Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that while Canadian federal infrastructure programs generally allow for natural infrastructure, significant design gaps—such as high funding thresholds, lack of capacity-building support, and a focus on new 'tangible capital assets' over existing ecosystem preservation—stymie widespread adoption. It evaluates programs like the ICIP, CCBF, and DMAF against 14 enabling criteria, finding that most fail to prompt or require the consideration of natural solutions. The report recommends a 'natural infrastructure-first' approach, differentiated support for rural and underserved communities, and the integration of natural infrastructure into housing and biodiversity policies to address interconnected crises.

A case study in Bharatpur, Nepal, reveals that dengue and skin infections are significantly associated with proximity to garbage disposal sites, with skin infections further linked to reliance on surface water. While nature-based solutions (NBS) like green streets and rainwater harvesting show potential for reducing hazards by managing stormwater and improving hygiene, the report concludes that NBS cannot substitute for essential urban infrastructure such as piped water and municipal solid waste management.

Campinas, Brazil, launched its Local Climate Action Plan (PLAC) in June 2024, aiming for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The plan utilizes an integrated approach that connects climate priorities with social inclusion and nature, supported by a roadmap of approximately 130 short-term activities to ensure feasibility through 2032. To avoid governance gaps, the city established the Municipal Committee for Coping with Climate Change Impacts, which includes deliberative, consultative, and participative groups. Key immediate priorities include expanding 150 km of cycling infrastructure by 2030 and aligning climate targets with the 2026–2029 Multi-Year Plan (PPA) budget cycle.

The document highlights the critical role of Indigenous Peoples in Southeast Asia as environmental stewards, noting that their lands overlap with 40% of global protected areas and that deforestation rates on their lands in Southeast Asia are half those on other lands. It criticizes the ASEAN declaration on environmental rights for omitting Indigenous Peoples, arguing that this lack of recognition leads to 'development aggression,' criminalization of land defenders, and the erosion of traditional knowledge. The brief specifically notes the vulnerability of Indigenous women and the overlooked contributions of marine-based 'Sea Nomads.' It concludes by recommending that ASEAN and its Member States formally adopt the terminology and protections of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) to improve biodiversity and climate outcomes.

The document examines the EECCLiRe project's efforts to implement ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) among coffee farmers in Ruteng and Bajawa, Flores. It identifies significant climate disruptions, including unpredictable rainfall and extreme events like a 2017 drought and 2020 storm, which have pushed some farmers toward horticulture. The brief highlights the tension between scientific methods—such as tree rejuvenation—and spiritual beliefs, as well as barriers like poor digital infrastructure for weather alerts and the loss of agricultural labor due to youth migration. It argues for a holistic EbA approach that combines traditional ecological insights with modern science and addresses gender and generational dynamics to avoid maladaptation.

The IPBES Nexus and Transformative Change assessments highlight a critical imbalance in global finance, where trillions of dollars support activities damaging nature while conservation funding remains severely inadequate. With over half of global GDP dependent on nature, the reports argue for systemic economic reforms, including the elimination of harmful subsidies, the internalisation of environmental externalities, and increased financial flows to Indigenous Peoples and developing nations to mitigate systemic risks.

The Stakeholder Engagement Plan for the Kaf-Adapt project in Zambia's Lower Kafue Basin outlines a framework for involving government entities, NGOs, private sector actors, and local communities in climate adaptation efforts. The project, funded by the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) with approximately $2,760,000, focuses on water security, rangeland management, and resilient value chains. It identifies key stakeholders across national and sub-national levels, including the Ministry of Green Economy and Environment (MGEE) and various traditional chiefdoms. The plan includes a structured Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) to handle complaints within 7 to 10 working days and sets specific monitoring indicators to track beneficiary engagement and gender inclusivity.

The document argues that while green guarantees can mobilize up to five times more capital than loans, they are underutilized due to complexity, lack of technical assistance, high costs, and time horizon misalignments. It showcases case studies from the World Bank Group, Green Guarantee Company, TCX, GuarantCo, and a Sida-IFU partnership to demonstrate how streamlining processes, providing targeted technical support, subsidizing currency hedges, extending guarantee tenors to 20 years, and fostering bilateral cooperation can unlock private capital for the green transition in EMDEs.

The report examines the integration of nature-based solutions (NbS) in Swedish municipal stormwater management. It finds that while NbS principles are embedded in most municipal steering documents, the specific term 'nature-based solutions' is rarely used. There is a significant lack of standardized cost data, particularly for operations and maintenance (O&M). While co-benefits like flood risk control and water quality are widely recognized, others such as the heat island effect and carbon sequestration are underrepresented. The report highlights complexities in the division of responsibilities between municipal departments and private landowners and notes that current regulatory frameworks often fail to fully account for the multiple co-benefits of NbS.

