Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing examines the tension between economic growth and environmental sustainability in the Mekong subregion (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam) and ASEAN. It argues that while regional strategies and national laws exist, actual commitment to environmental protection in trade policy remains low, often driven more by foreign donor interests than by regional political will. The author highlights the 'ASEAN Way' of non-binding consensus as a barrier to enforcement and recommends strengthening regional ownership and civil society engagement.

The report finds that while Southeast Asian nations have adopted environmental legislation, these concerns are frequently sidelined by industrialization and trade liberalization goals. In the Mekong subregion (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam), the integration of environmental sustainability into trade policy is primarily driven by foreign donors rather than regional institutions like the Asian Development Bank or the Mekong River Commission. While Thailand shows progress through judicial intervention and business awareness, and Vietnam through donor-funded strategic plans, regional agreements like the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement lack environmental cooperation provisions. The report concludes that the 'ASEAN Way' of soft law and a lack of administrative capacity hinder enforcement, and recommends strengthening regional ownership and coordination between donors and the ASEAN Secretariat.

The report details a two-day workshop in January 2010 where stakeholders used participatory scenario development (PSD) to explore three future trajectories for the Bras d’Or ecosystem to the year 2060. The process identified critical climate impacts—primarily sea-level rise, increased storminess, and heavy rainfall—and proposed adaptation strategies centered on integrated land-use planning, shoreline retreat, and capacity building. The findings emphasize that a 'best case' scenario involving integrated governance and a UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) designation provides the highest resilience against projected climate changes.

The SEI Strategy 2010-2014 establishes a framework for the institute to act as a leading provider of systems understanding and policy solutions for sustainable development. The strategy reorganizes research into four multidisciplinary themes: managing environmental systems, reducing climate risk, transforming governance, and rethinking development. SEI aims to increase its institutional core funding to 40% by 2014 to enhance strategic flexibility and independence. The institute leverages a distributed structure of research centres across Africa, Asia, Europe, and the USA to link global expertise with local implementation, specifically targeting the needs of poor regions and the development of leadership capacities in the South.

The document examines the necessity of evolving ecosystem conservation strategies in the face of climate change. It highlights that while ecosystems provide vital services like climate regulation and water, they have undergone unprecedented transformation due to human consumption and degradation. The author argues that climate change exacerbates these trends and may hinder the natural adaptation of ecosystems, particularly those already fragmented, thereby threatening the livelihoods of the rural poor. The briefing asks experts to evaluate whether existing policy instruments—such as command-and-control or incentive-based measures—are sufficient or if radically different approaches and a stronger adherence to the precautionary principle are needed to manage climate-related risks and irreversible ecosystem changes.

The document examines the conflict between increasing food production to meet a growing global population and the degradation of ecosystem services. It argues that the current model of enhancing a few food services at the expense of others is unsustainable and risks irreversible tipping points. The authors propose two primary solutions: a risk-assessment tool to integrate climate and ecosystem risks into decision-making, and a three-pronged strategy to reconcile food and conservation by restoring degraded lands, increasing productivity on existing farms, and managing food demand.

The report assesses whether genetic engineering (GE) can reduce the environmental impact of reactive nitrogen in agriculture. It finds that while GE research is ongoing, no NUE-improved GE crops have been commercialized, and their prospects remain uncertain due to complex gene interactions and potential regulatory hurdles. In contrast, traditional breeding and system-based approaches like cover crops and precision farming have already demonstrated significant improvements in NUE and nitrogen loss reduction. The authors argue that a diversified approach, supported by increased public investment in non-GE methods, is essential to mitigate global nitrogen pollution.

The paper argues that current adaptation cost estimates are insufficient and often rely on a single measure, such as expanding protected areas. It proposes a five-step methodology: quantifying direct climate impacts, identifying vulnerable areas, selecting adaptation options based on effectiveness and feasibility, determining per-unit costs, and aggregating total costs. Applying this to Indian forests under a 2085 B2 climate scenario, the authors focus on shifts in forest distribution. Using Net Primary Productivity (NPP) to identify vulnerable areas where shifts are negative, they estimate annual adaptation costs between $239.78 million and $1,486.72 million, depending on whether a minimum or comprehensive set of adaptation measures is implemented.

The report analyzes the disconnect between farm-level 'means-based' indicators (which measure compliance with practices) and higher-scale 'impact' indicators (which measure ecosystem health). It argues that the current proliferation of uncoordinated metric initiatives leads to information overload and a lack of comparability. The authors advocate for a 'key impact approach'—focusing on a small set of strategic indicators—and the use of conceptual frameworks like DPSIR to bridge the gap between individual farm activities and landscape or national outcomes. Key recommendations include standardizing terminology, developing open data platforms, and adopting an evolutionary, stepwise approach to measurement.

