Search Climate Insights Directory

The report identifies significant gaps in the criminal justice response to tiger trafficking in Southeast Asia, noting that while arrests are frequent in some countries, they rarely lead to convictions. Indonesia is highlighted as a model for transparency due to its publicly accessible sentencing records, which reveal that successful prosecutions rely on interagency coordination and forensic evidence. However, the report finds that most prosecuted individuals are low-to-mid-level actors, while high-level organisers remain elusive. The authors recommend increasing judicial transparency, diversifying legal strategies to include anti-money laundering and organised crime statutes, and implementing restorative justice mechanisms to repair ecological harm.

The Just Transition Compass serves as a non-prescriptive guide to move Just Transitions from high-level dialogue to concrete implementation. It defines core principles of distributive, procedural, and restorative justice, identifies systemic barriers to national implementation—such as limited subnational capacity and siloed finance—and analyzes the political tensions within the UNFCCC's Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP). The report advocates for a permanent international coordination mechanism to align fragmented efforts, manage the cross-border impacts of unilateral trade measures like the EU's CBAM, and mobilize private capital through sustainable finance taxonomies.

The Just Transition Compass establishes a framework to move from high-level climate commitments to scalable, justice-focused implementation. It identifies four core elements of a just transition—restorative, distributive, procedural, and climate justice—and argues that domestic transitions require international cooperation to avoid economic spillovers and financial inequalities. The document proposes the creation of a permanent Just Transition Coordination Unit within the UNFCCC to reduce fragmentation, align financial flows, and provide capacity support to countries.

The report argues that standard top-down cost estimation methods for energy transitions often overlook socio-spatial factors and marginalized groups. It proposes a new framework that identifies specific losses (recognitional justice), determines preventative and transformative spending (restorative justice), assigns cost burdens (distributive justice), and ensures stakeholder consensus (procedural justice). Using the planned early retirement of the Cirebon 1 coal-fired power plant as a case study, the report demonstrates how to map direct, indirect, and induced impacts across individuals, companies, and governments to more accurately calculate the financial requirements of a just transition.

The document analyzes the South African Climate Change Act as a framework for transforming the food system, which contributes approximately 20% of national emissions and is highly vulnerable to climate shocks. It identifies specific legal avenues—such as the National Adaptation Strategy and Plan (NASP), municipal climate response plans, and the Presidential Climate Commission—where farmers, workers, and civil society can intervene to promote agroecology, land rights, and food price stability. The author emphasizes that while the Act provides the legal framework, it does not guarantee funding or specific ground-level obligations, making active public participation essential to ensure a 'just transition' that protects vulnerable groups including women, youth, and smallholder farmers.

The report finds that while energy transition policies in China and Southeast Asia acknowledge justice indicators in some form, the overall representation is low, with all countries scoring below 50% of the maximum possible score. Environmental, restorative, and distributional justice are particularly underrepresented, while procedural justice and energy access score relatively higher. The study highlights a significant gap between policy goals and actual implementation, especially regarding land rights and labour protections for fossil fuel workers.

The document outlines four core principles for the EPA to implement cumulative impact assessments: decreasing disproportionate burdens through distributive and restorative justice, expanding beyond traditional risk assessments to include social determinants of health, accounting for historical burdens, and adopting a precautionary approach that shifts the burden of proof to regulated actors.

The document outlines a framework for cumulative impact assessments (CIAs) that integrates equity, justice, and public health practices. It argues that the EPA and other government entities should use transparent principles to ensure assessments inform regulatory decisions, such as permit denials or pollution cleanup, while incorporating diverse stressors and community-led trust building.

The report identifies a systemic failure within the UNFCCC where justice efforts are fragmented across isolated mechanisms, allowing for symbolic recognition without the redistribution of power. It proposes an integrated justice framework—comprising distributive, procedural, recognitional, restorative, and transformative justice—to diagnose gaps and guide policy. The author argues that the JTWP risks becoming a 'talking shop' unless it is operationalised through binding commitments, a permanent coordination body, and sector-specific pathways beyond the energy sector. Key recommendations for COP30 include adopting ILO Guidelines as foundational principles and mandating integrated justice assessments in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) outlines a values-based approach to scientist-community partnerships, emphasizing mutual respect, transparency, and the integration of community and Indigenous knowledge. The guide provides a step-by-step process for initiating collaborations, overcoming professional and social barriers, and ensuring equitable outcomes through tools like Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and restorative justice practices.

The report argues that while Bangladesh must transition to a climate-resilient, low-carbon economy, this process requires 'just transition' planning to prevent negative impacts on vulnerable individuals. It recommends enhancing inter-ministerial coordination, broadening the use of climate finance to include social support, and implementing restorative justice in worker reskilling programs to include women, youth, and poor communities. Additionally, it calls for the education sector to prepare youth for the green economy and for Bangladesh to advocate in international forums for accountability from high-emitting countries regarding social, cultural, and economic losses.

