Search Climate Insights Directory

The Paris Climate Agreement establishes a global goal to keep temperature increases well below 2.0C, aiming for 1.5C and net-zero emissions between 2050 and 2100. However, current national commitments are insufficient, projecting a 2.7C increase, necessitating periodic reviews every five years starting in 2018. The agreement also mandates US$ 100 billion in support for developing countries from 2020 to assist with adaptation and emission reductions.

The Paris Agreement establishes a global commitment to limit warming to well below 2°C, pursuing efforts for 1.5°C, and introduces a five-year ambition ratcheting mechanism. It creates a new mitigation mechanism that moves beyond pure offsetting and includes human rights protections in its preamble. While it acknowledges international aviation and shipping emissions, these remain outside national targets. The agreement necessitates an update to the EU's 2030 climate target to align with the 1.5°C goal.

Friends of the Earth Africa criticizes the draft Paris agreement for failing to provide adequate resources for adaptation, ignoring climate debt, and promoting market-based mechanisms like REDD that may facilitate land grabs. The organization warns that the current trajectory could lead to 5 to 8 degrees of warming in Africa, causing systemic ecological collapse and mass casualties.

The document reports on a COP21 side event regarding Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Speakers argued that NAMAs currently lack regulations on stakeholder engagement and environmental criteria, which undermines their potential for sustainable development. Case studies from Costa Rica and India illustrated how the dominance of the industrial sector and international agencies can marginalize civil society and informal workers, such as wastepickers. The event concluded that universal safeguards, including grievance mechanisms and transparent monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems, are essential to ensure NAMAs are community-led and effective.

The document examines the human rights obligations of states and the private sector in the context of climate change mitigation. It analyzes failures in stakeholder consultation and sustainable development within the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), REDD+, and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), using case studies from Panama, India, Mexico, and Georgia. The brief concludes that current UNFCCC mechanisms lack sufficient specificity and grievance procedures, recommending that the Paris Agreement explicitly mandate the respect, protection, and fulfillment of human rights in all climate actions.

The document examines Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) as tools for developing countries to achieve mitigation and sustainable development goals. It highlights a significant gap between the high interest in NAMA development and the actual financial support provided, noting that less than 2% of requested support has been offered. The brief argues that the lack of official UNFCCC guidelines for stakeholder consultation and the absence of sector-specific environmental criteria—such as 'negative lists' to exclude harmful technologies—risk promoting 'greenwashing' and locking countries into high-carbon infrastructure. It recommends adopting universal safeguards, harmonized sustainable development assessments, and mandatory guidelines for effective stakeholder engagement, including indigenous peoples, to ensure NAMAs drive true transformational change.

The document examines the relationship between NAMAs and INDCs, noting that over a third of developing countries link the two in their submissions. It aims to analyze how these specific actions and broader targets interact across key implementation areas including finance, MRV, and sustainable development.

Carbon Market Watch argues that while few countries explicitly include international trading in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, carbon pricing is already used by jurisdictions representing 40% of the global economy. The organization warns that a lack of clear international rules could lead to non-harmonized standards and double counting. It recommends strict principles for carbon markets, including the avoidance of 'hot air' credits, the requirement for net atmospheric benefits, and the exclusion of REDD-plus from carbon markets.

The policy brief highlights how climate mitigation actions under the UNFCCC can infringe on human rights, citing the Sasan coal power project as a case study of forced displacement and pollution. It calls for the Paris agreement to explicitly commit parties to human rights obligations and establish a robust institutional safeguard system, including grievance and monitoring mechanisms, to manage the risks associated with increasing climate finance flows from 2020 onwards.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) requires fundamental reform to remain viable after 2020, specifically to move beyond 'pure offsetting' and ensure human rights protections. The organization recommends establishing a formal grievance mechanism, strengthening civil society participation, and introducing stricter additionality testing to exclude high-emission technologies like coal. It also calls for the removal of conflicts of interest within the CDM Executive Board and the introduction of liability rules for Designated Operational Entities (DOEs) to prevent the issuance of non-additional credits.

