Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines how climate change and sea level rise threaten coastal communities and military infrastructure, potentially leading to social instability and reduced military readiness. It advocates for the use of nature-based solutions—such as mangroves, coral reefs, and salt marshes—as cost-effective alternatives or supplements to artificial infrastructure to dissipate wave energy and reduce flooding. The author highlights specific military applications, including US Department of Defense projects in Florida and UK efforts in overseas territories, and suggests that supporting these ecological defenses in partner nations can bolster strategic alliances and global security.

The report argues that climate adaptation is now a business imperative due to increasing physical risks and economic losses. It identifies three 'entry points' for private finance: 'Protect' (safeguarding existing assets and supply chains), 'Grow' (investing in early-stage and mature companies developing resilience technologies), and 'Participate' (co-investing in public sector infrastructure projects). The analysis highlights that adaptation investments can yield high benefit-to-cost ratios, particularly in emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs), and that valuation multiples for resilience solution providers are promising, with a median of 9 times revenue.

The report finds that ADNOC's climate strategy is not aligned with a 1.5°C pathway, characterized by significant oil and gas expansion and insufficient transparency. ADNOC has the highest absolute short-term expansion overshooting the IEA NZE scenario worldwide, with 8,343 mmboe from fields with Final Investment Decisions (FID) after 2021. The company plans to increase crude oil production capacity by 25% between 2020 and 2027 and intends to expand its LNG capacity through new terminals in the UAE, India, and the Netherlands. Low-carbon investments represent only 10% of its 2023-27 CAPEX, and renewables are projected to make up less than 7% of its energy mix by 2030. Furthermore, ADNOC lacks scope 3 emission targets and does not provide detailed financial statements or production forecasts for 2030, hindering a full assessment of its transition risks.

The report analyzes planning frameworks, negotiation methods, and financing models used by city water authorities (CWAs) in LMICs to secure resilient water supplies. It identifies that while tools like Scenario Analysis, Robust Decision Support (RDS), and Climate Risk-based Decision Analysis (CRIDA) exist, their implementation is often hindered by low technical capacity, data gaps, and reactive planning driven by crises. Successful negotiation often relies on incentivization, trusted intermediaries, and public buy-in, while financing varies from traditional tariffs and grants to innovative mechanisms like Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) and water funds. Case studies from cities such as São Paulo, Cape Town, and Amman illustrate the practical application and challenges of these strategies.

The document presents case studies on mangrove restoration in Grenada and biological corridors in Costa Rica to demonstrate how nature-based solutions (NbS) can enhance climate resilience while protecting biodiversity. It argues that to achieve 'multiple wins' for biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, projects must be designed from the outset to provide measurable benefits for ecosystem health.

The We Mean Business Coalition calls for COP28 to establish clear fossil fuel phase-out deadlines, sector-specific targets, and more ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The coalition emphasizes the need for increased finance for nature-based solutions, support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and global financial system reforms to ensure a just transition.

The MTR rates the project's relevance as Highly Satisfactory and its overall effectiveness and efficiency as Moderately Satisfactory. While the project has successfully engaged local communities and established strong biodiversity baselines, it has faced significant delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, government restructuring, and legislative bottlenecks regarding the disbursement of grants and revolving funds. Financial disbursement is low, with only 48% of expected costs for the first two years spent. However, the project is rated as 'Likely' for sustainability due to its integration with the broader Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) Program and strong country ownership.

The document provides a detailed overview of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, distinguishing between the bilateral/multilateral trading of Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs) under Article 6.2 and the UN-supervised global carbon market under Article 6.4. It highlights critical concerns regarding double counting, the lack of oversight in Article 6.2, the risks associated with transitioning legacy Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, and the potential for 'emissions avoidance' to undermine environmental integrity. The guide outlines key priorities for COP28, including the need for stricter reporting rules, a code of conduct for confidentiality, and the establishment of independent grievance processes.

The Community Resilience Partnership Program (CRPP) is a regional initiative managed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to strengthen the climate resilience of approximately 3.2 million poor and vulnerable people in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, and Vanuatu. The program is structured into two components: a Trust Fund (TF) for upstream capacity building and knowledge generation, and an Investment Fund (IF) for downstream implementation of adaptation measures. The IF focuses on three primary outputs: improving climate risk information systems, implementing climate-resilient pro-poor livelihoods, and constructing pro-poor climate adaptation infrastructure. The program emphasizes transformational adaptation, gender equality, and the use of nature-based solutions to address the disproportionate impacts of climate change on marginalized populations.

The project aims to protect approximately 799,445 direct beneficiaries in Bosnia and Herzegovina from intensifying climate-induced floods. It scales up a prototype from the Vrbas River basin to a national level, integrating a centralized and community-based Flood Forecasting and Early Warning System (FFEWS) with structural and ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) measures. The initiative focuses on six target basins: Vrbas, Una-Sana, Bosna, Drina, Neretva, and Trebišnjica. Key components include upgrading the hydrometric network, mainstreaming flood risk into sectoral policies (agriculture, forestry, hydropower), and developing innovative risk financing and insurance mechanisms to ensure long-term sustainability.

