Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that sustainability in the coffee sector is hindered by market volatility, systemic poverty, and environmental degradation. It suggests that the ICO should leverage the renegotiation of the International Coffee Agreement to implement participatory governance, improve information sharing for differentiated coffee markets, and establish coordinated funding and risk management mechanisms for producers.

The report examines the record of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in Africa, arguing that while they can address infrastructure backlogs, they are not a 'magic bullet' and are prone to the same failures as privatisation, including corruption and high consumer costs. Through eight case studies in transport, prisons, telecommunications, water, power, and eco-tourism, the document highlights that success depends on thorough feasibility studies, strong political commitment, and effective regulatory frameworks. Key failures are attributed to a lack of transparency, poor risk management, and unrealistic design specifications. The report recommends that African governments build institutional capacity, implement integrity pacts to combat graft, and adopt a phased approach by starting with smaller projects.

The proceedings detail the challenges faced by Eastern and Southern African nations in establishing biosafety regulatory frameworks. It emphasizes the critical gaps in human resources, laboratory infrastructure, and public awareness across knowledge-generating institutions, government bodies, and civil society. The report argues for a regional, resource-sharing approach to risk assessment and data validation to overcome the financial and technical limitations of individual countries.

The Index-Based Livestock Insurance (IBLI) project in Mongolia provides financial security to herders by triggering payouts based on aggregated livestock mortality rates rather than individual losses. This mechanism addresses the challenges of traditional insurance in sparsely populated areas and helps protect the livestock sector, which accounts for roughly 80% of the value added in Mongolia's agriculture sector. The program is designed as part of a broader risk management strategy to encourage sustainable grazing and adaptation to climate change, which has increased the intensity of droughts and dzuds.

The paper examines the application of probabilistic event attribution (PEA) to extreme weather in Africa, highlighting that different methodological framings—such as comparing single years versus decades—lead to significantly different risk quantifications. It argues that defining the 'right' attribution question is a stakeholder-driven process rather than a purely scientific one, which is critical for the effective implementation of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage. The authors emphasize that relying solely on predictable slow-onset events in loss and damage frameworks would exclude many vulnerable African communities affected by unpredictable extremes.

The document assesses the Protocol to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants (LRTAP POPs Protocol) against the needs of global negotiations. It argues that while the Protocol is a useful first step, it is an inadequate model for a global treaty because it focuses on risk management and emission control rather than total elimination, lacks provisions for developing countries, and relies on a regional framework of developed nations.

P50 Risk Solutions is an insurance product intended to guarantee minimum revenue for wind farms to reduce the cost of capital and attract new investment. However, analysis using a case study project indicates that the product is not commercially viable because the reduction in financing costs does not offset the insurance premiums. Furthermore, the document concludes that even with donor support, the product would not significantly attract new institutional or bond market investors, as wind variability is viewed as a secondary risk compared to off-taker payment defaults in the Indian renewables sector.

The PREPARE Act seeks to institutionalize government-wide resilience and risk management through the codification of an interagency council and the establishment of regional coordination plans. The legislation is supported by a broad coalition of 23 cosponsors and numerous endorsing organizations spanning environmental, business, and insurance sectors.

The PREPARE Act seeks to institutionalize a government-wide approach to resilience and risk management in response to GAO findings that the federal government is poorly organized to handle the fiscal exposures caused by extreme weather.

The PREPARE Act aims to codify the Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience to set government-wide goals for extreme weather risk management. It mandates that federal agencies submit comprehensive plans every two years to integrate extreme weather considerations into their operations and requires the creation of a USGCRP website to provide actionable data to state, local, and tribal decision-makers. Additionally, the Act establishes a process for inventorying and coordinating regional federal offices to improve the delivery of resilience services at the state and local levels.

The document outlines the challenges U.S. transportation agencies face due to extreme weather, emphasizing that adaptation requires a combination of local contextual data, science literacy for engineers, and improved decision-making tools. It recommends the creation of a central information clearinghouse, enhanced federal technical assistance for local governments, and a shift toward integrating 'the climate question' into the entire transportation lifecycle. Key gaps identified include the need for higher-resolution rainfall data (6-hour or less) and better economic analysis tools to weigh the costs of inaction against the benefits of preparedness.

