Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines how corruption—defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain—can sabotage conservation projects. It analyzes three specific intervention types: Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES), carbon offset co-benefits, and benefit-sharing in Protected Areas (PA) and Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECM). For each, it identifies systemic risks such as elite capture, data manipulation, and the misappropriation of funds, while proposing responses including participatory planning, independent monitoring, and the establishment of grievance mechanisms.

The document outlines how corruption—defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain—can sabotage sustainable livelihood projects. It provides a framework for analyzing corruption through the lens of incentive, opportunity, and rationalization. The guide is structured into three modules: Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES), carbon compensation co-benefits, and benefit sharing from protected areas (PAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). For each, it identifies specific risks—such as elite capture, data manipulation, and the diversion of funds—and proposes corresponding responses, including the use of integrity pacts, grievance redress mechanisms, and inclusive, rights-based stakeholder engagement.

The document outlines how corruption can sabotage conservation efforts by creating opportunities for illicit private gain. It provides a framework for addressing these risks across three main intervention types: payments for ecosystem services (PES), carbon offsets, and protected areas/Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECM). For each, it identifies specific corruption risks—such as elite capture, data manipulation, and the undermining of land rights—and suggests corresponding anti-corruption responses, including participatory mechanisms, transparency requirements, and independent accountability systems.

Reclaim Finance argues that the GFANZ consultation draft lacks sufficient rigor and clarity, specifically regarding 2030 emission reduction targets, the cessation of fossil fuel expansion, and the definition of net zero. The organization advocates for the adoption of Race to Zero (RTZ) criteria, including a 50% reduction in financed emissions by 2030 and the requirement for permanent carbon removals (at least 1,000 years) to neutralize residual emissions. Reclaim Finance further challenges the classification of fossil gas as a transition fuel and calls for more stringent accountability mechanisms, such as the exclusion of financial institutions from alliances if they fail to implement credible, RTZ-aligned transition plans.

The document details the 'Pani Chautari' (water forum) methodology implemented by the Southasia Institute of Advanced Studies (SIAS) in Dhulikhel, Nepal. This approach used multi-stakeholder dialogues to bridge the gap between scientific research and local action to address water scarcity caused by urbanization and climate change. Key outcomes included the institutionalization of a water council, the implementation of 'one ward, one pond' groundwater recharge programs, and increased municipal reliance on evidence-based policy-making.

The document argues that achieving a sustainable future requires 'decoupling' economic growth from resource use and waste. While the global transition toward renewable energy reduces fossil fuel reliance, it increases the demand for critical minerals and creates new challenges regarding e-waste. For Africa, this transition presents opportunities for industrialization and green technology adoption, but risks include stranded assets, economic marginalization, and governance failures in the mining sector.

The GCF has approved USD 2.73 billion in forest finance, split between REDD+ (USD 851.1 million) and JMA (USD 1.73 billion). The report highlights that these two approaches are complementary, with significant overlap in readiness and implementation phases. The GCF aims to leverage both public and private finance to scale up deforestation-free supply chains and high-quality carbon credits.

Natural Justice argues that the Climate Change Bill is insufficient due to a lack of urgent timeframes, the absence of concrete emission reduction targets aligned with the Paris Agreement, and inadequate provisions for funding and capacity-building at the local and provincial levels. The submission calls for the Bill to explicitly recognize nature-based solutions like forest protection, ensure transparency through automatic public access to information, and facilitate a just energy transition by phasing out fossil fuels.

The report utilizes system dynamics modelling and financial analysis to evaluate restoration options for the Katingan peatlands and Belitung mangroves in Indonesia. It finds that sustainable management of these ecosystems provides high societal value across all simulated climate scenarios and offers a cost-effective method for climate change mitigation and community support. However, the report emphasizes that for land rehabilitation to be economically viable and lasting, local communities require additional income sources, such as tourism, to prevent a shift toward environmentally damaging activities like mining and plantations.

The document highlights the interconnectedness of nature, society, and the economy, using the devastating floods in KwaZulu-Natal as a catalyst for discussing climate risks. It outlines South Africa's efforts to transition from fossil fuels via a US$8.5 billion Just Energy Transition Partnership and its progress in expanding protected land and marine areas. The text emphasizes the role of innovative financing, such as the World Bank's US$150 million "Rhino Bond," and nature-based solutions in achieving sustainable development. Finally, it situates these efforts within global frameworks like the Paris Agreement and the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, as well as regional initiatives like the African Union Climate Change and Resilient Development Strategy and Action Plan.

The document provides conceptual clarity on nature-based solutions (NbS) and ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA), emphasizing that for these solutions to be effective and legitimate, they must integrate gender responsiveness, social inclusion, and robust environmental safeguards.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) outlines a framework of ten 'guard rails' to ensure that the voluntary use of nature-based solution (NBS) carbon credits supports the 1.5°C warming limit and protects biodiversity and human rights. The guidance distinguishes between using credits to 'counterbalance' unabated emissions—which requires a science-based reduction pathway—and using them to 'contribute' to a jurisdiction's climate mitigation. WRI emphasizes a shift from project-level to jurisdictional-scale REDD+ credits and mandates transparent reporting aligned with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.