The report details a systemic failure of governance in Ketapang District, West Kalimantan, where oil palm expansion—driven by EU biofuel targets—has led to widespread illegal land clearing, deforestation of protected forests, and severe social conflicts. It highlights that the Ketapang government issued permits for approximately 40% of the district's land in just three years, often bypassing legal requirements for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and forestland release approvals. The document argues that voluntary certification schemes like the RSPO and the EU's Renewable Energy Directive (RED) are insufficient to prevent these abuses, as they lack rigorous legality checks and fail to address 'replacement effects' where certified oil is diverted to energy, pushing the food sector toward unsustainable sources. Socially, the expansion has resulted in land grabs from indigenous communities and precarious labor conditions, including the non-payment of smallholders and chemical poisoning of workers.

The statement opposes the PH Barro Blanco hydroelectric project by GENISA in Panama, arguing that the 258.67-hectare reservoir would destroy indigenous Ngöbe Buglé sacred sites, displace local economies based on agriculture and fishing, and increase greenhouse gas emissions through methane release from decomposing organic matter in the reservoir. It further claims the project would cause water shortages by reserving 90% of water for power generation and disrupt aquatic biodiversity and sediment flow to mangroves.

The report details a seminar on climate risk in Southern Africa, highlighting the vulnerability of agriculture, water, and health sectors. It emphasizes that while the region is least responsible for emissions, it is highly susceptible to climate-induced instability due to weak governance and reliance on rain-fed agriculture. Proposed solutions include multi-sectoral adaptation strategies, improved urban management, and strengthening governance capacities across the SADC region and the broader African continent.

The Manila Declaration outlines the severe environmental and human rights violations caused by extractive industries on Indigenous lands, calling for a moratorium on new projects and the mandatory application of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

The report argues that EU consumption and trade policies drive the expansion of monoculture tree plantations in the Global South, which disproportionately harms women by destroying their livelihoods, health, and cultural identities. Through case studies in Nigeria (rubber), Papua New Guinea (oil palm), and Brazil (eucalyptus), the document details the loss of food sovereignty, the erosion of traditional medicinal knowledge, and the increase in gender-based violence and economic dependency. It highlights that while these projects are often framed as 'development,' they frequently result in land theft and environmental degradation. The report concludes by documenting the emergence of women-led resistance movements fighting for land return and food sovereignty.

The Manila Declaration, issued by Indigenous Peoples and support organisations from 35 countries, condemns the environmental degradation, human rights violations, and land dispossession caused by extractive industries. It argues that Indigenous territories hold over 60% of the world's most coveted mineral resources, leading to unsustainable exploitation and contributions to climate change. The document demands a moratorium on new extractive projects, the recognition of Indigenous Peoples as rights holders rather than stakeholders, and the strict implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIP). It specifically calls for the end of fossil fuel investment, the protection of the human right to water, and the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in climate change negotiations.

The report analyzes the rapid growth of the plantation sector in Lao PDR and the institutional gaps in the investment approval process. It argues that while the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) is the final decision-maker for large projects, it lacks the internal capacity and coordination mechanisms to effectively integrate environmental and social considerations into its decisions, relying instead on other agencies with their own resource constraints.

The paper argues that ASEAN's pursuit of sustainable development remains largely rhetorical, as its economic integration initiatives—such as AFTA and the AEC—often prioritize neoliberal open regionalism over the needs of marginalized groups. While the region has seen growth, significant disparities persist, with 21% of the population living in absolute poverty. The author suggests that ASEAN can become a development-oriented organization by reforming its policy of non-interference, empowering semi-skilled migrant workers and small-scale farmers, and increasing transparency in policymaking.

The document details how rising temperatures in the Northwest are reducing springtime snowpack and shifting streamflow timing, which threatens water supplies, hydropower production, and salmon populations. It also highlights risks of increased forest fires, pest infestations, and coastal erosion due to sea-level rise, particularly in the Puget Sound region.

The document details the risks posed by rising temperatures and sea-level rise in the Southeast US, highlighting threats to energy and transportation infrastructure, agricultural productivity, and native ecosystems.

The document argues that climate change is a profoundly ethical issue where the global North bears primary responsibility for emissions while the global South and marginalized groups suffer the most severe impacts. It advocates for 'climate justice'—a vision to alleviate unequal burdens through fair treatment and policies that address the structures creating inequality. The guide critiques market-based solutions like carbon trading and agrofuels, calling them 'false solutions' that allow rich nations to avoid responsibility. It highlights specific vulnerabilities, noting that women are disproportionately affected due to their roles in managing natural resources and limited access to decision-making. The text also introduces the Greenhouse Development Rights (GDRs) framework, which proposes a 'development threshold' to ensure the poor are not burdened by the costs of the climate transition. Finally, it provides practical advice for journalists to localize climate stories by amplifying the voices of the most vulnerable and comparing local environmental changes with global causes.