Search Climate Insights Directory

This research paper by the Climate Policy Initiative/PUC-Rio analyzes the total public cost of rural credit in Brazil between 2023 and 2025. It argues that the actual cost to society is nearly five times higher than the typically reported interest rate subsidies, as it includes tax benefits, public funding sources, and debt renegotiations. The study highlights significant gaps in transparency, low focalization on social and environmental goals, and regulatory asymmetries between different funding sources.

This report by Transforma and the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI) proposes social, environmental, and governance safeguards for the mining of energy transition minerals in Latin America. Based on UN principles and case studies in Chile, Colombia, and Peru, the document identifies systemic gaps between mining laws and their territorial implementation, advocating for a shift away from historical extractivist patterns toward a just energy transition.

This research paper by the NewClimate Institute evaluates the H2Global mechanism and its pilot tender funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK). The study finds that while the pilot tender incorporates some EU-aligned sustainability requirements, the overall mechanism lacks minimum standards, creating risks of variability in climate and sustainable development impacts. The analysis highlights gaps in safeguards regarding competing water and land use, the absence of incentives for surplus electricity sharing, and limited potential for sustainable local economic value creation due to the mechanism's export-focused design.

This technical note by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI/PUC-Rio) analyzes a legislative report by Senator Carlos Fávaro regarding Bill (PL) nº 510/2021, which proposes changes to the legal framework for land regularization in Brazil. The authors argue that the report favors medium and large land occupants while offering no benefits to small farmers, potentially incentivizing illegal deforestation and land grabbing (grilagem).

This statement by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI/PUC-Rio) analyzes a new substitute text for Bill (PL) no 2633/2020, which proposes changes to land regularization rules for federal lands in Brazil. The analysis identifies some procedural improvements regarding inter-agency consultation and the requirement for active Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) status, but criticizes the lack of environmental safeguards and the creation of unjustified benefits for small properties, which the authors argue may reward environmental crimes.

This briefing by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI/PUC-Rio) analyzes a new substitute text for Bill PL nº 2633/2020, which proposes changes to land regularization rules in Brazil. The authors evaluate the proposal's impact on environmental safeguards, administrative procedures, and the alignment between land and environmental policies.

This briefing by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI/PUC-Rio) analyzes Bill (PL) No. 510/2021, which proposes modifications to Law No. 11.952/2009 regarding the land regularization of federal public lands. The document argues that the bill repeats setbacks from the expired Provisional Measure (MP) No. 910/2019 and introduces new provisions that benefit medium and large landholders and speculators, potentially incentivizing illegal deforestation and land grabbing (grilagem).

This policy brief by the South African Institute of International Affairs examines the implementation of environmental and social (E&S) safeguards for infrastructure projects in sub-Saharan Africa. It focuses on the tension between the prescriptive standards of multilateral development banks (MDBs) and the desire for greater country ownership, specifically analyzing the World Bank's 2016 Environmental and Social Framework (ESF). The author argues for a shift toward country-specific safeguard plans, enhanced capacity building for national entities and state-owned enterprises, and the strengthening of accountability mechanisms to protect affected communities.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and other civil society groups are urging the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to adopt permanent environmental and social policies during its nineteenth meeting (B.19) to ensure human rights and environmental protections in its climate projects.

This research paper examines the implementation of REDD+ environmental safeguards at the national level, specifically focusing on biodiversity and natural forests. It highlights that while the 2013 Warsaw Framework links results-based payments to the provision of safeguard information, the broad discretion given to countries may undermine effectiveness. The paper suggests using systematic gap analyses of national laws and policies to improve implementation.

A statement from a coalition of civil society organizations to the World Bank requesting a meeting to discuss recommendations for the third and final consultation phase of the Safeguards Review for the Environmental and Social Framework (ESF).

This case study examines Mexico's efforts to develop a National Safeguard System (SNS) and a Safeguard Information System (SIS) for REDD+, framing the initiative as a tool for sustainable rural development. While Mexico has made progress by integrating safeguards into existing federal laws and establishing participatory forums, the document identifies significant gaps in the operationalization of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), clarity on carbon ownership, and the distinction between the SNS and SIS.

This case study examines Mexico's development of a National Safeguards System (SNS) and a Safeguards Information System (SIS) for REDD+, highlighting the tension between national implementation and the need for clearer international guidance from the UNFCCC and the World Bank.

This guide, published by Natural Justice in May 2014, provides an introduction to the social and environmental safeguards and standards associated with REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). It is designed for forest-dependent communities and facilitators to help them understand international frameworks, identify their rights and responsibilities, and engage in national safeguard development processes to mitigate risks such as land dispossession and ensure equitable benefit sharing.

This 2014 submission from a coalition of civil society organizations provides critical feedback to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) on its proposed accreditation system, fiduciary standards, and environmental, social, and gender safeguards. The authors argue that the current framework relies too heavily on the IFC Performance Standards, which they claim do not represent international best practice, and that safeguards lack the detail and mandatory rigor applied to fiduciary standards. The submission advocates for a "do no harm" approach, the adoption of an exclusion list for high-risk activities, and a differentiated accreditation process based on the risk level of proposed projects.

This policy briefing assesses the responsiveness of the G-20 to the concerns of sub-Saharan Africa between 2008 and 2012. Using a five-factor framework—goals, international law, administrative practice, comprehensive coverage, and co-ordinated specialisation—the author evaluates G-20 summit outcomes to determine if the interests of African nations, most of which are not G-20 members, are being adequately addressed.

This policy paper advocates for a human rights-based approach to climate finance to ensure that mitigation and adaptation efforts do not violate human rights or cause social and environmental harm. It proposes six guiding principles—including 'Do No Harm' and public participation—and provides detailed recommendations for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to implement robust safeguards, a transparent monitoring system, and an independent grievance mechanism.

The document advocates for a human rights-based approach to climate finance to ensure rights considerations are integrated into the development and monitoring of institutions like the Green Climate Fund.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law argues for the integration of a human rights-based approach into the global climate finance architecture. It evaluates existing mechanisms—the Global Environment Facility (GEF), REDD+ initiatives, and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)—and provides detailed recommendations for the design of the UNFCCC's Green Climate Fund (GCF) to prevent social and environmental harm.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) evaluates the World Bank's pilot projects using 'country systems' (CS) for environmental and social safeguards. CIEL argues that the approach fails to create permanent improvements in borrower countries' laws, weakens safeguard standards, lacks transparency, and creates barriers for communities seeking accountability through the Bank's Inspection Panel. The report warns that the Bank's plan to expand to 'country-wide' pilots is premature and recommends an independent public review and significantly increased transparency.