Search Climate Insights Directory

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 asserts that the TTIP trade and investment agreement between the EU and US poses risks to climate goals by potentially increasing emissions and restricting national mitigation and adaptation efforts. It proposes recommendations to align EU-US trade policy with global climate objectives.

The preparation of intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) has acted as a catalyst for national climate change mitigation action and policy making. Evidence from surveys and interviews indicates that the international process has driven significant developments in national capacity and potential mitigation actions for the period before 2020 for most countries, independent of the specific ambition levels proposed for post-2020 actions.

The We Mean Business Coalition argues that current Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) from over 180 countries are insufficient, potentially leading to 2.7°C of warming. To bridge this gap, the author proposes a formal mechanism within the Paris Agreement—specifically referencing Articles 3 and 10—that requires countries to communicate and strengthen their climate commitments every five years starting from 2020. The document warns that a failure to update policy environments every five years will cause government progress to lag behind businesses and investors, increasing risks for the private sector.

The document examines the human rights obligations of states and the private sector in the context of climate change mitigation. It analyzes failures in stakeholder consultation and sustainable development within the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), REDD+, and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), using case studies from Panama, India, Mexico, and Georgia. The brief concludes that current UNFCCC mechanisms lack sufficient specificity and grievance procedures, recommending that the Paris Agreement explicitly mandate the respect, protection, and fulfillment of human rights in all climate actions.

The document identifies a research gap regarding the impact of non-state actors—such as cities, regions, and companies—on Germany's greenhouse gas emissions projections. It argues that these independent mitigation activities are not comprehensively reflected in the national projections used for GHG targets. The study seeks to quantify how these non-state initiatives affect the 2020 emissions gap and longer-term targets up to 2050.

The SAIIA Youth Policy Committee (YPC) advocates for a legally binding agreement at COP21 that emphasizes high ambition, the integration of adaptation and mitigation, and predictable finance for developing countries. The YPC calls for the inclusion of an adaptation goal in the Paris agreement, the use of indigenous knowledge in local strategies, and the implementation of 'no regret' and flexible adaptation strategies. It further argues that developed countries must fund these efforts and that climate change should be integrated into school curricula to maintain youth commitment.

The document argues for the creation of a coordinated framework for sub- and nonstate climate actors—including cities, regions, businesses, and civil society—to avoid the risks of fragmented 'bottom-up' governance. It suggests that such a framework, established during the 2015 Paris conference, should promote ambition, experimentation, and accountability while reducing overlaps in mitigation and adaptation efforts.

The document identifies critical priorities for the GCF Board meeting in Zambia, emphasizing the need for 'paradigm-shifting' project approvals and a better balance between national and international implementing entities. It argues for increased transparency in the accreditation and proposal process and the urgent establishment of a Strategic Plan to manage the $10 billion in committed funds.

The paper explores the analogy between transitional justice—typically used to transition societies from periods of deep injustice to peace—and the climate change context. It identifies four key similarities: unavoidable interdependence, the inadequacy of current judicial processes, disagreements over the link between past actions and future obligations, and the importance of socio-economic human rights. The author suggests that climate policy could adopt specific transitional justice practices, such as guarantees of non-recurrence, reparations, limited liability, and formal peace processes, to move beyond political stalemates regarding historical responsibility. However, the paper also notes significant limitations, including the fact that climate injustices are ongoing rather than past, the lack of a unified global 'society', and the risk of co-optation by powerful actors.

The report compiles research on enhancing global climate action, focusing on innovative financing mechanisms like microfinance and debt-for-climate swaps, the role of carbon pricing in driving innovation, and the necessity of robust accountability frameworks for the Paris Agreement. It also examines specific urban water resiliency in Patna, India, and proposes a Low-Emissions Technology Commitment within the UNFCCC to accelerate energy research. The proceedings emphasize the need for a multi-level approach to adaptation and the potential for 'climate clubs' to overcome multilateral deadlock.

