Search Climate Insights Directory

The Francophone court of first instance in Brussels ruled that the Belgian federal government and the regional governments of Wallonia, Brussels, and Flanders breached their duty of care under the Belgian Civil Code and violated Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court found this breach was based on ineffective climate governance, mixed results in emission reductions, and ignored warnings from the European Union. However, the court rejected the plaintiffs' request to set specific binding emission targets, citing the principle of separation of powers. The case is currently pending following an appeal filed on 17 November 2021.

International climate finance for Brazil grew by 84% between the 2019–2020 and 2021–2022 biennia, reaching an average of US$ 5.1 billion per year. This growth was primarily driven by the energy sector, specifically solar and wind power, and was characterized by a shift toward commercial financing instruments. While Western Europe, led by France, was the largest regional provider, the AFOLU sector—responsible for most of Brazil's GHG emissions—received only 11% of the total finance. Public institutions provided 58% of the funds, with multilateral development finance institutions (DFIs) playing a dominant role, while private finance grew fourfold to reach 42% of the total.

International climate finance for Brazil averaged US$ 5.1 billion per year in 2021–2022, an 84% increase from the 2019–2020 period. This growth was primarily driven by the energy sector, particularly solar and wind power, and a significant rise in private capital from commercial financial institutions. While Western Europe was the largest regional provider, the report highlights a stark imbalance in sectoral allocation: the AFOLU sector, responsible for most of Brazil's GHG emissions, received only 11% of total finance. The majority of funds were earmarked for mitigation (80%) and delivered via commercial debt and equity, while grants and concessional finance declined by 43%.

International climate finance to Brazil averaged R$ 26.6 billion per year in 2021–2022, an 84% increase from 2019–2020. Growth was primarily driven by the energy sector, specifically solar and wind power, and a significant rise in private commercial financing. While Western Europe, led by France, was the primary source, the AFOLU sector—responsible for most of Brazil's emissions—received only 11% of total funding, mostly through public multilateral sources.

The report argues that existing financing for South Africa's just transition, such as the Just Energy Transition Investment Plan (JET-IP), prioritises private profit over social justice and is insufficient in scale. It proposes a cohesive framework anchored in worker demands and a new macroeconomic structure. Key recommendations include the creation of a Climate Response Fund (CRF) funded by carbon taxes and fuel levies, a shift toward 'promotional' monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank to incentivise green lending, and the recapitalisation of the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) to provide long-term, patient capital for public goods.

The document argues that G20 climate finance often prioritizes private profit over public welfare, trapping vulnerable nations in debt through loan-based funding and 'de-risking' strategies. It calls for a shift toward grant-based funding and public investment based on the 'polluter pays' principle to ensure a just energy transition.

A coalition of over 50 organizations in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) demands urgent, health-centered climate action to protect vulnerable populations. The document highlights that the region faces severe health risks from heatwaves, air pollution, and vector-borne diseases, yet lacks sufficient national health-climate plans and dedicated financing. It calls for the alignment of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) with health goals, a just transition away from fossil fuels, the implementation of the Escazú Agreement, and the inclusion of health indicators in international climate funding.

The report evaluates 18 updated NDCs from non-Annex I countries using a new Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) framework focused on needs, design, and credibility. While some countries have improved their quantification of finance needs and integration with national plans, the report finds that most NDCs still lack the granular cost estimates and detailed implementation roadmaps necessary to effectively signal investment opportunities to private and public capital.

The document analyzes the Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI) and Gabon's 2023 debt-for-nature swap as models for mobilizing climate finance in Africa. CAFI, a multi-donor effort focused on REDD+, has achieved emission reductions in the DRC and Gabon but faces challenges regarding national ownership and a lack of explicit adaptation targets. Gabon's blue bond swap reduced sovereign debt by $125 million to fund marine conservation, demonstrating the potential of capital markets for conservation, though it is criticized for high transaction costs and limited transparency. The author recommends integrating adaptation objectives into CAFI, expanding the use of blended finance, and standardizing oversight for debt-for-nature swaps to prevent 'bluewashing'.

The Common Position of Latin America and the Caribbean on Climate Change and Health outlines a multisectoral framework to center health in climate governance. It identifies critical gaps, such as the fact that only 11 countries in the region have national health and climate change plans and only 11.6% of Green Climate Fund investments in the region address health. The position advocates for six pillars: protecting health from climate impacts, mitigation with health co-benefits, climate justice and equity, adaptation and health system resilience, health leadership, and financing.

The Climate Change Citizenship for a Just Transition in South Africa project, co-funded by the European Union and delivered by GreenCape, focused on empowering urban and rural communities in the Eastern, Northern, and Western Cape. The initiative established nine active climate clubs reaching 422 high school learners and facilitated community engagement in national policy processes, including the National Climate Change Bill and the Just Energy Transition Investment Plan. With over 500 participants in training workshops and a high rate of female participation, the project was rated as highly effective by an independent evaluation based on OECD-DAC criteria, demonstrating sustained local ownership and impact.

