Search Climate Insights Directory

The document provides a framework for integrating green growth into national development planning, emphasizing that environmental and economic goals are not mutually exclusive. It outlines a planning process involving vision setting, baseline assessment, option development, and impact analysis. The guide details various economic models—ranging from macro-level computable general equilibrium models to spatial mapping—while highlighting challenges such as data scarcity in least developed countries and the 'black box' nature of complex models. Case studies from Rwanda and the 'Heart of Borneo' illustrate the practical application of these strategies to balance economic growth with climate resilience and natural capital preservation.

The document outlines a framework for 'green growth' that integrates economic development with climate resilience and environmental preservation. It argues that while green growth planning follows conventional economic steps, it requires additional considerations regarding social and environmental dimensions, a diverse range of economic modeling tools, and a pragmatic, iterative approach to accommodate local contexts and data limitations in developing nations.

The document outlines a framework for integrating green growth into national development planning, emphasizing the need for iterative processes and the application of specific economic models to balance economic growth with environmental and social objectives.

The document outlines a strategic approach to green growth, emphasizing that economic, social, and environmental goals are not mutually exclusive. It provides a planning framework that moves from vision setting to implementation, highlights various economic models (such as CGE and EE-IO) for impact analysis, and discusses the challenges of applying these tools in developing nations, such as data scarcity and the 'black box' nature of complex models. Case studies from Rwanda and the 'Heart of Borneo' illustrate the practical application of these principles.

The policy brief examines conflicts in the classification of ecosystem services (ES) for economic valuation, specifically critiquing the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) framework. By analyzing 25 valuation studies of water services in Central American tropical forests published between 1985 and 2009, the authors demonstrate that the MA framework can lead to double counting and the underestimation of service values. They propose that valuation should focus on the final outcomes (outputs) that impact human welfare rather than ecological processes. This distinction is presented as critical for accurate natural capital measurement in national accounting systems like the System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA).

The IISD Partnership Review evaluates how the organization defines and manages its collaborations. It distinguishes between formal partnerships, which are focused on project implementation and reciprocity, and other modalities such as knowledge-sharing networks, donor relationships, contractual agreements, and strategic 'critical friend' collaborations. The review emphasizes a shift toward personal networks of staff and associates as a primary driver of effectiveness and recommends a more refined, reciprocity-based definition of partnership.

The report argues that AWM interventions often fail to capture holistic impacts beyond direct project boundaries, frequently overlooking negative externalities and socio-economic shifts. To address this, the authors propose a synthesised M&E framework based on five livelihood capitals: financial, human, natural, physical, and social. The document emphasizes the necessity of baseline assessments, participatory M&E, and the inclusion of both project-level and impact-level indicators to facilitate adaptive management. It applies this framework to review the M&E practices of International Development Enterprises (IDE) and IDE-India, and demonstrates its use in a baseline assessment in the Mkindo watershed of Tanzania.

The report examines the intersection of climate change and ASEAN-facilitated trade and investment in the Mekong subregion, noting that while some countries use trade liberalization for growth, their natural resources remain vulnerable to climate risks. It highlights a tension between low-carbon initiatives, such as hydroelectric dams, and the resulting loss of irreplaceable natural capital. Additionally, it notes that free trade agreements facilitating mining may be viewed as an adaptation to climate-threatened agriculture, though at a high cost to natural capital and livelihoods. The report recommends mainstreaming climate concerns into ASEAN's economic frameworks and implementing climate risk assessments for trading mechanisms.

The paper examines the conceptual conflicts in classifying ecosystem services for economic valuation, specifically comparing the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) framework with an output-based approach. Through an analysis of 25 valuation studies of tropical forest water services in Central and South America, the authors find that the MEA framework can lead to double counting and underestimation of values. They argue that valuation should focus on final outputs (benefits to humans) rather than ecological processes to ensure accuracy.

The report argues that while the Mekong subregion is highly vulnerable to climate-related risks, ASEAN-facilitated free trade agreements (FTAs) and economic partnership agreements (EPAs) largely lack explicit commitments to climate change. It highlights a tension between low-carbon initiatives, such as hydroelectric dams, and the resulting loss of natural capital. The document recommends mainstreaming climate risk assessments into trade mechanisms and fostering cooperation between ASEAN, the Mekong River Commission (MRC), and the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) initiative.

The author argues that traditional financial reporting fails to account for ecological risks and the value of nature, which can lead to catastrophic outcomes like the Deepwater Horizon spill. To address this, the paper proposes a mandatory 'Ecological Risk Section' in annual reports and a financial model where companies pay for insurance to cover a 'damage deposit' for the ecosystems they use. This approach aims to internalize environmental externalities, making nature's value compete with traditional metrics like return on investment (ROI) to influence corporate and regulatory behavior.

