Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines the impact of the growing middle class in developing countries on global carbon emissions, projecting that this group will grow from 1.5 billion in 2009 to almost 5 billion by 2030. It argues that because traditional carbon pricing is often impractical in these contexts, targeted technology and innovation policies are needed to steer consumption toward low-carbon alternatives in urban planning, transport, and household energy. Using case studies on Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), the brief emphasizes that success depends on addressing the political economy and building local capabilities rather than relying solely on economic incentives.

Cartagena de Indias has developed the first adaptation guidelines for a coastal city in South America to manage risks from sea level rise, extreme weather, and flooding. These guidelines integrate scientific knowledge with the city's socioeconomic context, including its reliance on tourism and transportation. The process is being monitored by the Colombian government to inform the National Adaptation Plan and other coastal urban areas. The city views adaptation as a means to improve citizen life and avoid the long-term costs of inaction, though the process requires sustained capacity building for local stakeholders.

The document identifies five key drivers for Climate Compatible Development (CCD)—national adaptation needs, energy security, new economic opportunities, access to climate finance, and strong government leadership—while detailing seven primary obstacles, including high opportunity costs, political resistance, and institutional constraints. It provides case studies from over 40 countries to illustrate how these factors interact and suggests solutions such as multi-stakeholder dialogue, legislative anchoring, and risk-sharing financial mechanisms.

The paper identifies five key drivers for CCD: national adaptation needs, energy security and resource efficiency, new economic opportunities, access to climate finance, and strong government leadership. It also outlines seven primary challenges, including high implementation and opportunity costs, opposition from vested interest groups, lack of trusted data, short-term political thinking, limited state capacity, institutional constraints, and technological uncertainties. The authors argue that managing the political economy of CCD is essential for overcoming these barriers.

The document details the technical and operational requirements for a consultancy aimed at enhancing the institutional readiness of MARN and SINAMA in El Salvador. Key requirements include the design and implementation of a software-based executive information system for MARN, the integration of existing environmental evaluation and planning tools, and the coordination of organizational development with personnel capacity building. The project emphasizes building upon previous consultancy work and utilizing open-source software to ensure sustainability and scalability within the national environmental governance framework.

The 2013 Climate Knowledge Brokers (CKB) workshop brought together 35 participants from 17 organisations to enhance the sharing of climate and development information. The event focused on evaluating seven collaborative projects, sharing lessons on user engagement and internet marketing, and discussing the future governance and funding of the CKB Group. Key technical outputs highlighted include the reegle Tagging API and the Knowledge Navigator widget, both designed to reduce information duplication and improve content discoverability. Participants identified a critical need to move beyond 'one way communication' and better integrate local and indigenous knowledge to reach diverse stakeholders in developing countries.

The author, a negotiator for Ethiopia, details the steep learning curve for newcomers in the UNFCCC, citing complexities in scheduling, jargon, and lack of historical context. To facilitate consensus, the paper suggests enhancing capacity building through mentorship, utilizing external policy briefs and informal dialogues to build trust, and increasing the transparency of data and negotiation texts. It argues that trust, transparency, and the free flow of information are essential for parties to overcome conflicting national interests and reach multilateral agreements.

The National Climate Change Action Plan 2013-2017 provides a strategic roadmap for Kenya to reduce its vulnerability to climate change while maintaining low greenhouse gas emissions. It identifies priority actions across sectors such as agriculture, energy, forestry, and transport, and proposes the establishment of a National Climate Change Council and a Kenya Climate Fund to coordinate governance and finance. The plan emphasizes a 'low carbon climate resilient development pathway' that aligns with Kenya Vision 2030, estimating total investment requirements at approximately KSh 1,085 billion (USD 12.76 billion) for the five-year period.

The IAI science-policy liaison office's 2013-2015 workplan focuses on establishing a baseline of current policy standing, strengthening relationships with member countries and the Conference of the Parties (CoP), and positioning IAI research within international conventions and organizations. The strategy emphasizes a three-pronged approach: institutionalizing brokerage mechanisms, positioning global change as a relevant policy issue, and spurring collective action through use-oriented research.

The PROVIA Guidance on Assessing Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change is an executive summary of a technical framework designed to harmonize and communicate knowledge on climate risk. It provides an iterative five-stage adaptation learning cycle—identifying needs, identifying options, appraising options, planning and implementing actions, and monitoring and evaluation—to help researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers navigate the diversity of available assessment methods and tools.

