Search Climate Insights Directory

The report critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism of 'regulated destruction' that replaces strict environmental limits with flexible, market-based compensation. It contends that these systems—including biodiversity banks and carbon credits—often lead to a net increase in environmental damage, facilitate land grabbing from indigenous and local communities, and provide a veneer of sustainability for destructive industries such as mining, agribusiness, and aviation. Through case studies in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, the document demonstrates how the promise of future restoration is used to justify immediate, irreversible ecological loss.

The report argues that the 'financialization of nature'—the process of turning ecological functions into tradeable monetary units—primarily serves corporate interests rather than conservation. It details how companies in extractive industries, aviation, and construction use biodiversity offsets to bypass environmental regulations and greenwash destructive activities. The document also highlights the emergence of a 'new conservation industry' comprising NGOs, think tanks, and financial institutions that promote these market-based approaches. Finally, it contends that private sector investment in conservation is significantly over-hyped, serving as a facade to secure public subsidies and avoid stringent environmental laws.

The document lists prominent sustainability schemes for the mining sector, such as the ICMM Mining Principles, MAC's Toward Sustainable Mining, and the IRMA Standard, detailing their requirements for biodiversity conservation, the use of the mitigation hierarchy, and the conduct of environmental and social impact assessments across different stages of the supply chain.

The guidelines define ecosystems and ecosystem services, explaining their role in climate resilience and the use of ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA). It outlines a framework for project proposals, including a classification of environments (marine, coastal, inland water, forest, dryland, island, mountain, polar, and cultivated), and emphasizes the need for an integrated systems approach. A key focus is on achieving a paradigm shift through natural capital accounting (NCA) to ensure the long-term sustainability of investments. The document also provides impact measurement indicators and a list of indicative SAP-able and non-SAP-able activities.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has developed Performance Measurement Frameworks (PMFs) to quantify and qualify the impacts of its climate mitigation and adaptation investments. The frameworks utilize a combination of quantitative and qualitative indicators, including gender-disaggregated data, to track progress toward low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways. Mitigation metrics focus on CO2 equivalent reductions across energy, transport, buildings, and forestry, while adaptation metrics measure beneficiary reach, risk reduction, and the resilience of infrastructure and ecosystems.

The Green Climate Fund's Accreditation Panel recommends the accreditation of Applicant 011 (APL011) for large-scale projects and high environmental and social risk categories. APL011, a regional financial institution in Latin America and the Caribbean, met basic and specialized fiduciary standards, including on-lending and grant allocation. While it substantially meets environmental and social safeguard (ESS) requirements, accreditation is conditional upon the finalization of its consolidated blueprint for E&S management and alignment of its performance standard 2 with the Fund's ESS. The applicant also demonstrated consistency with the Fund's gender policy, despite lacking a track record in gender and climate change.

The document outlines the technical requirements and strategic approach for projects seeking funding through the Green Climate Fund's Simplified Approval Process (SAP) in the field of ecosystems and ecosystem services. It defines ecosystem services, explains the role of ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) in climate resilience, and identifies 'natural capital accounting' as a primary driver for a paradigm shift in investment. The guide provides a framework for measuring impact, lists examples of eligible and ineligible activities, and emphasizes the need for integrated, multisectoral approaches to overcome institutional coordination failures.

The document outlines the role of forests in climate adaptation and mitigation, identifies strategic intervention areas such as forest restoration and 'zero-deforestation' supply chains, and defines the criteria for a 'paradigm shift' in land use. It provides a performance measurement framework with specific indicators for GCF-level impacts and project results, alongside a matrix of eligible and ineligible activities for the SAP.

The guide outlines the technical requirements for GCF projects focusing on ecosystems and ecosystem services under the Simplified Approval Process (SAP). It defines ecosystem services, explains the role of Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) in enhancing climate resilience, and advocates for natural capital accounting to shift investment paradigms. The document provides a framework for measuring impact through specific indicators and offers a matrix of eligible and ineligible activities to ensure projects maintain low environmental and social risk.

The document outlines the technical requirements and strategic approach for GCF projects focusing on land use and forest resources via the Simplified Approval Process (SAP). It emphasizes the dual role of forests in climate adaptation and mitigation, highlighting the importance of carbon sequestration and ecosystem services. The guide identifies key intervention areas—including forest restoration, sustainable management of protected areas, deforestation-free supply chains, and REDD+—and provides a framework for measuring impact through specific quantitative and qualitative indicators. It argues for a 'paradigm shift' that decouples economic growth from forest consumption and encourages innovative private sector financing to overcome investment barriers in nature-based solutions.

The GCF EFA Guidance outlines the methodologies for performing financial analysis (from an investor's perspective) and economic analysis (from a societal perspective) to support the assessment of GCF investment criteria. It provides sector-specific recommendations for areas such as transport, water security, energy efficiency, and agriculture, while detailing the required profitability indicators, baseline scenario development, and sensitivity analysis needed for project appraisal.

