Search Climate Insights Directory

The Resilient Integrated Food Systems (RIFS) project in Lao PDR aims to improve food security and nutrition for 200,000 direct beneficiaries across six vulnerable provinces. The project employs a 'farm-to-fork' value chain approach, combining climate-smart agricultural inputs, diversified farming systems, and watershed management to mitigate the impacts of floods and droughts. Key interventions include the establishment of Farmer Field Schools (FFS) for gender-responsive extension, the introduction of solar-powered irrigation, and the restoration of 60,000 hectares of land per province annually through agroforestry and reforestation. The project is structured as a 100% grant of approximately 40.79 million USD, focusing on both adaptation and mitigation through carbon sequestration.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) found that none of the 13 evaluated consumer goods companies can guarantee their beef is deforestation-free. While some companies like Mars, McDonald's, and Walmart show more progress, most lack comprehensive policies, transparency, and traceability for indirect supplying ranches. The report highlights that beef production is the primary driver of tropical deforestation in South America, contributing significantly to global carbon emissions and biodiversity loss.

The document argues that the EU's LULUCF proposal should establish a separate target for soils and forests to prevent carbon sequestration from being used to offset industrial emissions. It emphasizes the need for improved accounting rules, safeguards for bioenergy, and the protection of ecosystem integrity and food security, particularly for indigenous peoples and small-scale farmers.

Green NGOs call on the European Commission to publish the Effort Sharing Decision on 20 July to maintain EU climate leadership and implement the Paris Agreement. They argue that the 2030 targets for sectors not covered by the ETS—including transport, buildings, and agriculture—must be upheld. The statement also warns against using forestry credits as loopholes to avoid reductions in other sectors.

The report examines the application of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) in Nepal's Terai, mid-hills, and high hills regions, emphasizing the need for interventions tailored to local contexts and socially disaggregated vulnerabilities. Key findings highlight that farmers are more likely to adopt technologies with multiple benefits—such as improved cattle sheds for manure management or rice-and-duck farming—when they are delivered as integrated packages rather than in isolation. The report argues that sustainability is enhanced through local ownership, mandatory community contributions, and strategic partnerships between NGOs, the private sector, and government extension offices. It specifically notes the differing priorities between dalit households, who focus on food and nutrition security, and janajati households, who prioritize market-driven commercial production.

The report argues that sustainable timber markets are essential for preserving global economic activity and securing the long-term supply of raw materials for UK businesses. It highlights that forests contribute approximately US$17.6 trillion to the global economy, with timber and paper making up 16% of international soft commodity trade. The document warns that legal and sustainable timber supplies from several key source countries are at risk of depletion, while global demand is rising due to expanding Asian economies and the biomass energy industry. For UK businesses, the report identifies commercial benefits including regulatory advantages under the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), easier access to finance, enhanced brand value, and improved workforce engagement. It also examines the UK domestic timber industry, noting that while it contributes ~£21.0 billion in GVA, domestic softwood supply is threatened by a long-term decline in new planting.

The 2016 SAIIA Young Leaders Declaration outlines specific demands from South African youth to integrate global sustainability goals into national governance. It calls for increased accountability, educational reform, improved basic services, and economic opportunities, with a strong emphasis on renewable energy, climate adaptation, and social equity.

The study identifies significant current potential for cultivating Acrocomia aculeata in Latin America, particularly in Central America, the Caribbean, northern Colombia, Venezuela, southern Brazil, and eastern Paraguay. However, it warns that many suitable areas are already used for agriculture or have high conservation value, and that under the IPCC A2A 'business as usual' scenario, most suitable growing areas could severely decline or disappear by 2080.

The policy brief examines the risks of including the LULUCF sector in the EU's 2030 climate framework, specifically the danger that carbon sinks could be used to reduce the decarbonization efforts of sectors like transport and manufacturing. It identifies four primary reasons why LULUCF is unfit for integration with other climate instruments: high data uncertainty (32% compared to 1% for fossil fuels), incomplete accounting methods that allow for over-crediting, the non-permanence of biological carbon stores, and the need for carbon removals to be additional to, rather than replacements for, emission reductions. The author highlights specific accounting flaws, such as 'Gross-net accounting' and 'forest management reference levels' (FMRL), which may allow Member States to generate unearned credits. Additionally, the brief criticizes the assumption of biomass carbon neutrality, noting that emissions from burning wood are often unaccounted for in the EU ETS or ESD. The document recommends that LULUCF be maintained in a separate pillar, that land-use offsets be prohibited, and that biomass sustainability criteria be strictly enforced.

The document argues that relying on future negative emissions to offset current insufficient climate action is a high-risk strategy. It identifies three primary risks: technological and biophysical infeasibility, unacceptable social and ecological impacts, and the potential for these measures to be less effective than expected due to reversals or irreversible climate tipping points. The authors conclude that while some land-based sequestration is possible, it cannot reach the scales often assumed in climate models without severe trade-offs.

