Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines the challenges of financing climate change adaptation in developing countries, focusing on the gap between estimated needs and available resources. It argues that an agreement on adaptation finance is essential for the success of broader climate negotiations. The authors advocate for a consolidated, country-driven governance model that devolves decision-making to the national level and suggests a multiplicity of funding sources, including nationally assessed contributions and international levies, to ensure predictable and additional financial flows.

Friends of the Earth International expresses deep disappointment with the outcomes of the Poznan climate talks, arguing that Annex I countries have prioritized 'get-out-clauses' and offsetting schemes over genuine emission reductions. The organization calls for a minimum 40% reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by 2020 and warns that the REDD mechanism risks undermining the rights of Indigenous peoples and biodiversity if it fails to distinguish natural forests from monoculture plantations.

A declaration by various international organizations opposing the World Bank's role in the UNFCCC climate regime due to its continued financing of fossil fuels, contribution to deforestation, and undemocratic governance.

The author argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) lacks environmental integrity due to non-additional projects, leading the EU to propose strict import caps on CERs. To avoid these inefficient caps and reflect 'common but differentiated responsibilities', the paper suggests a discounting system where one tonne of CO2 reduction yields less than one CER, with the discount factor linked to a country's GDP and emissions per capita. While this introduces some economic inefficiency by altering marginal abatement costs, the author contends it is superior to a protectionist EU scenario, as it would maintain higher EU import thresholds and improve the distribution of projects toward poorer countries.

The report critiques REDD as a flawed approach that focuses on reducing rather than stopping deforestation, potentially rewarding polluters through carbon offsetting. It highlights significant risks to Indigenous Peoples' land rights, the danger of replacing natural forests with carbon-poor plantations, and methodological failures such as 'leakage'. The author argues that market-based funding is volatile and inequitable, suggesting instead that funding should be grant-based, managed by the UN, and focused on addressing the underlying drivers of deforestation.

The report argues that REDD, as currently designed, focuses on reducing rather than stopping deforestation and risks becoming a tool for corporate profit rather than climate mitigation. It highlights significant risks to indigenous land rights, the potential for 'leakage' where deforestation simply moves to other areas, and the danger of replacing natural forests with monoculture plantations. The author criticizes the use of carbon markets to fund REDD, suggesting instead public funding derived from fossil fuel taxes and the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies.

The report critiques REDD, asserting that it is designed to reduce rather than stop deforestation and may incentivize the replacement of natural forests with carbon-poor plantations. It warns that financing REDD through carbon markets could allow industrialized nations to avoid reducing fossil fuel emissions, undermine national sovereignty in developing countries, and lead to the displacement of indigenous communities. The author argues that REDD's 'opportunity cost' calculations often benefit polluters and that the mechanism is susceptible to market volatility and corporate lobbying. The document advocates for a non-market, grant-based funding system managed by the UN, focused on ecosystem justice, the recognition of indigenous land rights, and the elimination of the underlying drivers of deforestation.

The report analyzes the landscape of carbon offsets, contrasting mandatory compliance mechanisms like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) with voluntary standards and retail providers. It evaluates key design elements including project eligibility, additionality testing, and quantification protocols, while highlighting risks to environmental integrity such as leakage and non-permanence.

The briefing contends that forests should not be treated primarily as carbon sinks and warns that market-based REDD mechanisms risk creating climate loopholes and displacing local communities. It advocates for funding forest conservation through national programs and carbon taxes in industrialized nations rather than carbon markets, emphasizing the need to address the underlying drivers of deforestation such as agrofuels and industrial logging.

This briefing by Friends of the Earth International contends that forests provide value beyond carbon sequestration and warns that integrating REDD into carbon markets threatens indigenous land rights and climate goals. It advocates for direct funding of community-led conservation, the recognition of territorial rights for over one billion forest-dependent people, and a shift in responsibility toward industrialized nations to reduce emissions and address the root causes of deforestation, such as biofuels and industrial extraction.

The fact sheet contends that treating forests primarily as carbon sinks undermines biodiversity and the rights of indigenous peoples. It argues against the use of carbon markets and REDD, suggesting instead that industrialized nations provide direct financial support and address the root causes of deforestation, such as industrial logging and unsustainable consumption of meat and paper.