The Strategic Framework and Country Program (SFCP) for Kiribati outlines a structured approach to accessing climate finance to enhance national resilience and mitigation. It establishes a project pipeline and a programming cycle managed by the Climate Finance Division (CFD) of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MFED). The framework prioritizes sectors such as coastal protection, water and food security, and energy transition, while emphasizing the need for community-based adaptation and gender-responsive programming. It identifies key international partners, including the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Adaptation Fund (AF), and the World Bank, to bridge the significant infrastructure and adaptation funding gap, which is estimated by the IMF to require up to 6% of GDP annually.

The report outlines the strategic positions of African nations and multilateral structures at COP28, emphasizing the Nairobi Declaration and the AU's Climate Change and Resilient Strategy and Action Plan. It details the leadership of specific countries in areas such as green hydrogen (Morocco, Kenya), critical minerals (Namibia), and forest restoration (Ethiopia, Rwanda, Republic of Congo), while analyzing the influence of negotiating blocs like the G77 and China, BASIC, and the LDC group in securing climate finance and adaptation support.

The proposal seeks USD 599,932 over 24 months to address five key barriers hindering the integration of green infrastructure and nature-based solutions (NbS) in Chile. These barriers include the lack of a long-term national strategy, weak interinstitutional governance, insufficient technical data, limited investment, and low public awareness. The project, implemented by the FAO and led by the Ministry of Housing and Urbanism (MINVU) and the Ministry of the Environment (MMA), will create the National Green Infrastructure Strategy (ENIV), a Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system, and a financing strategy. Key activities include conducting technical studies on disaster risk reduction and zoning modeling for urban vegetation, as well as holding regional workshops across all 16 Chilean regions to ensure participatory development and gender inclusion.

The National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC) is seeking USD 199,966.00 from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) over 12 months to align its monitoring, evaluation, and reporting systems with the GCF's Integrated Results Management Framework (IRMF). The project aims to bridge gaps in NTNC's ability to transform project ideas into bankable proposals and to effectively measure results across its pipeline of climate resilience projects in Nepal. Key activities include capacity needs assessments, the development of training curricula, and residential training for 20 officers on Theory of Change, logical frameworks, and paradigm shift evaluations. This support is intended to facilitate the implementation of existing projects, such as FP 131 in the Gandaki River Basin, and the development of new initiatives in regions like Karnali Province, Madhesh Province, and the Kathmandu Valley.

Between 2017 and 2021, international public adaptation finance for developing countries stayed at or below US$25 billion annually, with a 15 per cent drop to US$21 billion in 2021. The report highlights a lower disbursement ratio for adaptation (66 per cent) compared to general development finance (98 per cent), citing barriers such as low grant-to-loan ratios and limited technical capacity. While grants are more prevalent for Least Developed Countries (52 per cent) and Small Island Developing States (67 per cent), less than 17 per cent of commitments targeted local communities. The document emphasizes that while domestic and private finance are vital, they cannot bridge the gap alone, particularly in low-income countries.

The Greening Transportation Infrastructure Development Integrated Program (GRID IP) is a multi-country initiative designed to mitigate the environmental impacts of roads, rail, waterways, and ports. By intervening in the upstream phases of the infrastructure lifecycle—specifically through policy reform, integrated spatial planning, and the mobilization of green finance—the program seeks to prevent habitat fragmentation, forest loss, and GHG emissions. The program is structured around four components: improving enabling conditions, inclusive planning and design, developing finance and de-risking mechanisms, and global knowledge management. It targets specific sites, including ports in Malaysia and Suriname, and road networks in Nepal, the Philippines, and Ukraine, with an overall GEF program financing request of $23,794,476 and total co-financing of $408,915,662.

The study examines the interrelationship between climate change mitigation (CCM) and adaptation (CCA), arguing that integrating these actions can increase cost-effectiveness and leverage climate finance. It finds that while most analyzed countries (Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa) and Germany acknowledge co-benefits, they lack explicit, integrated implementation plans and face a significant funding imbalance, with mitigation receiving substantially more finance than adaptation. The report recommends a 'whole-of-government' approach, including green budgeting and standardized taxonomies, to better identify and fund synergistic projects.

The report finds that comprehensive requirements for benefit sharing arrangements are not common practice across major carbon crediting programmes. While some projects, particularly those under Plan Vivo, demonstrate best practices by providing detailed monitoring reports on monetary and non-monetary benefits, many others provide only procedural information or limited evidence of actual implementation. Major carbon crediting programmes like Verra (VCS), CAR, and ACR have largely resisted mandatory disclosure of benefit sharing terms, citing commercial confidentiality and a lack of institutional expertise to monitor downstream financial flows.

The report argues that nature-based solutions (NBS) and carbon offset schemes often serve as 'escapes' for major polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases while facilitating land grabbing and violating human rights. It provides numerous case studies across Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, and the Americas, highlighting systemic issues such as inflated carbon baselines, lack of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), and the failure of projects to deliver promised carbon reductions or community benefits. Specific examples include REDD+ projects in Gabon and Zimbabwe, soil carbon initiatives in Kenya and the US, and cookstove offsets in India.

The document is a curated list of resources published between 2005 and 2023 that challenge the validity and ethics of various climate mitigation strategies. It categorizes these resources into reports and briefings, blogs, articles, press releases, and other media. The listed materials focus on the perceived dangers of carbon markets, geoengineering, and corporate-led 'net zero' strategies, often framing them as 'false solutions' that may facilitate continued fossil fuel use or result in 'green colonialism'.