The report evaluates emergy—a method that values goods and services based on the total solar energy used directly and indirectly to produce them—as an alternative or supplement to economic valuation of ecosystem goods and services (EGS). Through a literature review, expert interviews, and a survey of 119 environmental professionals and students, the study finds that while emergy provides a comprehensive, eco-centric perspective on sustainability, it faces significant academic criticism regarding its methodological rigour and conceptual complexity. The report concludes that a pluralistic approach combining biophysical and economic methods is most effective for EGS valuation.

The report examines the intersection of trade and climate change in the Mekong subregion (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam). It argues that while ASEAN promotes economic integration and trade liberalization, these frameworks often lack explicit climate change commitments, potentially increasing the region's vulnerability. The document highlights projected climate risks—such as sea-level rise, altered precipitation, and temperature increases—that threaten agricultural production and natural resources. It concludes that ASEAN's trade agreements (FTAs/EPAs) generally fail to incorporate climate risk assessments or mitigation strategies, recommending the mainstreaming of climate concerns into economic cooperation frameworks.

The document examines the necessity of evolving ecosystem conservation strategies in the face of climate change. It highlights that while ecosystems provide vital services like climate regulation and water, they have undergone unprecedented transformation due to human consumption and degradation. The author argues that climate change exacerbates these trends and may hinder the natural adaptation of ecosystems, particularly those already fragmented, thereby threatening the livelihoods of the rural poor. The briefing asks experts to evaluate whether existing policy instruments—such as command-and-control or incentive-based measures—are sufficient or if radically different approaches and a stronger adherence to the precautionary principle are needed to manage climate-related risks and irreversible ecosystem changes.

The document presents a method for analysing water-related poverty by integrating the Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) framework with Bayesian networks (BNs). This approach addresses the 'fuzziness' of livelihood systems—caused by variability, diversity, and uncertainty—by using probability distributions rather than fixed values. The authors introduce a novel way to represent institutions as 'categorical inequality' (e.g., gender) and a 'latent variable' method where indicators serve as indirect evidence for assets rather than direct proxies. The model was applied to data from Si Sa Ket province in Northeast Thailand, demonstrating that locally-originated water supply schemes, such as water tanks and drill wells, can be more effective for poor households than unreliable large-scale irrigation projects.

The report advocates for Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to move beyond focusing on single ecosystem services toward a systematic approach that considers multiple services in all development operations. It highlights how overlooking regulating services—such as storm protection and water purification—can lead to adverse trade-offs and undermine poverty reduction. The document provides a portfolio of tools for identifying, prioritizing, and valuing ecosystem services, and suggests policy options including payments for ecosystem services, regulation, and community empowerment to sustain natural capital.

The assessment calculates a conservative annual economic value of CDN$121.35 to $130.30 million for the Pimachiowin Aki area, with fishing, water treatment, and carbon sequestration as the primary contributors. It distinguishes between values for resident and non-resident populations and highlights that the ecosystem benefits are approximately 28 times greater than the estimated public expenditures for conservation.

The report applies an Integrated Management of Environmental Assets (IMEA) approach to evaluate the economic value of ecosystem services in southern Manitoba. It compares the current landscape, dominated by agriculture, with three reconstructed pre-settlement scenarios. The analysis finds that restoring natural environments, particularly forests and wetlands, could significantly increase annual ecosystem service values and provide cost-effective alternatives to hard infrastructure for water purification and climate regulation. The study highlights that nonpoint nutrient loading from agricultural runoff is a primary driver of Lake Winnipeg's eutrophication and argues that a balance between productive and natural landscapes is essential for the lake's health.

The report proposes the Natural Capital Approach (NCA) as a method to quantify and value ecosystem services to reconcile economic and environmental imperatives. It evaluates the NCA against other management styles, reviews international and domestic initiatives, and suggests a spatially based informatics architecture. The authors recommend that Environment Canada lead a pilot study in the Red and Assiniboine River system in Manitoba to demonstrate the utility of the Canadian System of Environmental and Resource Accounts (CSERA) and ecosystem service valuation for policy design.

The report argues that humanity has depleted natural capital to achieve short-term gains, leading to a decline in 15 of 24 evaluated ecosystem services. It proposes a five-part action agenda: developing ecosystem service information, strengthening local community rights, managing across multiple scales, improving accountability, and aligning economic incentives. To implement this, the authors suggest creating new institutions such as Ecosystem Service Districts, Biome Stewardship Councils, a Commission on Macroeconomics and Ecosystem Services for Poverty Reduction, and a global Leaders' Forum.