The report advocates for a paradigm shift in sanitation and wastewater management, moving from a disposal-centric model to a circular economy approach that recovers water, nutrients, and energy. It details the technical, institutional, and financial frameworks necessary to implement sustainable systems that protect human health and the environment while providing economic benefits.

The report examines 13 watershed investment programs in the U.S., focusing on how natural infrastructure—specifically forests—can be used to protect drinking water quality and quantity. It provides a framework for program development across three phases: building momentum, designing the program, and implementing the action plan. Key findings emphasize the importance of collaborative partnerships, scientifically informed planning, and diverse financing mechanisms, such as municipal bonds and water rate surcharges, to overcome barriers like insufficient funding and lack of outcome data.

Bhutan has a constitutional mandate to maintain 60% forest cover and manages a connected network of 10 protected areas covering 5 million acres. However, this system faces threats from poaching, illegal logging, human-wildlife conflict, and a declining youth population in rural areas. Additionally, the region is highly vulnerable to climate change, experiencing melting glaciers and intense rainstorms. To address these challenges and a decrease in foreign aid, WWF and the Bhutanese government have launched 'Bhutan for Life', a funding initiative with a goal of $35 million to $45 million. This fund uses a project finance model to support enforcement, wildlife monitoring, and community job creation, transitioning the country toward a self-sustaining conservation business plan over 15 years.

The Plowprint report by WWF International tracks the gross conversion of intact grasslands to cropland in the US and Canada from 2008/2009 to 2015. Unlike net conversion studies, the Plowprint counts land as converted even if it later reverts to grass, arguing that the initial plow-up causes significant, long-term ecological loss. The analysis uses federal satellite-derived data to identify conversion hotspots and emphasizes the loss of ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and water filtration. While noting that nearly half of the Plowprint area had reverted to perennial cover by 2015, WWF maintains that such restoration may not fully recover biological diversity or soil capacity. The document also outlines WWF's broader efforts to reduce grassland and forest conversion globally, specifically targeting soy, beef, and palm oil supply chains in Latin America and Southeast Asia.

Carbon Market Watch criticizes a proposed 'mechanism to support sustainable development' in the Paris climate treaty negotiations, asserting that it allows developed countries to generate and use carbon offsets without restriction. The organization warns that including land use carbon offsets for non-permanent sequestration would create a 'gigatonne loophole' and undermine climate targets. Additionally, the statement notes the removal of a proposed financial levy on carbon prices and highlights a counter-proposal from an alliance of developing countries (LMDC, Arab Group, and ALBA Group) to remove the offsetting mechanism in favor of cooperative approaches for mitigation and adaptation.

The document defines key climate terminology used in COP21 negotiations, such as decarbonization, carbon neutrality, and carbon budgets, while explaining how these terms influence the global emissions trajectory. It argues that for long-term goals to be effective, they must be consistent with climate science, limit both long-term and cumulative emissions, and provide clear dates and plausible reduction pathways.

The document warns that including land use in climate targets can lead to 'cheating the climate' by allowing countries to replace necessary fossil fuel reductions with unreliable and non-permanent carbon offsets. It highlights specific risks in the US, EU, and Russia, where poor accounting rules or high uncertainty regarding LULUCF emissions could dilute overall mitigation efforts. The author advocates for treating carbon sequestration in forestry and agriculture as a complementary contribution to climate action, rather than a direct substitute for emissions cuts in other sectors.

The document examines the risks of using agricultural soil carbon sequestration as carbon offsets. It highlights technical failures in measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV), the non-permanence of biological carbon compared to fossil carbon, and social risks such as land grabbing and the marginalization of small-scale farmers. The author argues that 'Climate Smart Agriculture' often serves as greenwashing for agribusiness corporations. Instead of carbon markets, the report recommends using National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) to prioritize food security, tenure rights, and sustainable rural livelihoods.

The report argues that smart land use policy is critical for California to meet its 2030 decarbonization goals. Using the RapidFire model and E3 California Pathways data, the study finds that 'More Compact' and 'Infill Focus' scenarios can lead to statewide emissions reductions of 40-41% below 1990 levels when combined with aggressive energy technology deployment. Beyond climate targets, smart growth is projected to deliver significant co-benefits, including billions of dollars in household and infrastructure cost savings, improved public health outcomes through reduced air pollution, and the preservation of greenfield land. The authors recommend that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) strengthen emissions reduction targets under SB 375 and provide substantial funding to support cities and regions in implementing target-compliant land use plans.

The document presents community forest management (CFM) as a superior alternative to industrial logging and strict protected areas for preserving biodiversity and mitigating climate change. It highlights that CFM can be more effective at reducing deforestation, as evidenced by data from Brazil and Costa Rica, and provides critical livelihood support to approximately 1.6 billion people. The text identifies key success factors for CFM, including secure land tenure, local decision-making autonomy, and strong social capital. Conversely, it warns against 'false solutions' such as REDD+ and the financialization of nature, which it claims risk land grabbing and the erosion of traditional governance. The document concludes by recommending the prioritization of decentralized, authentic CFM and the legal protection of indigenous and local community rights to ensure ecological and social justice.