The document outlines the GCF's accreditation process, which is divided into three stages: no-objection and readiness, accreditation review and decision, and final arrangements. It defines the fiduciary standards (basic and specific) and environmental and social safeguards (ESS) that applicants must meet. The framework distinguishes between 'direct access' for national/regional entities and 'international access' for global organizations. It also details the roles of the GCF Board, Secretariat, Accreditation Committee, and Accreditation Panel in managing the process.

The GCF's Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Policy implements a risk-based approach to protect the fund's resources and reputation. It mandates counterparty due diligence, prohibits relationships with non-cooperative or sanctioned entities, and assigns oversight to the Independent Integrity Unit. The policy aligns with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations and requires the retention of due diligence records for at least five years.

The GCF's Environmental and Social Policy defines the requirements for accredited entities to identify, assess, and mitigate environmental and social risks. It mandates a risk-based approach using Environmental and Social Safeguards (SAS), a mitigation hierarchy, and rigorous due diligence. The policy emphasizes the protection of vulnerable groups, indigenous peoples, and biodiversity, while requiring transparent information disclosure and the establishment of grievance redress mechanisms at the activity, entity, and fund levels.

The GCF's initial accreditation framework integrates fiduciary standards and environmental and social safeguards (SAS) into a three-stage process: no-objection and readiness, accreditation review and decision, and final arrangements. It distinguishes between basic fiduciary criteria (administrative and financial) and specialized criteria (project management, grant-making, and lending). Until its own SAS are developed, the GCF adopts the International Finance Corporation's (IFC) Performance Standards, applying a risk-based approach to categorize projects (Categories A, B, and C) and intermediaries (Levels I1, I2, and I3). The process is overseen by the GCF Board, supported by an Accreditation Committee, an independent Accreditation Panel, and the Secretariat.

The GCF's implementation standards for its Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (AML/CFT) Policy outline a risk-based framework for managing financial integrity. The standards mandate rigorous counterparty due diligence, annual institutional risk assessments, and the monitoring of financial transactions. They define specific high-risk categories—such as politically exposed persons and shell banks—and prohibit relationships with unregulated money transfer agents or anonymous accounts. The Independent Integrity Unit (IIU) is tasked with overseeing the program, conducting investigations, and managing the reporting of suspicious activities to competent authorities. Additionally, the GCF provides capacity-building support to counterparties to strengthen their own AML/CFT controls.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has adopted a policy to protect its resources and reputation from money laundering (ML) and terrorist financing (TF). Aligned with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations, the policy mandates a risk-based approach to due diligence for all counterparties, including the verification of beneficial owners. It prohibits relationships with entities that fail due diligence, engage in prohibited practices, or are under UN financial sanctions. The Independent Integrity Unit (IIU) is responsible for monitoring implementation, and all GCF personnel must report suspicious activities to the IIU without alerting the parties involved. Records of due diligence and transactions must be kept for at least five years.

The GCF's AML/CFT Standards define the framework for managing financial integrity risks, outlining roles for the Secretariat and Independent Integrity Unit, risk-based due diligence for counterparties, and mechanisms for reporting suspicious activities. It mandates annual institutional risk assessments and provides guidelines for capacity building and record-keeping to align with international best practices and FATF recommendations.

The GCF's initial guiding framework for accreditation integrates fiduciary principles and environmental and social safeguards (ESS) into a three-stage process. It distinguishes between basic and specialized fiduciary criteria and utilizes a risk-based approach for environmental and social screening. The process involves a sequence of readiness assessments, institutional reviews, and final legal arrangements, overseen by the GCF Board, Secretariat, and an independent Accreditation Panel.

The Standards for the Implementation of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Policy provide a framework for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to manage money laundering and terrorist financing (ML/FT) risks. The document mandates a risk-based approach to counterparty due diligence, the establishment of an AML/CFT Program, and the implementation of monitoring and reporting mechanisms for suspicious activities. It defines the roles of the GCF Secretariat, the Independent Integrity Unit (IIU), and the Board in ensuring compliance with international best practices, specifically those set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).