Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that majorities in all 73 surveyed low-emission areas have experienced extreme weather, with unusually hot weather being the most common hazard. Most respondents attribute these events to climate change, yet significant gaps in individual and household preparedness exist, particularly in South America and Europe. Recovery times vary widely, with some populations in Central Asia and the Balkans expecting recovery to take a year or more.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Country Programme for the Solomon Islands outlines a strategic approach to scaling up climate finance for a Small Island Developing State highly vulnerable to natural disasters. It identifies key priorities across energy, agriculture, and coastal protection, while mapping a pipeline of national and regional projects for the GCF-1 and GCF-2 periods. The report emphasizes the need to strengthen institutional capacity, engage the private sector—particularly MSMEs—and establish a robust governance structure to ensure country ownership and sustainable development outcomes.

The analysis reveals that only 24% of the 67 sampled countries demonstrated a climate risk responsive recovery. A significant paradox was identified: a country's income level was a stronger determinant of whether it used COVID-19 funds for adaptation than its actual climate vulnerability. High-income countries were more likely to integrate physical climate risks into their recovery plans, while the most vulnerable countries were the least likely to do so, with only Kenya and Vanuatu among the 20 most vulnerable countries approving explicit adaptation actions. Most responsive measures focused on water resources management, disaster prevention, infrastructure, and nature-based solutions, primarily targeting drought and flooding.

The Resilience Evidence Forum 2023 Synthesis Report outlines a multi-scalar approach to building resilience, focusing on people, communities, urban systems, socio-ecological systems, and market systems. It emphasizes the transition from top-down measurement to co-produced evidence that integrates local and Indigenous knowledge with scientific data. The report identifies critical gaps in funding for climate resilience—noting that less than $50 billion is spent annually against needs of $160-340 billion—and advocates for gender-transformative approaches, integrated health and nutrition systems, and the use of mixed-methods to capture transformative, long-term outcomes rather than just short-term recovery.

The document explores the 'anti-green backlash' and the practical dilemmas of the energy transition, focusing on social inequality, territorial disputes over renewables and mining, and the geopolitical implications of critical raw material sourcing. It argues that a just transition requires rebuilding the welfare state, increasing democratic participation, and addressing historical ecological debts to avoid 'eco-apartheid' and political polarisation.

The IEJ 2023–2027 Strategy transitions the organisation from a 'start-up' to a 'consolidation' and 'growth' phase. It aims to challenge neoliberal economic orthodoxies through a research-policy-advocacy nexus, promoting heterodox and feminist economic analysis. The strategy identifies five key objectives: advancing inclusive macroeconomic frameworks, growing communities of practice for progressive economic thinking, supporting just transitions in response to the climate crisis and changing work, popularising economic justice policies, and strengthening internal organisational capacity.

The policy brief examines the shortcomings of South Africa's current climate finance landscape, specifically the Just Energy Transition Investment Plan (JET-IP) and the initial implementation of Climate Budget Tagging (CBT). It argues that current efforts suffer from horizontal and vertical incoherence, limited transparency regarding debt and private financing, and a top-down approach that marginalizes social justice and adaptation needs. To remedy this, the author proposes a comprehensive Climate-Responsive Budgeting (CRB) framework that integrates positive and negative expenditure tagging, revenue tracking, gender-responsive budgeting, and regular Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Reviews (CPEIR).

The 2023 Mining Policy Framework (MPF) provides a comprehensive set of guidelines for governments to manage the full mining life cycle. It is organized into six pillars: laws, policies, and institutions; financial benefits; socio-economic benefits; environmental management; post-mining transition; and artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM). The framework emphasizes the need for transparent fiscal regimes, inclusive community engagement, rigorous environmental protections—including climate change adaptation and greenhouse gas emission reductions—and the formalization of the ASM sector to improve livelihoods and safety.

The 2023 Mining Policy Framework (MPM) provides a systemic approach to mining governance across six pillars: laws and institutions, financial benefits, socioeconomic benefits, environmental management, post-mining transition, and artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM). It emphasizes the integration of international standards on human rights, gender equality, and climate change into national mining policies to ensure equitable benefit distribution and environmental protection throughout the mine life cycle.

The 2023 Mining Policy Framework (MPF), published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) on behalf of the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development (IGF), outlines a systemic approach to mining governance. It covers six key areas: laws and institutions, financial benefits, socioeconomic benefits, environmental management, post-mining transition, and artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM). The framework emphasizes the need for transparent fiscal regimes, the protection of human rights and indigenous peoples' consent, rigorous environmental standards to combat climate change, and the formalization of the ASM sector to improve livelihoods and safety.

