Search Climate Insights Directory

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits as 'false solutions' that facilitate greenwashing and human rights violations while failing to restore ecosystems. It argues that these mechanisms allow companies to avoid responsibility for environmental destruction and suggests that funding for biodiversity should instead come from redirecting harmful subsidies and providing direct grants to indigenous-led initiatives.

The report critiques debt-for-nature swaps as 'green traps' that benefit creditors and international NGOs over debtor nations and local communities. It details how these mechanisms often replace old debts with new, more expensive loans, transfer territorial control to external actors, and encourage the commodification of nature. Through case studies in countries like Belize, Ecuador, and Gabon, the document illustrates the gap between promised conservation funds and actual spending, while highlighting the social costs, including the displacement of indigenous peoples. The author calls for the cancellation of illegitimate debts and the recognition of the North's ecological debt to the South.

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' that enable big polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases through 'greenwashing' while causing land grabbing and human rights violations in the Global South. It details how carbon credits are generated from nature-based solutions and 'techno-fixes', warns communities about deceptive contracts and the failure of industry 'safeguards', and provides a framework for resistance based on climate justice and the right to say no.

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' designed by polluters to maintain profitable systems of capitalism and neocolonialism. It explains how carbon credits are generated through nature-based solutions (NBS) and technological fixes, which often lead to land grabbing and the violation of indigenous rights. The guide provides a framework for communities to identify 'red flags' in contracts, exercise their right to say no, and employ strategies of international solidarity to oppose the commodification of nature.

The document argues that carbon markets are a continuation of colonial and capitalist systems that allow major polluters to avoid reducing emissions through 'greenwashing'. It explains how carbon credits are generated—often through flawed calculations in nature-based solutions or technological fixes—and details the risks to communities, including land grabbing and the violation of indigenous rights. The guide provides practical advice for communities to identify predatory contracts, exercise their right to say no, and seek alternatives like community forest management and agroecology.

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' that allow major polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases through 'greenwashing' while causing harm to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It describes how carbon credits are generated from projects—including nature-based solutions and technological patches—and warns that these often lead to land grabbing, human rights violations, and the failure to actually reduce global emissions. The guide provides a framework for communities to identify predatory contracts, demand Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), and organize international solidarity to oppose the financialization of nature.

The report outlines nine fundamental principles of resilience science designed for decision-makers. It defines resilience as the capacity to cope, adapt, and transform, emphasizing that it is an active process rather than a passive state. Key themes include the necessity of diversity, the role of social and ecological relationships, the importance of managing trade-offs through collaborative governance, and the requirement to address power imbalances to ensure equitable outcomes. The document argues that proactive investment in resilience provides a 'triple dividend' by avoiding losses, stimulating economic growth, and delivering social and environmental benefits.

The report outlines nine 'Must-Knows' of resilience science, defining resilience as the capacity to cope, adapt, and transform. It argues that resilience is a continuous process of learning and innovation, requiring diversity in knowledge and nature, strong social-ecological relationships, and the active management of trade-offs. The document emphasizes that investing in resilience provides a 'triple dividend' by avoiding losses, boosting economies, and strengthening societies, while stressing that equitable resilience requires addressing power imbalances and historical injustices.

The report examines the severe biodiversity loss in Latin America and the Caribbean, highlighting phenomena like 'empty forest syndrome' and the 'reverse terraforming' caused by gold mining in the Amazon. It emphasizes the critical link between biodiversity and human well-being, citing the water crises in the Northern Andes due to páramo degradation and the role of soil organic matter in climate mitigation. The document advocates for 'inclusive conservation' that integrates Indigenous and local knowledge, arguing that Indigenous lands are essential for climate mitigation. It also analyzes the impact of global trade and 'telecoupling'—where demand for energy transition minerals like lithium in the Global North drives environmental degradation in the Andes—and calls for a sustainable blue economy and the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

The guide defines conflict-sensitive Nature-based Solutions (NbS) as adaptation activities designed to increase the resilience of ecosystems and communities while accounting for the causes, actors, and dynamics of conflict. It warns that NbS can inadvertently exacerbate tensions by introducing economic burdens, restricting livelihood access, or creating perceived inequalities in benefit distribution. To mitigate these risks, the document advocates for a participatory process involving women and underrepresented groups to ensure co-design and ownership. The proposed framework for conflict-sensitive NbS follows a cycle of assessment, design, implementation, and monitoring, requiring a conflict analysis alongside traditional climate vulnerability and risk assessments to identify potential triggers and peacebuilding opportunities.

