Search Climate Insights Directory

The case of Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan centered on the government's failure to implement the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 and the Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (2014-2030). The Lahore High Court ruled in September 2015 that this delay violated citizens' fundamental rights to life and human dignity. To ensure compliance, the court mandated the appointment of climate change point-persons in government ministries and established a Climate Change Commission. By January 2018, a report indicated that 66% of the priority actions from the Framework had been implemented between September 2015 and January 2017. The case is noted for emphasizing climate adaptation rights in the global south.

The Supreme Court of Nepal ordered the government to enact a new climate change law after finding that the Environmental Protection Act of 1997 was inadequate for mitigation and adaptation. The court ruled that inaction violated constitutional rights to a dignified life and a healthy environment, as well as international commitments under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Following the decision, Nepal passed the Environment Protection Act of 2019 and the Forests Act of 2019.

The author examines the intersection of communication rights, human rights, and climate justice, arguing that 'communication poverty' prevents vulnerable populations from influencing climate policy. The text details how climate change disproportionately affects the Global South and racialized communities, often exacerbating existing systemic inequalities. It explores various frameworks of climate justice—including historical, per capita, and rights-based approaches—and highlights the role of the grassroots climate justice movement in challenging elite, market-based solutions. The document emphasizes that for Indigenous and marginalized groups to achieve 'parity of participation,' they must have access to media platforms and the ability to develop their own narratives to challenge dominant stereotypes and influence global decision-making processes.

The report finds that France's Plan de relance largely neglects natural capital, with 47% of its budget categorized as neutral or impossible to assess regarding biodiversity. While 28% of the budget is expected to have a positive impact—primarily through climate mitigation—25% is expected to have a negative impact due to support for environmentally damaging industries and company tax reductions. The authors recommend implementing environmental conditionality for funds and adopting nature-based solutions to ensure long-term economic resilience.

The Canadian Climate Institute asserts that climate policy can no longer be the sole responsibility of Environment and Climate Change Canada, as it now impacts multiple ministries including agriculture, transport, and natural resources. The author argues that current ministerial silos lead to inefficient policies and recommends the creation of a dedicated Cabinet committee on climate issues, increased resources for the Privy Council Office's climate secretariat, and strong executive leadership from the Prime Minister. The text highlights that successful whole-of-government models have been used historically in Canada during WWII and more recently in British Columbia, the UK, and the US.

The Canadian Climate Institute asserts that Canada requires a whole-of-government approach to climate change to ensure that all departments work collaboratively rather than in silos. While some structures exist, such as a climate secretariat in the Privy Council Office, the author recommends establishing a dedicated cabinet committee for climate change, expanding the Privy Council Office's secretariat, and implementing a 'climate lens' for all government decision-making. Success depends on sustained executive leadership from the Prime Minister, buy-in across the public service, adequate resources, and external accountability through advisory bodies.

The document argues that African countries cannot rely solely on the developed world's unmet USD 100 billion annual climate finance pledge and must instead leverage collective bargaining, critical mineral resources, and regional trade agreements to secure funding. It highlights a significant finance gap and a concerning shift toward loan-based support that increases debt burdens for vulnerable nations. The author suggests that African states should link access to rare earth minerals to investments in local green industrialization and use platforms like the WTO and AU-EU negotiations to protect economic interests during the energy transition.

The analysis finds that emissions trends in 30 major economies are far from Paris Agreement goals, with group emissions projected to increase by approximately 0.4% per year between 2021 and 2030. While nearly two-thirds of the analyzed countries are expected to accelerate mitigation efforts in the 2020s, current policies remain insufficient, as global emissions would need to fall by 7.6% annually until 2030 to meet climate targets.

The analysis of G20 climate policies between 2000 and 2019 reveals that while the number of mitigation policies has increased, significant adoption gaps persist across all sectors. Approximately half of the 50 identified key policy options are not widely adopted, leaving at least one-tenth of G20 emissions completely uncovered by policy.

Recourse urges Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to stop all direct and indirect fossil fuel financing and to commit to ambitious climate finance targets at COP26. The statement argues that current pledges, such as the MDBs' $175 billion commitment by 2025, are inadequate. It specifically criticizes the World Bank for promoting gas as a transition fuel through Development Policy Finance, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) for a portfolio where fossil fuel spending nearly doubles renewable energy spending, and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) for approving nearly $5 billion in gas project financing since the Paris Agreement. Recourse also calls for the World Bank to match the African Development Bank's pledge of 75 million new off-grid connections by 2025 to address energy deficits in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The document outlines a framework for integrating gender equality into climate finance projects, emphasizing the need for local expertise, robust baseline data, and continuity between project design and implementation. It provides specific recommendations for project teams and climate funds, supported by case studies from various sectors and regions.

