Search Climate Insights Directory

The IAI and COIBA-AIP have agreed to a five-year partnership to strengthen regional capacities for addressing global change. The cooperation focuses on biodiversity, climate change, and the inclusion of indigenous and local communities, with a specific emphasis on the Coiba National Park World Natural Heritage Site. Key activities include sharing technical information, developing joint funding proposals, and facilitating COIBA-AIP's participation in the Belmont Forum.

The 'Resilient Puna' project is a 6-year initiative in the Southern High Andes of Peru (SHAP) designed to restore and conserve 23,914 hectares of Puna ecosystems (peatlands, wetlands, and grasslands). The project focuses on enhancing the resilience of 60,715 direct beneficiaries, primarily Quechua Indigenous Peoples, by integrating ancestral knowledge with modern science to implement EbA measures and develop Climate Resilient Value Chains (CRVC). A central feature is the 'Puna Facility,' a financial mechanism managed by Profonanpe that provides non-repayable and repayable grants to local initiatives. The project also aims to mainstream EbA into national and regional governance, improve water security for over 2 million indirect beneficiaries, and achieve a mitigation co-benefit of 407,657 tCO2eq.

The statement emphasizes the necessity of a human rights-based approach to environmental policies, arguing that climate action must be scientifically proven, address root causes like fossil fuel phase-out, and ensure the participation of affected communities—particularly Indigenous Peoples—in the assessment of geoengineering risks. It also warns against the distortion of scientific discourse by vested interests, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The fact sheet analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework's (GBF) approach to human rights, highlighting positive inclusions such as the protection of environmental human rights defenders and gender equality, while warning of gaps in corporate accountability and climate-related human rights protections.

The fact sheet analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), specifically Targets 4, 15, and 16. It highlights the positive call to integrate biodiversity into all regulatory processes (Target 4) and the goal to reduce negative corporate impacts (Target 15). However, it criticizes the framework for favoring voluntary 'encouragement' over mandatory regulation, relying on corporate self-reporting through platforms like the TNFD, and omitting human rights protections from Target 15. The author urges civil society to use the GBF to challenge inadequate government policies and to advocate for a binding UN Treaty on TNCs and Human Rights.

The proposal outlines a 36-month project implemented by the FAO to address Venezuela's high vulnerability to climate change. It focuses on creating a National Adaptation Plan (NAP) for agriculture, fisheries, and water resources by strengthening institutional coordination, producing a climate vulnerability evidence base, engaging the private sector, and establishing a long-term financing framework, including a dedicated National Adaptation Fund.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the draft procedure for appeal and grievance processes under the Article 6.4 mechanism prioritizes limiting access over upholding human rights. The organization recommends a complete rewrite based on principles of accessibility and independence, specifically calling for the removal of all fees for marginalized groups, the expansion of eligibility for grievants to include indirect and potential harms, and the implementation of diverse submission channels beyond online forms to ensure inclusivity for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

The proposal identifies a critical lack of human, technical, and financial resources within Bolivia's health sector to address climate-related health risks. To resolve this, the project aims to mainstream health into national climate planning, conduct vulnerability and adaptation assessments, and establish a national climate and health observatory. It also focuses on measuring the carbon footprint of healthcare facilities, improving disaster response protocols for extreme weather, and developing a bankable concept note for future Green Climate Fund (GCF) financing. A strong emphasis is placed on gender-responsive strategies, recognizing the disproportionate impact of climate change on indigenous and rural women.

The IPAG-3 meeting focused on improving direct access to GCF funding for Indigenous Peoples, integrating indigenous knowledge into climate risk assessments, and ensuring the GCF Indigenous Peoples Policy is strictly applied in project proposals. Key outcomes include a commitment to a 2024 global structured dialogue on Indigenous Peoples, advice on staffing potential GCF regional offices with internal expertise rather than consultants, and requests for the Independent Redress Mechanism to build capacity for Indigenous Peoples on grievance mechanisms.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the draft Article 6.4 appeal and grievance procedures prioritize 'abuse prevention' over 'rights protection'. The organization recommends removing financial barriers such as appeal and grievance fees, broadening eligibility for grievants to include potential and indirect adverse effects, and diversifying submission channels beyond online forms to ensure accessibility for indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs). It further calls for the Supervisory Body to reopen the call for input and conduct structured consultations with rightsholders.

The report details a National Dialogue held in Bogotá on August 30, 2024, involving 22 participants from the public sector, private sector, academia, civil society, and international organisations. The dialogue identified four primary barriers to a just energy transition in Colombia: a lack of clear definitions for the transition, inconsistent public policy, weak institutions and regulations, and inadequate social participation mechanisms. While Colombia has a robust regulatory framework, including Law 1715 and CONPES documents, stakeholders emphasized the need for evidence-based policy design, improved territorial engagement, and new incentives for private sector investment in renewable energy. The report concludes by aligning these stakeholder needs with the Colombian government's official JTWP priorities and offering recommendations to the UNFCCC to broaden the JTWP's scope, enhance financial support, and improve accountability.