The NAP Global Network's 2024 report details its progress in supporting developing countries with National Adaptation Plan (NAP) processes through technical assistance, South-South peer learning, and knowledge production. The Network has supported 70 countries to date, with over 60% of technical assistance directed toward Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Key 2024 achievements include the launch of a new peer learning strategy, the publication of over 180 knowledge products, and the implementation of a monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) framework. The report highlights specific 'stories of change' in countries like Costa Rica, Rwanda, and Côte d’Ivoire, demonstrating the transition from planning to implementation and the integration of gender and social inclusion.

The policy brief proposes that Cyprus leverage its unique island profile and Mediterranean position during its 2026 EU Council Presidency to advance EU-level action on water scarcity, climate adaptation, energy security, and transport decarbonisation. Key recommendations include establishing a Mediterranean Resilience Summit, a Water & Climate Security Forum, and an EU-SIDS Compact 2030, while steering legislative processes such as the Energy Security Framework and ETS revisions to support affordability and resilience.

The report tracks G20 climate commitments from 2008 to 2024, noting a shift from general statements to specific goals like phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies and implementing the Paris Agreement. It highlights the disruptive impact of US withdrawals from the Paris Agreement under the Trump administration and the challenges of institutional memory within the G20. For its 2025 presidency, South Africa focuses on 'solidarity, equality and sustainability', with specific priorities for Africa-focused energy access, climate-resilient agriculture, and scaling adaptation finance.

The paper analyzes how South Africa and Brazil utilize climate financing to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, highlighting the differences between South Africa's coal-dominant economy and Brazil's land-use-driven emissions. It evaluates national mechanisms such as South Africa's carbon tax and Brazil's proposed Emissions Trading Scheme, while advocating for the reform of multilateral development banks to lower the cost of capital for the Global South. The author emphasizes the importance of green taxonomies and central bank risk management in mobilizing private investment and ensuring financial stability during the energy transition.

South Africa's 2025 G20 presidency focuses on four key priorities: disaster resilience, debt sustainability for low-income countries, financing just energy transitions, and critical minerals for sustainable development. The presidency aims to elevate 'country platforms' like South Africa's Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) and bring African climate finance concerns to the forefront. The Sustainable Finance Working Group (SFWG) for 2025 is tasked with strengthening the global sustainable finance architecture, scaling up adaptation and just transition finance, and unlocking carbon market potential. The report highlights opportunities for South Africa to enhance follow-up mechanisms for G20 commitments, engage African Union (AU) structures, and coordinate with Brazil ahead of COP30. However, the report notes diplomatic challenges regarding the US presidency's approach to climate multilateralism and the Paris Agreement.

Rwanda's NDC 3.0 sets an ambitious target to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 53% by 2035 compared to a business-as-usual scenario, integrating Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) for the first time. The plan prioritizes adaptation across eight sectors, including agriculture and water resources, and establishes a dedicated loss and damage response mechanism. Implementing these goals requires an estimated USD 12 billion, with USD 5 billion for mitigation and USD 7 billion for adaptation.

The report identifies four primary barriers to nature-integrated finance: the underestimation of nature's intrinsic value, regulatory gaps, challenges in scaling nature-based financing, and a knowledge gap within financial institutions. It argues that the financial sector is critical for redirecting global capital toward biodiversity protection, noting a biodiversity financing gap of $700 billion annually. To address these, the document details the 'Locate' phase of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) LEAP approach, guiding institutions through scoping, identifying dependencies and impacts using tools like ENCORE, and mapping intersections with ecologically sensitive locations. It provides practical examples from entities such as Banco de Bogotá, Banco Bolivariano, and Grupo Sura to demonstrate how spatial analysis and heat maps can identify material nature-related risks in investment portfolios.

The document details the SFC's Circular Externa 015 of 2025, requiring financial entities in Colombia to identify, measure, control, and monitor environmental and social risks, including climate risks. It outlines the implementation timeline, the scope of applicable entities, and the conceptual framework for managing these risks within a financial institution's risk appetite and strategic planning.

The Flood Green Guide Youth Champions pilot program engaged nine young leaders (aged 24-30) from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia and the Pacific Islands to co-design a framework for youth involvement in flood risk management (FRM). Through a hybrid approach of in-person workshops in Sri Lanka and virtual meetings, the program developed a structure focused on capacity building, civic engagement spaces, and targeted funding. While the program successfully fostered a community of advocates and provided foundational knowledge in nature-based solutions, it faced challenges regarding long-term participant engagement and the difficulty of maintaining cohesion in a global versus regional program model.

The report uses data from 3,911 interviews across over 40 countries to demonstrate that climate-driven resource scarcity pushes both humans and wildlife into closer contact, escalating conflict. Key findings show that 25% of interviews mention increased human-wildlife conflict, often linked to reduced crop yields and water availability. Human responses, such as encroaching into protected areas for resources, and wildlife responses, such as expanding ranges to find food, drive these interactions. The report highlights specific high-conflict countries including Gabon and Namibia and suggests community-driven solutions like nature-friendly fences and rainwater harvesting.