Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that BRICS failed to harness the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity for collective health diplomacy, instead relying on bilateral arrangements and national interests. Despite declarations of cooperation, there were no 'all-BRICS' partnerships for vaccine development, and the bloc experienced significant discord over the transparency and approval of vaccines like Russia's Sputnik V and India's Covaxin. The author highlights a lack of a dedicated BRICS health institution and recommends the creation of a collaborative think tank, a joint research centre, and a formal pandemic intervention protocol to move from 'vaccine nationalism' toward effective science diplomacy and technology transfer.

The document analyzes the systemic underfunding of Global Public Goods for Health (GPGHs), identifying a 'participation trilemma' where traditional donors fear losing authority, non-traditional donors demand more authority before contributing, and recipient countries lack both. It categorizes funding into four pathways: Treaty-based Multilateral Contributions (TMCs), Voluntary Multilateral Contributions (VMCs), Bilateral Contributions (BCs), and Domestic Contributions (DCs). The authors find that VMCs are the most unequal pathway, heavily reliant on a few G7 nations, and propose shifting the narrative from 'development aid' to 'Global Public Investment' (GPI) to engage a broader base of contributors, including Upper Middle-Income Countries (UMICs) and China.

The fact sheet outlines a framework for accelerating the Global Goals through science-policy-society interactions, the adoption of alternative prosperity indicators beyond GDP, and the realignment of global financial systems. It advocates for deep climate mitigation, the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge, and the strengthening of multilateralism to ensure high-income countries fulfill their financial promises. The recommendations emphasize a systemic approach to policymaking that accounts for intergenerational equity and the interconnections between society, economy, and environment.

The report identifies Geneva's high density of international expertise and neutrality as key strengths for SDG implementation, but notes that collaboration is hindered by bureaucratic processes, institutional silos, and a lack of accessible, informal gathering spaces. It recommends the establishment of a curated, inclusive, and inspiring physical space in the Nations area to facilitate networking, skills development, and the showcasing of innovations across the public, private, and academic sectors.

The report evaluates the 'action gap' since the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment, noting that only about one-tenth of global environmental targets have been met. It argues that current economic systems drive planetary crises and extreme inequality, where the richest 10% of the population emitted more than half of total carbon emissions from 1990 to 2015. To unlock a better future, the authors propose redefining the human-nature relationship through biophilic urban design and indigenous knowledge, rethinking prosperity by moving beyond GDP and adopting 'function-over-product' business models, and reforming finance to bridge funding gaps in low-income countries. It calls for a new paradigm of 'technology co-development' and stronger accountability mechanisms to ensure that the coming decade leads to systemic transformation.

The report identifies a pervasive 'elite–citizen gap' in confidence toward international organizations, where elites consistently express higher levels of trust than ordinary citizens. Based on survey data from Brazil, Germany, the Philippines, Russia, and the US, the study finds that this gap is most pronounced for sustainable development organizations like the UN and is often underestimated by elites. The authors argue that legitimacy is driven by both organizational performance and democratic procedure, and they recommend that the UN increase awareness of this gap, communicate more effectively on its performance and procedures, and strategically engage with young people to bolster global governance.

The document examines the failure of existing multilateral systems to address global-scale chronic risks, such as the climate crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic. It highlights the stark disparity in climate-related deaths and GDP losses between high-income and low-income groups, noting that the Global North bears significant historical responsibility for emissions while the Global South suffers the most severe consequences. The authors propose 'de minimis multilateralism'—focusing on common aversions—and the creation of a Global Resilience Reserve Fund and a Climate Risk Atlas for Developing Countries to enhance human security and financial resilience.

The report assesses the 50-year legacy of the 1972 Stockholm Conference, concluding that while scientific knowledge and goals have increased, an 'action gap' persists, with only about one-tenth of global environmental targets achieved. It argues that the world faces entwined planetary and human crises, where the richest 10% of the population emitted more than half of total carbon emissions from 1990-2015, while the poorest suffer the most. To unlock a better future, the authors propose three systemic shifts: redefining the human-nature relationship from extraction to care, rethinking prosperity beyond GDP to ensure it lasts for all, and redirecting financial flows toward sustainable innovation. The report emphasizes the need to move from 'technology transfer' to 'technology co-development' and to implement 'Rights of Nature' and biophilic urban design. It also calls for improving conditions for change by tackling policy incoherence, renewing multilateralism to manage chronic risks, and establishing a culture of accountable promises for both state and non-state actors.

The 2022 state of global environmental governance was marked by a post-pandemic return to in-person multilateralism, resulting in significant milestones such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the agreement to establish a loss and damage fund for vulnerable countries. The report notes the rise of 'nature-based solutions' across various treaties and the formal recognition of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment by the UN General Assembly. However, geopolitical tensions, specifically the war in Ukraine, and ongoing financial gaps continue to challenge the implementation of these global goals.