The GCF's Integrated Results Management Framework (IRMF) establishes a standardized system for tracking climate mitigation and adaptation results. It requires projects to develop a Theory of Change and a logical framework (logframe) aligned with GCF result areas. Performance is measured through four core mitigation and adaptation indicators, four enabling environment indicators, and a qualitative assessment of paradigm shift across three dimensions: scale, replicability, and sustainability. Monitoring involves annual performance reports (APR) and mandatory mid-term and final evaluations conducted by independent evaluators to ensure accountability and facilitate organizational learning.

The Economics for Nature (E4N) partnership (2016-2022) worked to integrate natural capital into economic and business decision-making to protect and restore biodiversity. The report identifies that while the concept of natural capital helps make nature 'material' for policymakers and businesses, systemic change is hindered by a lack of a globally agreed definition of a successful economy and a divergence in capacity between the Global North and South. Key achievements include the development of the Green Economy Tracker, the '3-returns' investment framework, and the mainstreaming of natural capital into the EU Green Deal and African Development Bank programmes. The report concludes that future progress requires putting people and Indigenous Peoples at the heart of economic design, institutionalising natural capital accounting, pursuing systemic economic reform, and scaling nature-based solutions.

The document argues that a successful green economy transition requires a fundamental overhaul of the global financial architecture to move away from short-termism and 'brown' investments. It advocates for the mainstreaming of natural capital accounting to better value ecosystem services and the adoption of inclusive policy processes that protect marginalised groups and workers. Additionally, it emphasises the critical role of SMEs and informal businesses in driving local innovation, noting that approximately 70% of MSMEs in emerging markets lack access to credit, creating a 'missing middle' financing gap.

The report finds that while Uganda's medium-term planning (NDPIII) is responsive to natural capital, actual budgetary allocations have declined, with only 28% of the 2021/22 recovery budget supporting natural capital management compared to 40% in 2020/21. It highlights significant degradation of forests and wetlands and warns that industrialization goals may further threaten biodiversity without dedicated monitoring and offset plans.

The policy brief asserts that a green economy will only succeed if it is inclusive, ensuring that marginalized groups, such as small-scale farmers and informal workers, have a stake in the transition. It highlights that while some international frameworks and national strategies exist, there is still a lack of meaningful participation in policymaking and a need for strategies to scale decent green jobs. The document proposes several priorities for the 2019 PAGE Ministerial, including the economic empowerment of women and youth and the adoption of innovative social policies like universal basic income or payments for ecosystem services to ensure a just transition.

The policy brief advocates for a 'capitals approach' to economic planning, moving beyond GDP to account for natural, human, social, and produced capital. It highlights the role of natural capital in supporting the Sustainable Development Goals and limiting global temperature rises to below 1.5 degrees. The document identifies several gaps in current strategies, recommending the creation of coordinated Green Economy action plans, stronger green industrial policies, and the establishment of Natural Capital Committees reporting to Finance Ministries. It also emphasizes the importance of the Natural Capital Protocol for businesses to measure their dependencies on nature and calls for new valuation strategies for freshwater resources to combat increasing water stress.

The Economics for Nature (E4N) partnership developed tools, networks, and best practices to embed the value of natural capital into government, business, and financial decision-making. Key achievements include the Green Economy Tracker, the '3-returns' investment framework, and the mainstreaming of natural capital into the EU Green Deal and African Development Bank programmes. The document identifies a divergence between OECD countries and debt-stressed nations in adopting these approaches and outlines four 'frontiers' for future progress: centering people and Indigenous knowledge, standardizing valuation frameworks, implementing systemic economic reform, and scaling nature-based solutions.

The Green Economy Coalition advocates for a systemic shift from narrow economic metrics like GDP toward a 'green economy' that prioritizes human wellbeing and ecological health. The report identifies five key action areas: redefining progress through new metrics, reforming financial flows to reduce short-termism, greening high-impact sectors (energy, food, housing, transport), investing in people to ensure inclusive growth, and managing natural systems to protect essential ecosystem services. It concludes with nine guiding principles for a fair and inclusive transition, emphasizing the need for multi-stakeholder engagement and a move away from resource-intensive growth.

The report examines the relationship between natural capital and human prosperity, arguing that current economic systems fail to accurately measure, value, and manage nature. It highlights that while human wealth has increased, renewable natural capital is being depleted due to a lack of appropriate price signals and a flawed assumption that nature is easily substitutable by man-made capital. The authors propose integrating natural capital into comprehensive national wealth accounts and using the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a framework for protecting critical natural capital. Key recommendations include establishing Natural Capital Committees, using non-market valuation techniques, and supporting R&D for technologies that reduce pressure on nature.