Search Climate Insights Directory

The Cook Islands is seeking USD 299,135 from the Green Climate Fund to ensure its post-COVID-19 economic recovery is green and resilient. The project focuses on enhancing two primary national planning documents: the National Sustainable Development Agenda (NSDA) and the Economic Development Strategy (EDS) 2030. By recruiting a National Consultant and support staff, the government aims to move beyond high-level climate references to specific, actionable green measures, including diversifying the economy and making the tourism industry more sustainable. The project will be implemented by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Management with oversight from the Climate Change Cook Islands office.

The Economics For Nature initiative argues that current economic recovery plans largely ignore the dependency of all economic activity on nature. It asserts that investing in nature to meet Sustainable Development Goals could generate $40-50 trillion in value and calls on G7 ministers to embed nature's values into economic decisions and reward nature-positive outcomes.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the CBD's draft decision on biodiversity mainstreaming, asserting that it promotes 'greenwashing' and corporate power while failing to address the drivers of biodiversity loss. The statement argues that the draft relies on flawed mechanisms such as offsetting, ecosystem accounting, and voluntary certification schemes instead of enforceable regulations to limit resource extraction and corporate expansion into natural areas. It further contends that the proposal unfairly shifts the responsibility for sustainable consumption onto individual consumers and sidelines the role of indigenous peoples and local communities, who protect 80% of biodiversity-rich areas.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the CBD's biodiversity integration proposal, claiming it promotes 'greenwashing' through voluntary corporate actions and biodiversity offsets rather than mandatory government regulations. The statement argues that the proposal fails to address the drivers of biodiversity loss—unsustainable production and overconsumption—and risks marginalizing indigenous peoples and civil society while increasing corporate power.

The project aims to create a standardized global reporting framework for nature-related financial risks, modeled after the TCFD. It involves a phased approach: preparing the taskforce, building the framework, testing it with a diverse group of institutions, and conducting public consultations. The goal is to redirect global financial flows toward nature-positive outcomes by increasing transparency regarding biodiversity loss and natural capital dependencies.

The document assesses the global and regional shortfall in biodiversity finance, noting that the world failed to meet any Aichi Biodiversity Targets by 2020. It argues that conservation should be viewed as an investment with a financial return on investment (ROI) rather than a cost. The author explores several 'green' financial instruments—including debt-for-nature swaps, green bonds, 'blue' financing, payment for ecosystem services (PES), and biocredits—as viable options for Africa. It specifically highlights the opportunity provided by COVID-19 recovery packages to implement a 'build forward better' approach, urging African governments and the African Development Bank to lead in mobilising these resources and realigning harmful subsidies toward nature-positive outcomes.

The Green Economy Coalition introduces the Triple B Framework to address capital misallocation and sluggish growth in the green transition. The framework identifies 'bottlenecks' (structural, processual, and cognitive barriers) and 'blind spots' (behavioral biases resulting from homogeneity in the finance industry) that hinder investment. It redefines 'blended finance' to include non-financial capital—such as social, political, and cultural capital—arguing that these are often more critical than financial capital in emerging markets. The report suggests that supporting 'ecosystem builders' and sequencing non-financial capital before financial injections can de-risk investments and better serve developing countries.

FSD Africa defines 'sustainable futures' as a framework ensuring current interventions do not adversely affect future generations or other groups, emphasizing a 'just transition' and the preservation of five types of capital: financial, manufactured, human, social, and natural. The organization assesses its projects through two lenses: the impact of interventions on these capitals and the dependency of project success on a stable enabling environment. To measure progress, FSD Africa utilizes a mix of country-level macro indicators (such as the Gender Inequity Index and Corruption Perception Index), social impact indicators, and market system change metrics, specifically tracking 'Green finance mobilised'. Practical examples of this approach include facilitating over £100m in Green Bonds in Nigeria and £35.3million for green student accommodation in Kenya.

The report analyzes economic stimulus measures in the Brazilian Legal Amazon during the COVID-19 pandemic, finding that 87.2% of the R$ 54 billion in identified funds had a negative impact on natural capital, primarily due to subsidies for large-scale agribusiness. Only 9.7% of funds were directed toward positive impacts, such as family farming and low-carbon agriculture. The document concludes that the federal government missed an opportunity for a 'green recovery,' leading Amazonian state governors to launch the Green Recovery Plan (PRV) to prioritize deforestation control, sustainable production, green technology, and green infrastructure.

The report identifies 23 financial transaction mechanisms and 35 enabling frameworks aimed at protecting and restoring nature. It categorizes these mechanisms into fiscal interventions, regulatory instruments, new government-enabled markets, traditional market-based instruments, and hybrid mechanisms. The authors argue that while innovation is high in identifying revenue streams, most mechanisms lack scale due to a reliance on public funding, a need for high private-value-capture potential, and a lack of performance certainty for large capital providers.