The document identifies a significant gap between climate research and practical application in Asia, noting that while national-level knowledge exists in some countries, sub-national and local levels suffer from severe data and capacity deficits. It highlights systemic barriers such as language, technical framing of research, and the underrepresentation of local traditional knowledge. The brief argues for a collaborative approach that integrates capacity-building with research, utilizes scenario-based analysis to manage uncertainty, and prioritizes the translation of technical data into local languages and simplified formats to support practitioners and policy-makers.

The Regional Climate Change Adaptation Knowledge Platform for Asia (AKP) operated from 2009 to 2012 to build adaptation capacity and knowledge across Asia. The project utilized a three-tiered approach involving knowledge sharing, research, and pilot projects across 13 countries. While successful in creating a diverse network of local experts and producing over 50 knowledge products, the initiative struggled with high staff turnover and a lack of consistent leadership. A primary barrier to impact was the reliance on English-language publications, which limited reach among local stakeholders. The document argues that linear project planning is insufficient for measuring social learning and adaptive capacity, calling for more complex evaluation frameworks.

The document argues that 'mainstreaming' adaptation—integrating it into existing policies and plans—is the most effective way to scale up resilience in the Asia and Pacific region. It describes mainstreaming as an iterative, multi-year process that must occur across national, sectoral, and sub-national levels to avoid policy conflicts and ensure efficient resource use. Key entry points identified include poverty reduction strategy papers, national development plans, and sectoral strategies for water and disaster risk reduction. The brief emphasizes that successful integration requires extensive stakeholder engagement, including vulnerable populations, and the translation of climate data into scaled-down, usable information for local planners.

The Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) implemented the web-based Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Communication (PMEC) system in 2010 to systematically track project outcomes. Based on the International Development Research Centre’s Outcome Mapping methodology, PMEC shifts focus from activities to the influence on 'boundary partners'—specific people and organizations the project aims to affect. The system integrates project planning, budget management, and communications, requiring all SEI projects to use it for monitoring progress via 'progress markers' and 'journals'. For projects with budgets exceeding 200,000 SEK, an outcome evaluation of specific indicators is mandatory. PMEC also feeds into SEI's organizational learning by tracking contributions to six key performance areas and four institutional themes, ultimately informing reports for funders like the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and the SEI Board.

The document outlines a study by IRENA focused on scaling up renewable energy in developing countries through a global analysis of finance flows and the design of national policy frameworks. It emphasizes that mobilizing finance requires a holistic, locally tailored approach combining transparent regulatory frameworks with targeted government interventions. The study suggests that international climate finance should be utilized to reduce investment risks, leverage private finance through public-private partnerships, and provide capacity building for project developers and public officials.

The document provides a detailed breakdown of climate finance pledges from various developed nations and the European Union, detailing the amounts pledged, the actual allocations made, the channeling institutions used, and the countries' positions on whether the funds are 'new and additional' to existing Official Development Assistance (ODA).

The document argues that the Technology Mechanism, comprising the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTC&N), must move beyond a linear view of technology transfer to a systemic approach. It recommends balancing 'push factors' from industrialised countries and 'pull factors' in developing countries to create enabling environments. Key proposals include promoting cooperative research, development and demonstration (RD&D) to bridge the 'valley of death' in financing and establishing a dedicated technology funding window within the Green Climate Fund (GCF).

The document analyzes the UNFCCC Technology Mechanism, consisting of the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTC&N). It argues that for the mechanism to succeed, it must move beyond a linear view of technology transfer to a systemic innovation approach. Key recommendations include promoting cooperative research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) to bridge the 'valley of death' in financing, creating 'enabling environments' through both push and pull factors in developed and developing nations, and establishing a dedicated technology funding window within the Green Climate Fund (GCF).

The document examines the process of securing direct access to the Adaptation Fund through National Implementing Entities (NIEs) in Jamaica and Senegal. It identifies common challenges regarding fiduciary standards and money management, while noting that early inclusion of civil society aids project implementation. The authors highlight that institutional capacity constraints can hinder access to finance even after accreditation and suggest that multilateral agencies should help develop accessible accreditation standards. Finally, it warns that qualifying as an NIE for the Adaptation Fund does not guarantee direct access to the larger Green Climate Fund, emphasizing the need for capacity building in vulnerable countries.

The report examines Ukraine's 'Green Investment Scheme', which was established to manage 470 million euros earned from selling 'hot air' emission quotas between 2009 and 2012. It highlights a significant gap between the funds received and the actual implementation of projects, noting that by the end of 2011, only 37 projects were completed, resulting in a disproportionately high cost per ton of CO2-eq reduced. The document criticizes the scheme for lack of transparency, bureaucratization, and potential corruption, arguing that project selection may be driven by political reasons rather than environmental or economic viability.