Search Climate Insights Directory

The Centre for Environmental Rights criticises the draft Infrastructure Development Bill for omitting references to sustainable development and imposing a strict 250-day authorisation timeline for special infrastructure projects (SIPs). The author contends that these fast-tracked processes bypass necessary scientific assessments and public consultations, potentially violating constitutional rights to a healthy environment and just administrative action. The document warns that inadequate environmental planning for projects like mines and power stations will lead to long-term state liabilities and disproportionately affect vulnerable communities.

The author contends that hydropower projects in Sikkim, such as Teesta III and Teesta VI, are not 'additional' because hydropower is common practice in India's North East, meaning they do not actually reduce emissions. The text alleges that developers misled the UNFCCC and bypassed mandatory stakeholder consultations regarding CDM credits. Furthermore, it highlights the failure to recognize Lepcha peoples' land rights and the absence of holistic impact assessments in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), leading to landslides and house destruction. The document concludes that the CDM's verification process is weak and calls for the immediate revocation of all big hydro CDM registrations in the region.

The document argues that the New Market Mechanism (NMM) and the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) require a binding international governance structure to prevent double counting and ensure net atmospheric benefits. It identifies three types of double counting—unit type, double claiming, and overlapping mitigation/financial contributions—and calls for a common international transaction tracking mechanism. The author emphasizes that credits must be tied to the upholding of international human rights law and sustainable development indicators to avoid the failures observed under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Carbon Market Watch argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is facing a market collapse due to low demand and an over-supply of non-additional carbon credits. The organization urges a fundamental reform of additionality requirements, the shortening of crediting periods, and the establishment of human rights standards and grievance mechanisms. It further recommends strengthening civil society participation, addressing conflicts of interest among Designated Operational Entities (DOEs), and improving the governance and codes of conduct of the CDM Executive Board.

The 2013 BRICS Youth Communiqué outlines a series of recommendations for the proposed BRICS Development Bank (BDB), advocating for an independent institution that is inclusive of all member nations regardless of financial status. The youth propose locating the bank in either Shanghai, China, or South Africa, utilizing the Chinese Renminbi (Yuan) as the primary currency, and establishing branches in each member state. The communiqué emphasizes a focus on the developing world, suggesting a phased approach starting with pilot projects within BRICS nations and the creation of a dedicated youth programme funding area for education and employment.

Carbon Market Watch outlines critical reforms needed for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) review at COP-19. The author warns that failure to address quality issues, particularly regarding additionality, could lead to an over-supply of more than 4 gigatonnes of CO2 offsets and drive prices below 1 EURO. Key recommendations include transitioning away from large-scale power supply projects, moving beyond pure offsetting to avoid double counting, shortening crediting periods to match technology lifespans, and establishing human rights standards. The document also calls for improved sustainable development monitoring, strengthened civil society participation through a CDM Ombudsman, and a restructuring of auditor payment to eliminate conflicts of interest.

The document argues that addressing the energy gap for the 'bottom of the pyramid' (BOP) requires a comprehensive approach to the innovation cycle, moving beyond simple technology development to include user-centric design, strategic deployment models, and the building of local institutional capabilities. It highlights that nearly 1.3 billion people lack electricity and 2.6 billion lack clean cooking energy, with significant health and climate costs associated with traditional biomass use. The author recommends leveraging diverse funding sources—including climate and health funds—and coordinating international initiatives to scale up sustainable energy solutions.

The document outlines a practitioner's approach to creating NAMAs that align with low-carbon, climate-resilient development (LCCRD) planning. It details a two-track methodology: the NAMA Quick Screen, which uses a five-step qualitative process to identify promising mitigation options and develop NAMA concepts for the UNFCCC registry; and the NAMA Deep Screen, a seven-step technical process that calculates GHG emission baselines, marginal abatement costs (MACs), and sustainable development co-benefits to produce detailed NAMA proposals. The guide emphasizes the necessity of local validation with government and private sector stakeholders to ensure actions are feasible and aligned with national priorities. It also provides a framework for linking identified mitigation options to specific implementation barriers and appropriate climate finance instruments, such as grants, concessional loans, and carbon market financing.