Nepal faces significant climate vulnerabilities, including flash floods, landslides, and water scarcity, with temperatures projected to rise up to 1.8°C even if global warming is limited to 1.5°C. While the country has a robust set of national policies and a federal structure that empowers local governments, the implementation of climate resilience at the municipal level is hindered by a lack of technical capacity, unclear jurisdictional responsibilities, and limited financial resources. The brief recommends establishing 'resilience cells' to coordinate inter-ministerial efforts, integrating climate indicators into local budget performance measures, and adopting integrated planning that combines mitigation, adaptation, and disaster risk reduction through nature-based solutions.

The briefing outlines the political and structural challenges Brazil faces in achieving net-zero emissions, focusing on land use, agriculture, transport, carbon markets, waste management, and industry. It argues that climate policies must be aligned with national development and income generation to overcome weak governance and industry opposition. The report highlights specific opportunities for international funding, such as supporting biomethane, nature-based solutions in carbon markets, and technology transfer for industrial decarbonization and waste sorting.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework, asserting that it relies on the scientifically flawed assumption that ongoing fossil fuel emissions can be offset by carbon removals. It specifically analyzes how initiatives like ART-TREES and the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) attempt to standardize and merge different types of carbon credits—avoided emissions, reduced emissions, and removals—into single, fungible assets to increase market scale. The report warns that this 'house of cards' encourages continued fossil fuel use, risks creating a 'subprime carbon' financial crisis through derivatives and speculation, and threatens the rights of Indigenous peoples through land grabbing for nature-based solutions.

The report critiques the 'net zero' framework and the expansion of carbon offset markets, asserting that they create a false equivalence between carbon removals and avoided emissions. It argues that these mechanisms serve as a 'house of cards' designed to protect stranded fossil fuel assets by providing a veneer of climate action while allowing ongoing emissions. The document specifically highlights the efforts of the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) and the Architecture for REDD+ Transactions (ART-TREES) to standardize and commodify different types of carbon credits to increase market volume. It concludes that the only viable path to limiting warming to 1.5°C is a rapid, just transition to renewable energy and the immediate phase-out of fossil fuels, rather than reliance on speculative carbon removal technologies or flawed offsetting schemes.

The document critiques the 'fossil bet on the future,' claiming that carbon offsets and net-zero goals serve as a 'house of cards' to maintain fossil fuel dependence. It specifically targets the amalgamation of carbon capture, emission reductions, and avoided emissions into single, fungible credit units, arguing that such mechanisms do not actually reduce atmospheric CO2 and may lead to increased warming. The report highlights the role of the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) and ART-TREES in standardizing these credits to facilitate financial speculation and the 're-floating' of stranded assets.

The report demonstrates that nature-related risks are material for African financial institutions, particularly in the agriculture and extractives sectors. Using the TNFD's LEAP approach, it finds that ambitious nature-positive transitions could lead to equity value changes between +2% and -5% and loan book changes between +0.3% and -0.6% by 2030. While aggregate portfolio impacts appear small due to limited sector exposure, specific risks in agriculture and extractives could double expected credit losses for some portfolios. The report highlights critical physical risks, such as water stress affecting 25% of African countries and habitat loss threatening ecotourism in Eastern and Southern Africa. It concludes that African financial institutions face significant capacity and data gaps in implementing nature-related disclosures and recommends an integrated approach that combines climate and nature risk management.

The paper argues that COVID-19 recovery should move beyond short-term stimulus to 'structural reforms' that are systemic, long-lasting, and general purpose. It introduces a 'Green Structural Recovery Menu' featuring ten high-level measures, including green fiscal reform and natural capital investment. The authors provide a toolkit of prioritisation criteria—categorised as conventional, advanced, and systemic/political—to help governments align policies with specific goals like job creation or planetary boundaries. The report identifies significant gaps in current agendas, particularly regarding gender integration, nature-based solutions, and support for MSMEs. It also addresses the financing challenge for the global south, suggesting debt-for-nature swaps and blended finance. Case studies from countries such as South Korea, Indonesia, and Pakistan illustrate the practical challenges and mixed results of implementing these reforms.

The document defines the conceptual landscape of nature-based solutions, distinguishing between general NbS, climate-specific NbCS, and adaptation-focused EbA. It argues that for these solutions to be effective and legitimate, they must be grounded in risk assessments and incorporate robust social and environmental safeguards to prevent rights violations, the commodification of nature, and ecological harm. The brief highlights the importance of three pillars—gender responsiveness, social inclusion, and biodiversity benefits—and provides global case studies demonstrating the application of EbA across various ecosystems.