The guidance notes support the implementation of the IGF Mining Policy Framework across six pillars: Laws, Policies, and Institutions; Financial Benefits; Socio-economic Benefits; Environmental Management; Post-Mining Transition; and Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining. It provides specific recommendations for governments to regulate mining activities, optimize fiscal revenues, protect human rights and the environment, and manage the transition after mine closure.

The IGF Mining Policy Framework Guidance 2023 outlines six pillars for sustainable mining governance. It emphasizes the creation of transparent legal frameworks, the optimization of public revenues through progressive fiscal regimes, and the promotion of local socioeconomic benefits with a strong focus on gender equality and indigenous rights. The guide details environmental standards for air, water, and biodiversity, mandates rigorous mine closure planning with financial guarantees, and provides specific strategies to formalize and support artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) while eliminating harmful practices like child labor and mercury use.

The IGF Mining Policy Framework is a detailed guide for governments to regulate the mining sector sustainably. It is organized into six pillars: laws and institutions, financial benefits, socio-economic benefits, environmental management, mine closure transition, and artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM). The framework emphasizes transparency, gender equality, human rights, and the protection of indigenous peoples. Key recommendations include the use of integrated environmental and social impact assessments (ESIAs), the establishment of robust financial assurance for mine closures, and the formalization of the ASM sector to reduce poverty and environmental harm. It specifically advocates for the elimination of mercury in ASM and the implementation of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for indigenous communities.

The document examines the tension between Africa's development goals, specifically Agenda 2063, and the risk of high-carbon growth. It argues that while pursuing traditional fossil-fuel-led development would significantly increase carbon emissions, Africa can leverage its vast reserves of critical minerals and renewable energy potential to achieve a low-carbon transition. The authors emphasize that climate change exacerbates existing instabilities and that current global climate finance architectures are inadequate, often treating adaptation as aid or providing loans that increase debt. The brief recommends a multi-actor approach to African agency and a strategic shift to place climate change at the center of all diplomacy and development to avoid the 'resource curse' and ensure equitable wealth redistribution.

The document examines the nexus between climate change, human mobility, and development in Africa, highlighting that while mobility can be a strategic adaptation tool, current funding and policy frameworks are inadequate. It identifies significant barriers, including a bias toward mitigation over adaptation, a lack of institutional knowledge, and the politicization of migration. The brief recommends that development actors and national governments mainstream climate-linked mobility across sectors and adopt a diverse range of financial instruments to support people who are staying, moving, or on the move.

The document examines the economic and social impacts of climate change in Africa, specifically focusing on forced displacement. It advocates for the operationalisation of the Loss and Damage Fund to include non-economic losses and provide accessible, non-debt financing for displaced persons, women, youth, and pastoralists.

The document lists global and regional networks that integrate arts and culture with climate action, such as Climate Heritage Network and Culture Declares Emergency. It also details an eight-point roadmap, based on 'The Culture Takes Action framework', which encourages cultural actors to decarbonize, tell the truth through art, support local community transitions, and decouple from fossil fuel sponsorship.

The document outlines how to integrate conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding into the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process, emphasizing the mutual reinforcement of climate resilience and peace. It identifies six enabling factors—leadership, data, financing, institutional arrangements, stakeholder engagement, and capacity development—and provides specific entry points across the planning, implementation, and monitoring phases to ensure adaptation actions do not exacerbate tensions and instead contribute to sustainable peace.

The document argues that a 'social mandate'—broad public support and legitimacy—is essential for the successful implementation of climate adaptation policies. It recommends that NAP teams leverage the Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) framework, which includes education, training, public awareness, public participation, public access to information, and international cooperation. The briefing emphasizes values-led engagement, the use of trusted messengers, and audience segmentation to drive sustainable behavior change. It also provides evidence-based principles for visual communication to avoid stereotypes and connect with audiences emotionally. Case studies from Saint Lucia, Fiji, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Ghana illustrate various approaches, including the use of radio for rural outreach and visual storytelling by women to influence national policy.

The document outlines how to integrate conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding into the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process. It identifies six enabling factors—leadership, data, finance, institutional arrangements, stakeholder engagement, and capacity development—and provides specific entry points across the planning, implementation, and monitoring phases to ensure climate adaptation does not exacerbate tensions and instead supports long-term peace.