Search Climate Insights Directory

The Institute for Economic Justice and the Universal Basic Income Coalition critique Sassa's implementation of biometric identity verification and algorithmic risk scoring for the Social Relief of Distress grant. They argue these measures exclude eligible recipients who lack smartphones, internet access, or smart ID cards, while raising concerns about data privacy and the lack of evidence for systematic fraud.

The Institute for Economic Justice criticises the South African National Treasury for dictating government policy through a fiscal framework that prioritises debt reduction over essential public services. The authors argue that the current 'balanced fiscal stance' and reliance on public-private partnerships (PPPs) hinder economic growth and exacerbate poverty. They propose alternative revenue-raising measures, such as wealth taxes and resource rent taxes, to fund a universal basic income grant and public investment in infrastructure and labour-intensive sectors.

The document examines the role of social protection—including contributory insurance and non-contributory transfers—in mitigating the economic shocks of climate change in Africa. It highlights the African Risk Capacity (ARC) and Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) as key models, while urging the use of international funds like the Loss and Damage Fund and Green Climate Fund to finance these systems.

The document examines how social protection—comprising non-contributory assistance, contributory insurance, and labour-market interventions—can mitigate the economic shocks of climate change in Africa. It highlights the African Risk Capacity (ARC) for sovereign risk pooling and Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) as key models for resilience. The author emphasizes that while climate change threatens to push 130 million people into poverty, leveraging multilateral funds like the Loss and Damage Fund and Green Climate Fund can finance the necessary social protection systems to protect the continent's most vulnerable.

The Universal Basic Income Coalition (UBIC) reports that its election scorecard prompted several South African political parties, including the ANC, UDM, and GOOD, to clarify or expand their commitments to a universal basic income grant (UBIG). The ANC specifically committed to finalizing a policy for a universal BIG within two years, rejecting conditionalities, and ensuring the grant does not replace existing social security. However, UBIC notes that achieving these goals requires a shift away from austerity measures that currently exclude approximately 6 million eligible people from the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant monthly.

The Universal Basic Income Coalition (UBIC) produced a scorecard to assess political parties' positions on basic income grants (BIG) in South Africa. The analysis focuses on whether parties commit to expanding the social protection floor, providing adequate grant values, ensuring universal eligibility for adults aged 18-59, and removing conditionalities. The report highlights a wide disparity in party commitments, with Action SA, the ANC, and GOOD scoring highly for their progressive proposals, while many other parties either lack a clear policy or propose conditional grants that UBIC argues could increase exclusion and dependency.

The IEJ argues that the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant is plagued by a 50% exclusion error rate due to systemic barriers and budget constraints. The organization opposes proposed regulatory amendments—including the retention of the R350 grant value, the extension of the grant only until March 2025, and new punitive measures for fund recovery and payment cancellation—claiming these measures disregard digital exclusion and the diminishing real value of the grant.

The document examines the Global Shield (GS) and other climate insurance initiatives in Africa, arguing that they are insufficient substitutes for a well-funded Loss and Damage Fund (LDF). It highlights systemic failures in parametric insurance, such as 'basis risk' and the inability of poor populations to afford premiums, while critiquing the technocratic and paternalistic nature of these schemes. The authors conclude that insurance should only be a complementary tool, and that equitable climate finance must be based on historic emissions rather than market-based premiums.

The Institute for Economic Justice argues that South Africa's National Treasury has unnecessarily cut social spending by failing to mobilize available resources. The brief identifies significant revenue potential through the removal of regressive tax breaks for high earners, the introduction of wealth and financial transaction taxes, and the utilization of the Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account (GFECRA). It recommends restoring the Corporate Income Tax rate to 28% and implementing a progressive Social Security Tax to fund social protections.

The document evaluates low-, medium-, and high-ambition scenarios for transitioning South Africa's Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant into a more permanent basic income grant (BIG). Using the DIMMSIM model, the research finds that such grants are fiscally sustainable when funded through progressive taxation and lead to significant reductions in poverty and unemployment while boosting GDP growth.

The document evaluates G20 progress on international taxation, specifically the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework and the Two-Pillar Solution, noting that while African countries have gained representation—including the African Union's permanent G20 seat—significant gaps remain in technical capacity and revenue generation. It argues that African countries, with a tax-to-GDP ratio of 16%, must prioritise Domestic Resource Mobilisation (DRM) to fund Sustainable Development Goals. The brief recommends that future G20 presidencies focus on digitalising tax administrations, implementing a global carbon taxation system, and adopting more progressive tax policies to fund social protection for the informal sector, which comprises 85.8% of jobs in Africa.

