Search Climate Insights Directory

The GCF Board's 31st meeting resulted in the approval of two funding proposals totaling approximately USD 187.6 million, the adoption of an updated accreditation framework, and the re-accreditation of several entities. The Board discussed the Second Performance Review (SPR) and the need for a more effective private sector strategy and simplified approval processes for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

The We Mean Business Coalition highlights that companies using the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) are reducing emissions faster than the global average, noting a 12% cut in 2020 compared to a 5% global decrease. With 2,253 companies representing $38 trillion in market capitalization engaged with SBTi, the author urges G7 governments to align Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) with the goal of halving global emissions by 2030 and to create legal requirements for all companies to set targets. The document emphasizes that a just transition to clean energy—through renewables, electrification, and energy efficiency—is essential to enable businesses to decarbonize their value chains and meet these targets.

The Green Climate Fund's overall pipeline as of April 2022 consists of 438 projects with a total value of $74,879M. The pipeline is divided between the Public Sector (DMA) and Private Sector (PSF), with the highest total values concentrated in the Asia-Pacific and Africa regions. Projects are categorised by themes including adaptation, mitigation, and cross-cutting, with cross-cutting projects representing the largest total value at $44,589M. The report further details funding proposals and concept notes, including their financial instruments and impact potential.

The Philippines Commission on Human Rights (CHR) concluded a seven-year inquiry finding that 47 'Carbon Majors' companies contributed significantly to global emissions and engaged in 'willful obfuscation' of climate science despite knowing the risks since at least 1965. The report details severe human rights impacts in the Philippines, including threats to the rights to life, health, food security, and water, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups such as women, children, and Indigenous Peoples. The CHR asserts that these companies, and the financial institutions that fund them, have a responsibility to respect human rights and provide remediation for climate-driven harms. It recommends that states implement punitive laws for environmental harm, put a price on pollution, and transition to renewable energy by 2030 to meet the 1.5°C limit.

The document analyzes the intersection of the AfCFTA and climate action, arguing that while the agreement has minimal environmental references, it can be adjusted to eliminate barriers to environmental goods and services. It emphasizes the need for a phased decarbonization approach for fossil-fuel-dependent nations and suggests that instead of adding a new Environmental Protocol, existing continental climate strategies should be reinforced. The text calls for increased climate financing, technology transfer from partners like the EU and US, and the promotion of a circular economy to ensure that increased intra-African trade does not lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions.

The document outlines the establishment of a working group to implement the 'Initiative for Conducting a National Climate Assessment in Support of Adaptation and Mitigation: Training and Capacity Building in Latin America and the Caribbean'. Supported by the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), AmeriGEO, and the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI), the initiative aims to strengthen climate risk assessments for local and regional decision-making. Current progress includes the formation of a working group with members from eight countries and the administration of a knowledge-level questionnaire with a 71% response rate. The next phase involves defining the program's scope and creating a work plan and timeline.

The authors argue that South Africa's vulnerability to climate change is rooted in its political economy, specifically the fossil-fuel-dependent 'minerals-energy complex' (MEC). To move beyond simple coping strategies toward 'transformative resilience,' the paper outlines three pillars: a Green Decent Work Agenda (GDWA) to create sustainable livelihoods, social protection (specifically a universal basic income guarantee) to provide safety nets, and radical, state-led land reform to reduce exposure to risk and enhance adaptive capacity.

The document outlines the synergies between climate mitigation and public health, arguing that immediate action to reduce emissions provides significant health co-benefits across energy, transport, urban planning, and agriculture. It emphasises that climate change is a justice issue, noting that wealthy nations and individuals are the primary polluters while vulnerable populations suffer most. The briefing advocates for systemic transformations, such as shifting to plant-based diets, decarbonising energy systems, and implementing sustainable urban design, to avoid breaching the 1.5°C warming threshold and to improve global health outcomes.

The report assesses Ethiopia's progress toward healthy and sustainable food systems, highlighting a projected decrease in extreme poverty and undernourishment by 2030 alongside a significant increase in livestock-driven GHG emissions. It examines the country's vulnerability to drought, the role of climate-smart agriculture in improving dietary diversity, and the influence of Official Development Assistance (ODA), with the United States as the primary donor. The document also details the development of national dietary guidelines and analyzes household consumption patterns, noting that wealthier households have higher dietary diversity and meat consumption.

The document identifies the current global financial system as a barrier to sustainability, noting a funding gap of USD 8.4–10.1 trillion for the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals in developing countries. It argues that financial flows are primarily driven by perceived profitability rather than sustainability, and calls for the 'greening' of market-based investments to move from voluntary ESG initiatives to standard working practices. The author recommends that governments use fiscal measures like carbon pricing and that multilateral development institutions make sustainability norms a condition for co-financing. Additionally, the paper emphasizes the need for international harmonization of financial regulations and the equal partnership of developing countries in shaping the global sustainable finance architecture.