The document argues that the conservation of biodiversity and forests is interdependent with the respect for the collective rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (PICL). It focuses on the concept of Territories and Areas Conserved by PICL (TICCA) and Community Forest Management (MCB), asserting that these models are vital for climate justice and preventing biodiversity loss. The brief outlines specific policy recommendations across seven key areas: self-determination, decision-making participation, land and territory rights, PICL-led conservation, protection of traditional knowledge, the right to well-being, and gender justice. It specifically warns against 'fortress conservation' that expels communities and opposes the use of financial market-based mechanisms, such as carbon markets, for conservation funding.

The 2024 Forest Declaration Assessment finds that the world is off track to meet 2030 goals to stop and reverse deforestation and degradation. In 2023, 6.37 million hectares of forest were permanently lost, with tropical humid primary forest loss 38% higher than required to be on track. Key drivers include unsustainable production of agricultural commodities and extractive industries, often fueled by demand from industrialized nations like China and the EU. While some progress is noted in forest governance and the expansion of protected areas, significant gaps remain in funding for Indigenous peoples and local communities. The report argues for a radical shift from exploitative consumption models toward circularity and rights-based governance to safeguard critical ecosystems.

The 2024 Forest Declaration Assessment finds that the world is far from meeting its 2030 goals to stop and reverse deforestation and degradation. In 2023, 6.37 million hectares of forest were permanently lost globally, with tropical regions in Africa and Asia failing to meet their targets. Primary forest loss remains alarmingly high, and forest degradation affects an area ten times larger than that of permanent deforestation. The report identifies unsustainable production and consumption—particularly of agricultural commodities, fossil fuels, and minerals—as primary drivers. While some progress is noted in countries like Brazil and Indonesia, and through new EU regulations like the EUDR, the report highlights a massive gap between 'green' and 'grey' financing, with trillions in harmful subsidies continuing to drive ecosystem loss. It emphasizes the critical role of Indigenous peoples and local communities, who face significant violence and limited direct access to funding despite their role as forest guardians.

Between 2018 and 2024, 341 land and environmental defenders were detained across 344 incidents in the Philippines, Indonesia, India, and Vietnam. The report details how legal systems are weaponised through trumped-up charges, anti-terrorism laws, and defamation statutes to protect corporate interests in agribusiness and mining. Key tactics include 'red-tagging' in the Philippines, the use of 'National Strategic Projects' in Indonesia, and the application of vague penal codes in Vietnam.

The OvaHerero va Kaoko of Namibia and Angola have developed this community protocol to safeguard their ancestral territories, traditional knowledge, and cultural heritage. The document details their kinship systems, historical migrations, and the spiritual significance of their land and the Kunene/Cunene River. It outlines the community's traditional governance, the role of women, and their sustainable practices for managing livestock, water, and plants. The protocol asserts the community's biocultural rights under national and international law, calling for the recognition of their ancestral land rights and the protection of their traditional knowledge from misappropriation.

The document defines REDD+ and traces its evolution from a UNFCCC results-based finance mechanism to the use of private standards like the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) for generating tradable carbon credits. It asserts that REDD+ projects, primarily located in the Global South, frequently overestimate their climate impact due to methodological flexibility in baseline setting, leakage, and permanence. The author argues that biological carbon storage cannot fully offset fossil fuel emissions and calls for more stringent, science-aligned standards and alternative financial avenues for forest conservation.

The Center for International Environmental Law advocates for a human rights-based approach to the Loss and Damage Fund being finalized at COP28. The author argues that hosting the fund under the World Bank would undermine its autonomy, restrict direct access for affected communities, and impose inadequate safeguards. The statement calls for a Governing Instrument that explicitly recognizes human rights obligations, ensures the representation of Indigenous Peoples and marginalized groups on the Board, and establishes an independent grievance redress mechanism.

The document outlines a five-year agreement between the IAI and CICAG to strengthen scientific cooperation in the Americas. The partnership focuses on exchanging knowledge regarding climate change, biodiversity, and the role of indigenous and local communities in sustainable development. It specifies areas of cooperation including science diplomacy, open science, and South-South cooperation, while clarifying that the agreement does not create a legal partnership or joint venture.

The report finds that comprehensive requirements for benefit sharing arrangements are not common practice across major carbon crediting programmes. While some projects, particularly those under Plan Vivo, demonstrate best practices by providing detailed monitoring reports on monetary and non-monetary benefits, many others provide only procedural information or limited evidence of actual implementation. Major carbon crediting programmes like Verra (VCS), CAR, and ACR have largely resisted mandatory disclosure of benefit sharing terms, citing commercial confidentiality and a lack of institutional expertise to monitor downstream financial flows.