The report examines how urban green space access is often socially determined by income, gender, and age, particularly in rapidly growing cities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. It highlights that lower-income communities often prioritize provisioning services—such as food and fuel—over the aesthetic or health-related benefits typically emphasized in high-income contexts. The authors argue that top-down planning frequently fails these populations and can lead to gentrification or social opposition. Using a case study from the Nakuru River area in Kenya, the report identifies systemic barriers to community-led management, including unclear governmental responsibilities, funding shortfalls, and the influence of external NGOs. It concludes that equitable urban greening requires integrating infrastructure improvements and employment opportunities with participatory design that includes women, youth, and people with disabilities.

The paper examines the 'co-impacts'—both intended and unintended, positive and negative—of urban climate policies. It argues that current literature and city plans overemphasize positive co-benefits (such as improved air quality and health) while neglecting adverse effects and equity considerations. The authors propose a 'people, planet, and profit' framework to categorize these impacts across various urban strategies, including building retrofits, circular economy initiatives, and transport shifts, to help cities avoid policy backlash and ensure a just transition.

The document highlights the critical role of Indigenous Peoples in Southeast Asia as stewards of biodiversity and climate stability, noting that deforestation rates on their lands are half those on other lands. It criticizes the current draft of the ASEAN declaration on environmental rights for omitting Indigenous Peoples, which the authors argue leads to human rights violations, land dispossession, and the marginalization of traditional ecological knowledge. The brief provides specific recommendations for the declaration, including the recognition of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and the protection of Indigenous Environmental Human Rights Defenders.

The document advocates for integrating agroecology into the Water–Energy–Food (WEF) nexus to transform African food systems from industrial, extractive models to resilient, equitable ones. It highlights that while agroecology offers a science-based alternative, it is often fragmented and underfunded. The authors propose that philanthropic organisations, due to their risk tolerance and flexibility, can bridge these gaps by funding policy integration, capacity building, and research. The brief outlines the multi-scalar benefits of the WEF nexus—from the farm to the regional level—and provides case studies from Zambia, Kenya, and Uganda to demonstrate the efficacy of integrated resource management, such as solar-powered irrigation, in enhancing climate resilience.

The report details Brazil's GSS+ debt market, which reached USD 67.8bn in cumulative volume by June 2025, with a strong emphasis on green bonds and corporate issuance. It highlights the role of the upcoming Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy (BST) and the government's Sovereign Sustainable Bond Framework in driving market growth. Key sectors for investment include renewable energy, sustainable agriculture (AFOLU), and water sanitation, while noting a significant investment gap of USD 200bn to meet 2030 transition targets.

The Just Transition Planning Masterclass provided practitioners from Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Mozambique, Malawi, Zambia, and Namibia with frameworks to ensure nature-based solutions (NbS) are equitable. The program highlighted that while NbS are often seen as 'win-win', they can cause socio-economic disruptions, such as loss of employment in extractive industries or displacement of communities without formal land tenure. Participants explored the Climate Investment Fund’s Just Transition Planning Toolbox and identified strategies to mitigate negative impacts, including livelihood diversification, re-skilling, and social protection measures. The report also notes barriers to implementation, such as limited institutional capacity, financial constraints, and community mistrust.

The report identifies opportunities to reduce direct emissions from the food, agriculture, and land use (FALU) sector in Southeast Asia by 1.9 billion tons of CO2-eq per year. It highlights that FALU is responsible for 54% of the region's total greenhouse gas emissions, with deforestation and peatland degradation acting as the primary drivers. The analysis emphasizes 'hotspots' where targeted interventions—such as protecting 20% of carbon-dense forests or improving rice cultivation on 20% of farms—can yield disproportionately high emissions savings. Key solutions include legal forest protection, non-continuous flooding in rice paddies, and improved nitrogen fertilizer management. The report also discusses indirect solutions like shifting diets toward the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet and reducing food loss and waste, while detailing co-benefits such as improved air quality, water security, and enhanced farmer incomes.

The document critiques biodiversity offsetting and crediting mechanisms, asserting that they simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, facilitate greenwashing by corporations, and threaten the land rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It argues that these market-based approaches are 'worse than nothing' because they provide an illusion of progress while bypassing the mitigation hierarchy. Instead, the authors advocate for transformational change, the redirection of harmful subsidies, and the provision of biodiversity finance through grants and direct access to Indigenous-led governance systems.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits, asserting that these mechanisms facilitate continued environmental destruction through 'greenwashing' and risk violating human rights. It argues that nature's complexity cannot be reduced to tradable units and suggests redirecting existing harmful subsidies toward indigenous-led conservation and direct grants instead of market-based instruments.

The document critiques biodiversity credits and offsets as illusory mechanisms that facilitate 'greenwashing' and allow destructive companies to avoid responsibility. It argues that these market-based tools simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, often leading to human rights violations, land grabbing, and the displacement of local communities. The text suggests that instead of market mechanisms, biodiversity should be funded by redirecting harmful subsidies and supporting indigenous-led governance.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits, describing them as 'false solutions' that facilitate continued environmental destruction through 'greenwashing'. It argues that these mechanisms simplify complex ecosystems into tradable units, often fail to achieve actual ecological restoration, and risk causing human rights violations, including land grabbing and forced displacement of indigenous communities. The text advocates for transformative changes and direct funding—such as redirecting harmful subsidies—over market-based commodification of nature.