The document introduces the 'provisioning systems' framework as a tool to analyze how human needs are met without exceeding planetary boundaries. It argues that simple policy tools like carbon pricing are insufficient because they ignore the systemic interdependencies between material stocks, techniques, and institutional elements (households, markets, the commons, and the state). Through examples of cellphone charging and mobility (road vs. air transport), the authors demonstrate how different techno-economic paradigms create different barriers to decarbonization. The paper concludes that transformative change requires multi-scalar, reflexive governance and policy portfolios that address systemic lock-ins and ensure a just transition for both producers and consumers.

The document examines the failure of existing multilateral systems to address global-scale chronic risks, such as the climate crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic. It highlights the stark disparity in climate-related deaths and GDP losses between high-income and low-income groups, noting that the Global North bears significant historical responsibility for emissions while the Global South suffers the most severe consequences. The authors propose 'de minimis multilateralism'—focusing on common aversions—and the creation of a Global Resilience Reserve Fund and a Climate Risk Atlas for Developing Countries to enhance human security and financial resilience.

President Biden has ordered federal agencies to conduct a one-year inventory of mature and old-growth forests on federal land to identify threats and inform future protection policies. Earthjustice argues that protecting these forests is critical for climate mitigation, noting that federal forest lands sequester 35 million metric tons of carbon and that logging is the primary driver of forest carbon loss across the United States. The organization advocates for a nationwide rule to safeguard these forests from logging and the continued defense of the Roadless Rule.

The briefing outlines a strategic framework for G20 nations to integrate forest conservation into climate action. It proposes six key measures: legal commitments to minimize deforestation, a collective goal to plant 1 trillion trees by 2030, food system transformation, safeguarding Indigenous rights, improving non-timber forest product markets, and establishing high-quality nature-based carbon credit policies. The author emphasizes Indonesia's role as a 'carbon superpower' to lead by example through expanded moratoriums, social forestry permits, and robust carbon credit frameworks.

The GCF's private sector strategy aims to mobilize institutional finance and private capital for climate adaptation and mitigation in developing countries through a four-pronged approach: promoting conducive investment environments, accelerating innovation, de-risking market-creating investments, and strengthening domestic financial institutions. The report reviews the PSF's performance, noting a co-financing ratio of 3.25:1 and a heavy initial reliance on concessional loans. To meet its updated Strategic Plan targets, the GCF proposes expanding its use of equity and guarantees, improving the accreditation process via a project-specific assessment approach, and implementing a private sector outreach plan.

The report assesses the GCF's network of 113 accredited entities (AEs), evaluating their capacity to deliver on the Fund's strategic priorities. While the network is diverse and expanding—particularly in private sector and direct access entities—significant gaps remain in the ability of direct access entities (DAEs) to manage high environmental and social (E&S) risk projects and large-scale adaptation programming. The analysis highlights a low AE-to-project ratio, which may disincentivize institutional capacity building, and notes that GCF's internal processing capacity is currently insufficient to meet the growing volume of new and re-accreditation applications.

The IEU report for Q1 2022 outlines the completion of an evaluation on investments in least developed countries and the progress of the Second Performance Review (SPR). It details the development of 15 GCF Evaluation Standards to ensure high-quality, credible evidence and reports on the unit's budget expenditure, staffing updates, and communication efforts across various digital platforms.

The IAI Regional Assessment (ER-IAI) employs a co-production model to bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and policy decision-making in the Americas. By utilizing a seven-stage iterative methodology—including surveys, interviews, and policy analysis—the ER-IAI aims to identify specific information needs of governments to guide IAI's research funding and capacity-building priorities. The process seeks to move beyond linear 'push' or 'pull' models of science-policy interaction, instead fostering a multidirectional exchange to ensure scientific output is both feasible to produce and usable for policymakers.

The IAI Regional Assessment (IAI-RA) employs a co-production model to bridge the gap between scientific research and policy-making in the Americas. By utilizing a seven-stage methodology—including surveys, interviews, and policy analysis—the IAI aims to identify specific information needs of member governments to better prioritize research funding and capacity building for global environmental change.

The document examines the role of Indigenous Peoples as stewards of 80% of the world's remaining biodiversity and their historical struggle for recognition within the United Nations and multilateral environmental agreements. It highlights the tension between Western commodified views of nature and Indigenous holistic perspectives, noting that while instruments like the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol have made strides in recognizing traditional knowledge, climate frameworks like the UNFCCC and initiatives like REDD+ continue to marginalize Indigenous voices and rights. The brief concludes that achieving global sustainability requires moving beyond tokenism to respect Indigenous self-determination and leadership.