Paris Agreement. It highlights how the EIG's unique composition—including both developed and developing nations—enables it to facilitate compromises on technical and political issues such as climate finance, transparency, and carbon markets. The document also examines the individual contributions of member states like the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Monaco, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Georgia to global climate science and policy.

The document examines the role of Indigenous Peoples as stewards of 80% of the world's remaining biodiversity and their historical struggle for recognition within the United Nations and multilateral environmental agreements. It highlights the tension between Western commodified views of nature and Indigenous holistic perspectives, noting that while instruments like the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol have made strides in recognizing traditional knowledge, climate frameworks like the UNFCCC and initiatives like REDD+ continue to marginalize Indigenous voices and rights. The brief concludes that achieving global sustainability requires moving beyond tokenism to respect Indigenous self-determination and leadership.

The policy brief advocates for a synergistic approach to the climate and biodiversity crises within the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). It argues that Africa must take a leadership role to ensure that climate finance and implementation are 'nature-positive' and based on Nature-based Solutions (NbS) to prevent maladaptations, such as monoculture afforestation. The document emphasises that successful outcomes require the participatory inclusion of local and rural communities and the integration of urban ecological infrastructures.

The submission argues that current international investment agreements and the ISDS system create a 'regulatory chill' that discourages states from implementing urgent climate policies. It highlights the risk of fossil fuel companies using ISDS to secure massive payouts for 'stranded assets' and recommends that the OECD support multilateral termination of old treaties, the removal of protections for carbon-intensive investments, and the creation of climate-related carve-outs.

Three separate lawsuits were filed in early 2022 against the Argentinian Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development to stop offshore seismic testing by Equinor. These cases focus on the protection of the Southern Right Whale, the incompatibility of fossil fuel exploration with Argentina's Paris Agreement commitments and Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), and violations of the Escazú Agreement regarding public participation and environmental information. The court combined these three lawsuits on January 14, 2022.

Global Energy Monitor (GEM) finds that operating coal mines emit 52.3 million tonnes of methane per year, exceeding IEA estimates for oil and gas. The analysis identifies China, specifically Shanxi province, as the primary source of these emissions. GEM warns that proposed mine projects could add another 11.3 million tonnes annually, effectively locking in emissions equivalent to the coal-based CO2 emissions of the United States. To meet Net Zero 2030 targets, the report argues for a faster coal phase-out and the cancellation of new projects, as current mitigation measures are often insufficient or circumvented.

Natural Justice argues that South Africa's Gas Master Plan is incompatible with the country's climate commitments and the Climate Change Bill. The submission highlights risks including fugitive methane emissions, fossil fuel dependency, and the potential for inadequate compensation for land expropriation. It calls for a transition toward renewable energy, the adoption of the 'free prior and informed consent' (FPIC) principle for affected communities, and a more transparent public participation process.

The policy brief examines the role of science-policy interfaces (SPIs) in identifying environmental risks and informing global policy since the 1972 Stockholm Conference. It analyzes successful models like the IPCC and IPBES, while evaluating current proposals for new SPIs focused on chemicals and waste and food systems. The author highlights the challenges of power imbalances and the need for credibility, inclusivity, and transparency in SPI design.

The document analyzes thirty years of UN climate negotiations, arguing that countries in the Global North, particularly the United States, have consistently and deliberately obstructed the creation of a loss and damage finance mechanism. It divides this history into four periods: the initial efforts from 1991 to 2007, the lead-up to the Warsaw International Mechanism (2008-2013), the road to the Paris Agreement (2014-2015), and the post-Paris era (2016-present). The author highlights how advocates from the Global South, including AOSIS and the G77, shifted their framing from legal liability to moral risk to gain traction, while obstructionists used tactics such as conflating loss and damage with adaptation, proposing limited insurance alternatives, and explicitly excluding liability and compensation from official texts, most notably in Paragraph 51 of the Paris Agreement decision.