The document outlines a spectrum of approaches for integrating climate adaptation into sectoral planning, ranging from sector-driven to nationally driven models, using examples from several developing countries to illustrate how different pathways can achieve climate-resilient development.

Carbon Market Watch recommends that the Green Climate Fund (GCF) avoid the shortcomings of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) by implementing strict criteria for additionality, sustainability, and social safeguards in its funding proposals.

The document examines the illegal wildlife trade as a reflection of complexities in China-Africa relations, specifically focusing on the demand for rhino horn and ivory in China and the supply challenges in South Africa. It highlights the role of cultural status, traditional medicine, and corruption in driving demand, while noting that supply is fueled by poverty and a lack of sustainable economic alternatives for local communities. The brief compares the conservation and enforcement models of South Africa and Kenya, suggesting that reducing demand through public awareness and linking wildlife protection to national priorities like anti-corruption is essential for long-term success.

The 'Environmental Impact Assessment Guideline for Renewable Energy Projects' outlines the regulatory framework and procedural requirements for deploying renewable energy technologies in South Africa. It details the environmental impacts of various technologies—including wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower—and maps these to the specific national legislation and authorisations required under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and other sectoral laws. The guide provides a structured approach to the Basic Assessment (BA) and Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR) processes, including timeframes, stakeholder roles, and mitigation strategies to ensure sustainable development.

The policy brief argues that any use of carbon markets post-2020 must be governed by strict environmental integrity standards to avoid 'hot air' and double counting. It recommends that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) undergo fundamental reform, including the adoption of social and human rights safeguards, to remain viable. The brief also calls for the exclusion of early action credits from post-2020 targets and urges the UNFCCC to demand greater emission reductions and adaptation levies from the international aviation (ICAO) and maritime (IMO) sectors. Finally, it advocates for the inclusion of human rights and gender equality protections in the core text of the Paris Agreement.

Hammarby Sjöstad is a sustainable urban district in Stockholm developed on a former industrial brownfield. The project utilizes the 'Hammarby Model,' a closed-loop system integrating waste, energy, and water cycles to minimize environmental impact. While the district achieved significant success in soil remediation, transit-oriented development, and waste management—including a vacuum waste system that reduced landfill use to 0.7%—it did not fully meet its original energy consumption targets. Economically, the project demonstrated that high environmental standards can increase property values, with a 25% increase in value despite 5% higher construction costs. The development was characterized by a 'triple helix' collaboration between government, private developers, and academia.

The guidelines establish a 'first green, then smart' approach, where smart technologies are used to optimize the outcomes of sustainable urban design. The framework covers six smart categories: telecommunications, mobility, governance, energy management, safety, and public services, supported by global case studies to demonstrate economic and environmental viability.

The report assesses three IGF member states—the Dominican Republic, Uganda, and Madagascar—against the six pillars of the Mining Policy Framework (MPF). While these countries show medium readiness in legal environments, financial benefit optimization, and environmental management, they exhibit low readiness in socioeconomic benefit optimization, mine closure, and artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM). A critical systemic barrier across all three nations is the lack of financial and human resources to enforce existing laws.

The report uses the IISD GPP Model to quantify the benefits of greening public procurement in China across five product categories: air conditioners, lighting, cars, paper, and cement. It argues that while some categories require an initial 'cost of leadership,' others pay for themselves through energy savings and avoided health and environmental costs. The document proposes 13 recommendations, including making GPP mandatory for state-owned enterprises and extending it to infrastructure procurement.

The document analyzes the strategic and economic relationship between South Africa and India, noting a significant increase in bilateral trade from US$2.5 billion in 2003/04 to US$13.18 billion in 2012/13. While relations are positive, the authors identify bottlenecks such as inadequate infrastructure, visa difficulties, and a lack of self-sustainable South African business structures. It highlights the role of platforms like the India-South Africa CEO Forum and the Focus Africa Programme, while arguing that civil society should be more actively engaged to ensure sustainable development and transparency in economic diplomacy.