The document aggregates data from multiple polling organizations (including CNN, Gallup, and the Harris Poll) regarding public attitudes toward global warming. Key trends include a majority of U.S. adults viewing global warming as a proven fact caused by human activity, support for cap-and-trade systems and renewable energy mandates, and a growing belief that the U.S. should lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions regardless of other nations' actions. Regional data highlights specific concerns in Florida regarding sea-level rise and in California regarding state-level emissions laws.

The document is a summary of the May 21, 2008, Manager's substitute amendment to S.2191, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008. It notes that the substitute is a "substantially revised version of S.2191" and organizes the bill's contents into categories including cap and trade design, market oversight, cost containment, allowance distribution, international engagement, state and regional programs, and complementary policies.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) demands that industrialized countries reduce emissions by at least 40% by 2020 and provide large-scale financial transfers to developing nations based on climate debt. The organization rejects carbon offsetting, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and the inclusion of forests in carbon markets, arguing that such mechanisms undermine real emission cuts and threaten indigenous land rights. FoEI advocates for the conservation of old-growth forests, the protection of climate refugees, and the removal of the World Bank from climate financing roles due to its undemocratic structure and continued investment in fossil fuels.

The IAI is managing the closure of its CRN I program and the implementation of CRN II and Small Grants Program for Human Dimensions (SGP-HD), while seeking new funding from the MacArthur Foundation and IDRC. The institute is expanding its regional network through collaborations with entities like IGBP, IUCN, and CEPAL, and is focusing on capacity building through research internships and specialized training institutes on climate risk, water management, and urban responses. Efforts to secure operational budget contributions from member countries like Guatemala and Uruguay are ongoing.

The research paper introduces a two-phase methodology to quantify policy coherence by analyzing the frequency of shared goals, instruments, and actors across international agreements. Applying this to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the Ramsar Convention, the UNFCCC, and the MDGs, the study finds a significant level of policy incoherence. Specifically, it calculates a 52% degree of incoherence among the four MEAs and a 62% degree of incoherence when the MDGs are included. The CBD is identified as the most coherent agreement, while the Ramsar Convention and UNFCCC show the lowest levels of integration with other frameworks.

This report by Friends of the Earth International examines the consequences of shifting the management of natural resources from public to private control. It focuses on the privatization of water and biodiversity, highlighting how neoliberal policies promoted by international financial institutions (IFIs) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) often lead to increased costs for the poor, environmental degradation, and the appropriation of indigenous knowledge. Through 34 case studies, the document illustrates the negative outcomes of these policies and advocates for community-led management and the recognition of water as a human right.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) proposes a hybrid liability system for the Kyoto Protocol's emissions trading to bridge the gap between pure seller and buyer liability. The proposal centers on a 'commitment period reserve' based on projected emissions trajectories. Units surplus to this reserve are traded under seller liability, while those within the reserve are traded under a 'limited buyer liability' framework. This limited approach aims to prevent a 'domino effect' of non-compliance by restricting the invalidation of units only to those originating from Parties whose verified emissions exceed their gross adjusted assigned amount, thereby maintaining market liquidity and enhancing transparency.

The document identifies a significant investment gap in Africa's energy transition, estimated at US$35 billion per annum, and outlines the structural, political, and economic barriers hindering private investment. It proposes that DFIs take a catalytic role by improving institutional environments, developing bankable project pipelines, and employing innovative financial instruments—such as blended finance, green bonds, and local currency lending—to mitigate risks and crowd in private capital.

The report examines how Tanzania's extractive industries, particularly natural gas and gold, have created economic enclaves and contributed to a 'sub-national resource curse' in regions like Mtwara and Lindi. It analyzes the country's rising debt-to-GDP ratio, which grew from 28% to 40% in four years, and the role of resource-backed loans from China for infrastructure like the Standard Gauge Railway. While Tanzania possesses significant renewable energy potential in solar, wind, and hydropower, the report notes a continued reliance on fossil fuels and a lack of gender-sensitive policies in the energy sector. It concludes with recommendations to diversify the economy, strengthen governance, and develop a domestic downstream sector for critical minerals.