The statement criticizes the imposition of travel bans on Southern African countries, asserting that such measures are ineffective at stopping mutations and cause significant economic damage. It highlights the disparity in vaccination rates between Africa and advanced economies, calling for the decentralization of vaccine manufacturing, the implementation of a WTO intellectual property rights waiver, and a shift from unilateralism to collective global action to ensure equitable vaccine distribution.

The document examines how Multistakeholder Initiatives (MSIs) and corporate entities influence the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS). It argues that the transition from state-led multilateralism to multistakeholderism allows transnational corporations and private foundations to direct policy and promote 'technofixes' and 'nature-based solutions' that maintain corporate dominance while ignoring structural inequalities and food sovereignty.

The document highlights the Montreal Protocol as a successful model of multilateralism where science, diplomacy, and the private sector collaborated to phase out ozone-depleting substances (ODS). It details how the Protocol and its amendments, including the Kigali Amendment, have prevented millions of skin cancer cases and cataracts while providing significant climate co-benefits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The brief emphasizes the importance of differentiated responsibilities for developing countries and the role of political will and industry cooperation in achieving global environmental goals.

The report analyzes three types of food system shocks—the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2015–2016 Southern African drought, and the US-China trade war—to argue that existing WTO rules are insufficient to prevent harmful trade measures during crises. It highlights how climate change will increase the frequency of extreme weather events, further destabilizing food markets. The authors propose 13 recommendations centered on four objectives: ensuring food access for the poor, safeguarding farmer livelihoods, improving market functions through sustainable resource allocation, and restoring multilateral trust. Key proposals include banning export restrictions on humanitarian aid, cutting high tariff peaks, and establishing a special safeguard mechanism for low-income countries.

The report analyzes the role of trade policy in managing food system shocks, using the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2015-2016 Southern Africa drought, and the US-China trade war as case studies. It argues that current WTO rules have gaps regarding export restrictions, high tariffs, and harmful agricultural subsidies. To enhance resilience, the authors propose four policy goals: ensuring food access for the poor, protecting farmer livelihoods, improving market functioning through equitable resource distribution, and restoring trust in multilateral institutions. Key recommendations include exempting humanitarian food purchases from export bans, reducing 'tariff peaks' in major importing countries, and establishing a special safeguard mechanism for low-income producers.

The January 6 Capitol attacks damaged the United States' reputation as a democratic leader, prompting various nations to reconsider their reliance on U.S. leadership. While the UK sees an opportunity for a values-based partnership under Joe Biden, Brazil's President Bolsonaro has aligned himself with Trumpism, potentially hindering cooperation on climate change. South Africa views the events as a cautionary tale regarding democratic fragility and a reinforcement of U.S. racial inequality. Turkey expects a return to predictable diplomacy but notes the need for humility in U.S. human rights advocacy. India and other Quad members may pursue more autonomous regional initiatives to counter authoritarianism, specifically from China, due to perceived U.S. domestic dysfunction.

The 2021 state of global environmental governance was characterized by a shift toward voluntary pledges and a struggle to maintain multilateral progress during the COVID-19 pandemic. While some major meetings, such as the Glasgow COP, returned to in-person formats, many other processes remained in a 'maintenance mode' with only procedural outcomes. The report highlights a growing gap between environmental promises and action, exacerbated by systemic inequalities and vaccine disparity, which hinder the collective ability of states to address climate, nature, and pollution crises.

The report examines the mechanism of Common African Positions (CAPs) used by the African Union to articulate collective interests on the global stage. While highlighting successes such as the Post-2015 Development Agenda and the Position on Asset Recovery, it identifies critical weaknesses including a lack of member state ownership, over-dependence on external funding, and a disconnect between AU headquarters in Addis Ababa and multilateral diplomatic hubs. The author argues that for CAPs to be effective, the AU must move toward more inclusive, participatory processes and ensure that member states, rather than AU bureaucracy, drive the advocacy and implementation of these positions.

The World Resources Institute expresses support for President-elect Joe Biden's foreign policy nominees, specifically highlighting the appointment of John Kerry as Special Presidential Envoy for Climate and the decision to elevate that role to the National Security Council. The statement asserts that the selected team, including Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, will prioritize science-based diplomatic strategies and multilateral cooperation to address climate change as a national security and humanitarian threat.

The document argues that Latin American countries failed to coordinate their COVID-19 responses, contrasting this with the coordinated efforts seen in Africa. It highlights how the dismantling of regional health mechanisms, political denialism in Brazil and Mexico, and the instrumentalisation of multilateral organisations like PAHO hampered the region's ability to manage the crisis. The author notes that this lack of coordination, combined with underfunded healthcare systems and pre-existing economic vulnerabilities, led to high death rates and severe economic contractions, disproportionately affecting women and those in informal settlements.

The policy brief examines the health diplomacy of the US and China during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically focusing on Africa and Latin America. It argues that while both powers used health aid to gain diplomatic ground, China committed more new resources and employed a multi-actor approach, whereas the US relied heavily on pre-existing frameworks like PEPFAR. The document also analyzes systemic impacts, such as the disruption of global supply chains and the rise of nationalism over multilateralism, and highlights the critical need for health equity and global cooperation to manage future public health crises.