Global Witness reports that 92% of surveyed environmental defenders have suffered online abuse, with Meta-owned platforms (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram) being the most frequent sites of harassment. The report highlights a direct link between digital attacks and offline violence, noting that 75% of those harmed offline believe online abuse contributed to it. It criticizes social media algorithms for promoting polarization and argues that inadequate moderation resources, particularly in Africa and Asia, leave defenders vulnerable to doxxing, cyberattacks, and criminalization. The document concludes that these digital threats create a chilling effect on the climate movement, leading to productivity loss and, in some cases, the cessation of activism.

A coalition of 63 European entities calls on the European Commission to retain horizontal spending targets for climate and environment in the post-2027 EU budget to ensure a clean industrial transition and economic competitiveness.

The We Mean Business Coalition supports the European Commission's proposed Climate Law amendment, which sets a 90% emissions reduction target for 2040. The Coalition argues that this target provides necessary predictability for businesses and enhances competitiveness, while urging that the Clean Industrial Deal be linked to this goal. It further advocates for the 2040 target to inform a 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) of at least 72.5% and suggests that high-quality international carbon credits used after 2036 could provide essential finance for developing countries.

The Accreditation Framework of the Green Climate Fund defines the requirements and processes for entities to become Accredited Entities (AEs), enabling them to submit funding proposals for climate mitigation and adaptation. It distinguishes between Direct Access Entities (DAEs), based in developing countries, and International Access Entities (IAEs). The framework outlines a five-step institutional accreditation process—nomination, pre-screening, application, screening, and Board approval—grounded in fiduciary standards, environmental and social safeguards (ESS), and country ownership. It also provides mechanisms for capacity building for DAEs, a fast-track approach for recognized standards, and a project-specific assessment approach (PSAA) as a pilot alternative to institutional accreditation.

The report examines the three types of non-deterioration obligations in the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRL): continuous improvement, non-deterioration of good status, and pre-restoration non-deterioration. It argues that these obligations are not merely effort-based but require 'appropriate measures' and are essential for the long-term success of ecosystem restoration. The analysis highlights the interplay between the NRL and the Habitats Directive, particularly regarding Natura 2000 sites, and critiques the uniform National Restoration Plan (NRP) format for providing inadequate guidance on demonstrating compliance with these obligations. It also details the strict criteria for derogations, such as force majeure and overriding public interest, emphasizing that they must be interpreted narrowly to avoid undermining overall restoration targets.

The document outlines a comprehensive framework for tracking global climate finance, focusing on real-economy investments in mitigation, adaptation, and dual-benefit activities. It defines a multi-layered taxonomy covering finance origins (domestic, international, indeterminate), actors (public, private, third-sector), and financial instruments. The methodology emphasizes a conservative approach to avoid double counting and carbon lock-in, utilizing a mix of primary project-level data and secondary market-sizing benchmarks from sources like the IEA and BNEF. Key 2025 updates include the integration of Luxembourg Green Exchange bond data, a new project-level hydrogen investment dataset, and the first-time inclusion of 2- and 3-wheeler electric vehicle sales in China and India.

The document explains that human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, have increased average global temperatures by approximately one degree Celsius since 1880. It details the resulting impacts, including more frequent extreme weather, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification. The text outlines strategies for addressing these challenges through climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience, while describing the roles of the U.S. government, corporations, and the United Nations in implementing these solutions.

The document explains that global warming, driven primarily by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and agriculture, has increased average global temperatures by approximately 1 degree Celsius since 1880. It details the resulting impacts, including more frequent extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification. The text outlines various responses, such as the transition to renewable energy, energy efficiency, and the roles of the United Nations and the U.S. government in international agreements like the Paris Agreement. It also defines key concepts such as climate adaptation, mitigation, and resilience, and discusses the role of climate finance in supporting these efforts.

The Global Resilience Partnership (GRP) Indicator Guidance 2024-2029 establishes a standardized monitoring and evaluation framework for its grantees and partners. The framework is structured around four core indicators (CORE1-4) and three thematic work areas: Innovation (INN1-6), Knowledge (KNO1-3), and Policy (POL1-3). Core indicators track people supported, investments mobilised, people more resilient, and organisations supported. The guidance specifies mandatory reporting requirements, data calculation methods, and disaggregation standards, particularly for sex, age, and disability. It defines 'resilience' as the ability to persist in crises, adapt to risks, and transform positively. The document also aligns these metrics with USAID and UK ICF indicators to ensure international reporting compatibility.