The 2012 Forest Code regulates the use and protection of native vegetation on private lands in Brazil, utilizing Permanent Preservation Areas (APP) and Legal Reserves (Reserva Legal) to balance agricultural productivity with environmental conservation. A central component is the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR), a mandatory electronic database for monitoring and planning. The law includes a special legal regime for 'consolidated areas'—lands illegally deforested before July 22, 2008—allowing these owners to regularize their status through the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA), which offers flexible restoration parameters and the possibility of compensating Legal Reserves in other locations. However, implementation faces challenges, including reliance on varying state-level regulations, legal uncertainties from pending lawsuits, and the need for individual landowner initiative and resources.

Global climate finance reached at least USD 391 billion in 2014, driven by a 26% increase in private investment in renewable energy and a steady rise in public finance. Private finance, totaling USD 243 billion, remains the largest source, with China emerging as a major hub for renewable energy investment. Public finance reached USD 148 billion, with Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) contributing the bulk of these funds. The report highlights a strong domestic preference, with 74% of total flows remaining within the country of origin. Mitigation projects dominated the landscape, accounting for 93% of total finance, while adaptation finance reached USD 25 billion.

The policy brief highlights how climate mitigation actions under the UNFCCC can infringe on human rights, citing the Sasan coal power project as a case study of forced displacement and pollution. It calls for the Paris agreement to explicitly commit parties to human rights obligations and establish a robust institutional safeguard system, including grievance and monitoring mechanisms, to manage the risks associated with increasing climate finance flows from 2020 onwards.

The policy brief advocates for aligning the 2015 Paris climate negotiations with the UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It proposes that the final treaty include a new article requiring parties to develop national zero-carbon climate-resilient strategies with decarbonization trajectories by 2050. The brief emphasizes that climate action must be integrated into broader national development portfolios—including energy, trade, and health—and that monitoring and accountability frameworks (MRV) should be aligned with the human rights and gender-sensitive principles of the 2030 Agenda.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF), an operating entity of the UNFCCC, aims to support low-emission and climate-resilient development in developing countries. It operates through a 24-member Board divided equally between developed and developing nations and distributes funds via 'Accredited Entities' rather than directly. The fund maintains a 50/50 aspirational split between adaptation and mitigation, with half of adaptation funds targeted at particularly vulnerable countries. However, the document highlights concerns regarding the lack of an explicit exclusion list for fossil fuels, the potential for funding 'false solutions', and the limited requirements for national designated authorities (NDAs) to engage with civil society and affected communities.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is the primary multilateral fund for climate adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. It operates through accredited entities and National Designated Authorities (NDAs), with a target of splitting funding equally between adaptation and mitigation. While it lacks a formal exclusion list for polluting technologies, it employs investment criteria to avoid high-emission infrastructure. Civil society organizations, including Friends of the Earth, act as observers and advocates to ensure transparency and community involvement.

The briefing advocates for Community Forest Management (CFM) as a superior model for protecting biodiversity and mitigating climate change compared to industrial forestry and absolute protection regimes. It highlights that CFM can reduce deforestation rates and enhance carbon storage while securing the rights and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The document warns against 'false solutions' like REDD+ and the 'financialization of nature,' which it claims risk land grabbing and the erosion of traditional governance. It recommends that governments recognize collective land tenure and that international frameworks, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, prioritize CFM over traditional Protected Areas to meet conservation goals.

The document advocates for community forest management (CFM) as a superior alternative to industrial logging and strict protection regimes. It asserts that CFM effectively reduces deforestation, protects biodiversity, and supports climate mitigation and adaptation by empowering indigenous peoples and local communities. The text identifies key success factors such as land tenure security and warns against 'false solutions' like REDD+ and the financialization of nature, which it claims risk land grabbing and the erosion of community control.

The document advocates for Community Forest Management (CFM) as a critical tool for biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation. It presents evidence that CFM often outperforms strict protection regimes in reducing deforestation, particularly when supported by secure land tenure and local autonomy. The briefing highlights the role of CFM in carbon sequestration and climate adaptation, while warning against 'false solutions' like REDD+ and the financialisation of nature, which it claims threaten community rights and traditional governance.