The report evaluates how South Africa's sophisticated insurance industry can be leveraged to bridge a R2.3bn annual disaster funding gap and improve climate resilience. While the country has high insurance penetration (10%), non-life coverage remains low among vulnerable groups due to affordability and regulatory costs. The document highlights opportunities in index-based agricultural insurance, municipal risk pooling, and the integration of insurance into social grant systems via SASSA. It also identifies significant transition risks for insurers due to the economy's reliance on carbon-intensive assets and recommends streamlining Public-Private Partnership (PPP) regulations to incentivise private sector investment in adaptation.

The report details a National Dialogue held in Bogotá on August 30, 2024, involving 22 participants from the public sector, private sector, academia, civil society, and international organisations. The dialogue identified four primary barriers to a just energy transition in Colombia: a lack of clear definitions for the transition, inconsistent public policy, weak institutions and regulations, and inadequate social participation mechanisms. While Colombia has a robust regulatory framework, including Law 1715 and CONPES documents, stakeholders emphasized the need for evidence-based policy design, improved territorial engagement, and new incentives for private sector investment in renewable energy. The report concludes by aligning these stakeholder needs with the Colombian government's official JTWP priorities and offering recommendations to the UNFCCC to broaden the JTWP's scope, enhance financial support, and improve accountability.

The guide identifies key barriers to Just Transitions—including institutional capacity gaps, structural labour market vulnerabilities, and limited financing—and offers a strategic roadmap for policymakers. It argues that Just Transitions must move beyond a narrow focus on the energy sector to become a holistic, cross-ministerial strategy integrated into national development plans. Key recommendations include adopting needs-based capacity building, establishing robust social protection systems, and shifting international climate finance toward a more participatory, social-justice-oriented model.

The Asia-Pacific region, home to 60% of the global population aged 60 and over, faces severe risks from climate change, including projected heat exposure nearly four times higher than other regions by mid-century. Older adults suffer disproportionately from heatwaves, natural disasters, and air pollution due to physical and socio-economic vulnerabilities. However, the document emphasises that older adults are not merely vulnerable but are 'a reservoir of knowledge and experience' who contribute to resilience through traditional knowledge and community-led initiatives in countries like India and Indonesia. The summary calls for a 'triangular strategy' of Protect, Reduce, and Mobilise to ensure older adults are active participants in climate action and that their human rights are protected through age-sensitive policies and universal social protection.

The report analyzes the state of fossil fuel subsidies in Latin America and the Caribbean, highlighting their regressive nature and economic inefficiency. It provides a framework for a just transition, recommending transparent measurement, participatory planning, and the use of saved funds for social protection and renewable energy.

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 IEJ argues that South Africa's current fiscal strategy over-prioritizes stability and business confidence at the expense of poverty and inequality. The submission recommends replacing austerity with a developmental framework that includes increasing the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant to the Food Poverty Line, implementing a wealth tax, and reducing reliance on private finance for growth.

The document advocates for a Guaranteed Universal Basic Income (UBIG) in South Africa, defining it as a government commitment to ensure all adults have a minimum income to meet basic needs. It highlights that while social grants have been effective since apartheid, significant gaps remain, particularly for able-bodied adults aged 18 to 59. The text argues that a UBIG, set at the highest food poverty line, could eliminate hunger for the 18.3 million people currently unable to afford basic food. Beyond poverty relief, the document claims a UBIG would improve health and education outcomes, stimulate local economic growth, reduce gender inequality by providing women with autonomy, and enhance social cohesion. It emphasizes that a UBIG is not a standalone solution but requires complementary interventions, including a supportive macroeconomic framework, expanded public services, a just energy transition strategy, and high-impact industrial policy.

The document advocates for a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) in South Africa, defining it as a government commitment to ensure all adults receive a minimum income to meet basic needs. It argues that current social grant systems have gaps, particularly for adults aged 18 to 59, and that a UBIG would address systemic poverty, improve health and education outcomes, and stimulate local economies. The text asserts that such a guarantee is a constitutional right under Section 27 of the South African Constitution and aligns with international obligations under the ICESCR.