The report examines the applicability of transitional justice in the Lake Chad Basin (LCB), noting that while the region is not yet post-conflict, there is a need for mechanisms to address mass human rights abuses. It finds that LCB countries are at different stages of conceptualising these tools and that a balance between restorative and retributive justice is necessary. The document highlights the importance of local ownership, the role of traditional and religious conflict resolution mechanisms, and the need to address root causes of violent extremism such as structural inequalities.

The document examines the evolution of diversion in South Africa, moving from disjointed, discretionary practices in the 1990s toward a regulated system under the Child Justice Bill. It details the Bill's mechanisms for expanding diversion, such as compulsory assessments and preliminary inquiries, and categorizes diversion options into three levels based on offence severity. The paper also analyzes the role of the National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) as a primary provider and presents cost-benefit analyses suggesting that increased diversion spending would lead to overall government savings by reducing child detention. Evaluation studies of specific programmes like SAYStOP and DIME generally show positive outcomes in reducing recidivism and improving child well-being.

Climate Strategies proposes five operational avenues for the first 2025 JTWP dialogue, including a non-prescriptive governance framework, a case study repository, a resource database, justice-focused metrics, and a global governance architecture. For the second 2025 dialogue, it recommends addressing climate resilience, restorative justice, transition minerals, and deep dives into neglected sectors like food and health systems. The submission also suggests reforming the dialogue format to combine workshops with discussions to better facilitate the sharing of real-world practitioner experiences.

The document identifies systemic barriers to transitioning away from fossil fuels, particularly for countries heavily reliant on oil and gas revenues, such as Canada, Nigeria, and Malaysia. It argues that a successful transition requires multilateral coordination between importers and exporters, collaborative governance frameworks, and a commitment to Just Transition principles to avoid exacerbating global inequalities. Key recommendations include strategic economic diversification, the use of multi-model evidence for planning, and the implementation of restorative justice to address historical harms.

The document defines a 'Just Transition' as a framework to ensure that the shift toward a green economy is fair and inclusive, preventing vulnerable populations from bearing disproportionate costs. It traces the concept's evolution from 1980s US trade union concerns over pollution regulations to a broader global framework integrated into the UNFCCC and the 2015 Paris Agreement. The text emphasizes three types of justice—procedural, distributional, and restorative—and argues that transition planning must be participatory and cross-governmental. Using Malawi's agricultural mechanization as an example, it illustrates how top-down transitions can marginalize smallholder farmers despite overall GDP growth. While historically focused on the energy sector and fossil fuel phase-outs, the document asserts that Just Transition principles are equally critical for sectors like agriculture, transport, waste, and forestry, especially regarding adaptation priorities in the global south.

The document argues that meaningful participation from diverse, affected groups is essential for a just transition to ensure procedural justice, improve policy efficiency, and increase ownership of climate policies. It identifies barriers to engagement, such as time constraints, costs, and low trust, and suggests a people-centered design approach to overcome them. The text highlights the necessity of coordination bodies to manage state and non-state actors across different political levels. Examples include Costa Rica's Just Transition Governance Scheme and South Africa's Presidential Climate Commission, both of which serve as platforms for multi-stakeholder collaboration and policy co-creation.

The document examines the concept of 'just resilience,' which seeks to ensure that climate adaptation does not create new winners and losers or reinforce existing marginalisation. It identifies three core dimensions of justice—distributive, procedural, and recognition—and argues that adaptation must address structural drivers of vulnerability such as wealth, gender, and ethnicity. The paper highlights maladaptation risks, where technical solutions can inadvertently increase long-term risks or displace vulnerable groups. It reviews policy examples from Australia, South Africa, the EU, and Canada, and discusses emerging trends like the rights of nature and locally led adaptation. Finally, it addresses barriers to implementation, including resource constraints and the need for equitable international climate finance mechanisms.

The Just Transition Planning Masterclass provided a platform for stakeholders from Kenya, Ghana, Namibia, and Uganda to explore how to manage the socio-economic disruptions of sustainable development transitions. The program combined webinars and an in-person workshop in Nairobi to discuss the definition of a 'just transition', the role of standalone frameworks versus integrated policies, and the impact of colonial resource extraction on current fiscal and governance capacities. Key findings highlight significant barriers to implementation, including a lack of disaggregated data for impact analysis, difficulties in accounting for the informal economy, and limited funding for the social components of transition, such as stakeholder dialogue and re-skilling. The report concludes with a set of best practices for developing holistic impact understandings, enabling participatory decision-making, and ensuring policy cohesion through co-created justice indicators.

The author contends that current African Union (AU) reparations instruments lack a comprehensive definition, which allows critics to dismiss the movement by focusing on individual measures like monetary compensation. To address this, the document proposes a framework based on five elements: authoritative historical accounts of injustice, unconditional apologies that acknowledge responsibility, broad reparative measures (including debt relief and technology transfer), a relational approach to reconciliation, and a global justice perspective that addresses the enduring structural impacts of slavery and colonialism on the international order.