The briefing argues that the EMFAF is designed for outdated purposes and fails to address the climate and biodiversity crises. It urges EU Member States to use their discretion in operational programming to shift funding away from large-scale industrial fleets and toward small-scale fishers and marine restoration. The author proposes a 'FAIR' framework—Fair, Ambitious, Innovative, and Revitalising—to ensure the 6 billion euro fund supports a transition to low-impact fisheries and enhances the ocean's role as a carbon sink.

In 2020, IDFC members committed $185 billion in green finance, representing 20% of their total new commitments. While total green finance declined by 6% due to the COVID-19 pandemic, cumulative commitments since 2015 surpassed $1 trillion. Climate finance dominated at $178.5 billion, with adaptation finance growing by 42% to $27.5 billion. For the first time, the report separately tracked biodiversity finance, which totaled $14 billion. The majority of climate and biodiversity finance was provided by non-OECD institutions and directed toward the East Asia and Pacific region.

The report finds that Jakarta's urban climate finance from 2015-2019 totaled USD 44.9 billion, heavily dominated by public funding and a single mega-project, the Giant Sea Wall. Despite having the highest fiscal capacity in Indonesia, Jakarta underutilizes private finance, which accounted for only 2% of total climate investment. The study recommends better alignment between the city, the central government, and satellite cities, alongside the adoption of innovative financing tools like green municipal bonds to reduce reliance on central government funding, especially given plans to move the national capital.

The report finds that Jakarta's climate finance from 2015-2019 was dominated by public funding, totaling USD 44.9 billion across 37 projects, with 83% of this amount committed to the controversial Giant Sea Wall project. Despite having the highest fiscal capacity in Indonesia, Jakarta's environmental spending remained low at 8.6% of its budget in 2017-2018, and private sector investment accounted for only 2% of total climate funding. The document recommends better alignment between Jakarta, the central government, and satellite cities, the implementation of climate budget tagging, and the use of innovative financial instruments like municipal green bonds to mobilize private capital, especially in anticipation of the capital city's relocation.

The report analyzes urban green finance in Hyderabad and Kolkata, finding that both cities are heavily dependent on state and central government funding. While Hyderabad has made significant progress in renewable energy and electric mobility, and Kolkata has excelled in e-bus adoption and wetland conservation, both face governance challenges due to overlapping mandates and limited financial autonomy. The study recommends harmonized climate budgeting, increased devolution of funds to urban local bodies, and the exploration of innovative financing mechanisms like green bonds and resilience bonds to bridge investment gaps.

The report analyzes mixed migration in East Africa and the Horn, identifying a complex interplay of political instability, state fragility, poverty, and climate change as primary drivers. It highlights the challenges of protracted refugee situations, particularly the restrictive nature of encampment policies, and contrasts the progressive refugee framework in Uganda with more restrictive regimes in neighboring states. The document argues for a shift from dependency to self-reliance, the harmonization of regional and international laws, and the integration of climate adaptation into migration policies to achieve durable solutions.

The analysis reveals that the COVID-19 pandemic has widened the climate finance gap in developing countries, leading to domestic budget reallocations away from climate projects toward health and economic recovery. International climate finance has also decreased, with a higher reliance on loans that increase national debt burdens. The report highlights that climate-finance needs, estimated at $4.6 trillion based on a sample of NDCs, far exceed current flows, and that pandemic-related restrictions have delayed the approval and execution of critical climate projects.

WWF International outlines a framework for high-impact nature-based solutions (NbS) for climate mitigation, emphasizing that interventions must simultaneously benefit human well-being, biodiversity, and the climate. The report argues against narrowly designing projects for carbon credits, instead advocating for landscape-scale or jurisdictional approaches that align with national strategies and the Paris Agreement. It provides a hierarchy for forest-related interventions—prioritizing REDD, then improved forest management, and finally afforestation, reforestation, and restoration—and details essential safeguards, including free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) for Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs). To ensure integrity, the blueprint recommends rigorous due diligence to mitigate risks such as inflated baselines, leakage, and non-permanence.

The G20 countries account for 84% of global greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and 90% of global GDP, yet their climate commitments and financial contributions remain insufficient. While some G20 nations have submitted enhanced 2030 NDCs and net-zero targets, others, such as Brazil and Mexico, have reduced their ambitions. The document highlights a failure to meet the 2010 pledge of $100 billion annual climate finance for developing countries, noting that finance is often misdirected toward middle-income countries rather than the most vulnerable, and increasingly provided as loans rather than grants. Furthermore, G20 countries have provided more funding to fossil fuels (over $315 billion) than to clean energy (around $280 billion) since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.