The report by Friends of the Earth International critiques 'false solutions' to biodiversity loss and climate change, which it defines as market-based mechanisms that commodify nature. It argues that these solutions—such as carbon credits and biodiversity offsets—allow corporations to continue polluting through 'compensation' while stripping local and indigenous communities of their land rights. The document details a four-phase process of commodification where nature is redefined as 'natural capital' and 'ecosystem services.' It concludes that true solutions must address the root causes of ecological destruction by challenging capitalist accumulation and prioritizing social, gender, and environmental justice.

The report argues that 'false solutions' to environmental crises are characterized by the financialisation of nature, where ecosystems are treated as 'natural capital' and traded as commodities. These mechanisms, such as carbon credits and biodiversity offsets, allow corporations to continue polluting by paying for compensation elsewhere, often leading to the violation of Indigenous and local community rights. The document contrasts these with 'real solutions' based on grassroots power, social and gender justice, and the dismantling of capitalist accumulation.

FSD Africa reports that between 2012 and 2020, it reached over 5.47 million people and 3.2 million MSMEs through financial inclusion and capital market projects. Key achievements include catalysing £1.53 billion in long-term capital, supporting 27,000 jobs, and effecting approximately 130 regulatory changes. The organization is now transitioning to 'FSD 2.0', shifting focus toward 'sustainable futures', jobs, and basic services, with a particular emphasis on green finance and Covid-19 recovery.

The GEC Steering Group reviewed four strategic priorities, all of which were downgraded to 'amber' status due to the challenges and increased expectations brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. The group evaluated two major programmes: 'Economics for Nature' and the 'EC dialogues programme', emphasizing the need for better governance and integration with the GEC's COVID-19 campaign. The Steering Group unanimously decided that the GEC must launch a COVID-19 intervention, focusing on structural economic reforms and societal demand for a green recovery, while noting the need for additional funding to avoid unrealistic expectations.

The Global Futures project uses a new integrated environment-economy model to quantify the economic risks of biodiversity loss. Under a 'Business-as-Usual' scenario, the loss of six key ecosystem services is projected to reduce annual global GDP by 0.67% by 2050, totaling a cumulative loss of US$ 9.87 trillion. Conversely, a 'Global Conservation' scenario could result in a net annual gain of US$ 490 billion compared to the BAU scenario. The report highlights that low-income countries and coastal infrastructure in high-income nations are most vulnerable, and recommends a 'New Deal for Nature and People' including the protection of 30% of land and oceans.

The document argues that while there are signs of a transition to green economies—such as accelerating renewable energy deployment in China and India and the adoption of wellbeing budgets in New Zealand—the 'brown economy' still dominates. It highlights that fossil fuel subsidies (US$ 5.2 trillion) nearly equal the investment needed for Sustainable Development Goals (US$ 5-7 trillion). The report calls for a systemic shift from extraction to restoration and from GDP-centric measures to wellbeing and natural capital accounting, providing specific recommendations for governments, businesses, and civil society to accelerate a just transition.

The 2020 Global Green Economy Barometer evaluates the shift toward sustainable and equitable economic systems. While it notes accelerating energy transitions, a rise in green bonds, and the emergence of wellbeing budgets in countries like New Zealand, it argues that the 'brown economy' still dominates. The report highlights that fossil fuel subsidies reached US$ 5.2 trillion in 2017 and that global energy intensity is declining at only 0.4% per year, far below the 4-10% needed for mid-century decarbonization. It calls for systemic reforms to move beyond GDP, value natural capital, and ensure a just transition for marginalized populations.

The IISD's 2020-2025 strategic orientation, termed the CREATE framework, prioritizes driving clean energy transitions, protecting biodiversity and water resources, and promoting inclusive economic rules. The organization aims to leverage the post-COVID-19 recovery to 'build back better' and increase its global influence through strategic partnerships and enhanced communication.

The Living Planet Report 2020 documents a severe global decline in wildlife populations and ecosystems, highlighting the interconnectedness of nature and human health. It identifies land-use change, overexploitation, and climate change as primary drivers of biodiversity loss and proposes a roadmap to 'bend the curve' of this decline through integrated conservation and food system reform.

The analysis examines 'natural climate solutions'—the restoration of carbon-storing environments—and warns that they may serve as alibis for inaction. The author highlights five primary risks: the impermanence and unverifiability of carbon storage, the potential for these solutions to substitute for avoidable fossil fuel emission reductions, the failure of previous carbon offset schemes, negative social impacts including land grabs in the tropics, and the risk of increasing food prices by competing with cropland. The document concludes that while protecting forests is beneficial, such initiatives must be severely capped within national targets and excluded from tradable carbon markets to ensure they do not undermine genuine decarbonisation.