The document outlines a six-step framework for MEA Outcome Planning, utilizing IEA tools to bridge the gap between international environmental commitments and national action in the Caribbean. It emphasizes the use of the Driving Forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework to identify synergies between different MEAs and align them with human well-being and development goals. The guide introduces five specific tools: MEA Priorities Mapping, MEA Synergies Mapping, the Challenge Scenario, Policy Mapping, and Rapid MEA Stress Testing, culminating in the creation of a policy planning brief for high-level decision-makers. It also provides guidance on adaptive policy-making and the use of SMART targets and indicators to track progress.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted comments on the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill, 2012, arguing that while the application of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) to mining is welcome, the Bill fails to ensure adequate community consultation and transparency. The CER criticizes the proposed administrative penalty system for lacking an independent tribunal and warns that the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) lacks the capacity to act as the competent environmental authority. The document further advocates for the reinstatement of joint and several liability for company directors and the removal of state immunity from criminal liability.

The CAO audit reveals that the IFC "knows very little" about the environmental and social impacts of its financial market lending, which constitutes over 40% of its portfolio. The audit found that the IFC focuses on whether clients have management systems rather than actual outcomes, leading to a situation where approximately 60% of subclients showed non-improved performance. Furthermore, 10% of sampled clients were non-compliant with requirements, and 25% were only partially compliant or uncertain. Despite these findings, the IFC has not committed to changing its practices, suggesting the issue is one of "corporate messaging." Civil society organizations have called for a fundamental overhaul of this lending approach to increase transparency, accountability, and focus on development outcomes.

The document identifies five primary drivers for adopting CCD: national awareness of climate adaptation needs, the pursuit of energy security and resource efficiency, the desire to capture new green economic opportunities, the goal of improving access to climate finance, and strong government leadership. Conversely, it outlines seven key challenges: high implementation and opportunity costs, opposition from vested interest groups, lack of reliable data on risks and trade-offs, political short-termism, limited state capacity, institutional constraints (such as inter-ministerial conflict), and technological uncertainties. The paper suggests solutions including the use of carbon markets, participatory dialogue processes, the integration of climate goals into long-term legislation, and the creation of inter-ministerial committees with direct accountability to the presidency.

The Green Economy Coalition (GEC) met in February 2013 to establish its 2013-2015 strategy. The coalition aims to counter 'green growth' narratives that ignore equity and ecological limits by engaging with the G20, World Economic Forum, and national governments. Its work plan consists of three core activities—dialogue, knowledge sharing, and collective influence—and five thematic projects: Measuring What Matters, Financial Sector Reform, Greening Economic Sectors, Investing in People, and Managing Natural Systems. The GEC intends to transition into a network of collaborating partners, expanding its membership to include more developing countries and private sector entities.

The Green Economy Coalition outlines a vision for a global economic transition that prioritizes ecological limits and social equity over traditional GDP growth. It emphasizes that economics is the 'language of power' and must be used to influence treasuries and boardrooms. The briefing identifies five critical action areas—natural systems, people, economic sectors, financial flows, and governance/measurement—and discusses the role of Rio+20 as a stepping stone toward this transition. It also addresses the tension between the need for economic growth in developing nations and the imperative for resource contraction in developed nations, proposing concepts like the circular economy and 'beyond GDP' metrics to resolve the impasse.

The document argues that the long-term nature of PPPs often makes it difficult for governments to adapt contracts to evolving sustainability priorities. It proposes a 'health check' framework based on a triple bottom line—economic, environmental, and social sustainability—to guide the review and renegotiation of existing agreements. Using the UK's transition from PFI to PF2 as a context, it suggests mechanisms like 'invest to save' and gain-share provisions to enhance value-for-money and environmental performance. It also highlights the importance of life-cycle assessments (LCA) and ethical labor standards in ensuring the long-term viability and social acceptance of infrastructure projects.

The Mining and Biodiversity Guideline establishes a framework for the South African mining industry to minimize ecological impacts through six core principles: applying the law, using best available biodiversity information, engaging stakeholders, employing best practice Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), applying the mitigation hierarchy, and ensuring effective implementation of Environmental Management Programmes (EMP). It categorizes biodiversity priority areas into four risk levels (A to D), ranging from legally prohibited mining zones to areas of moderate risk. The guide emphasizes a 'risk-based approach' to protect natural capital and maintain a 'social licence to operate', detailing specific requirements for each stage of the mining life cycle: reconnaissance, prospecting, production, and decommissioning/closure.

The document analyzes the Mozambican legal framework for public procurement, concluding that while the current regulation does not expressly prioritize sustainability, there are several entry points for reform and interpretation to promote sustainable public procurement (SPP). It examines the roles of procurement authorities, the various contracting modalities—including public tenders, limited tenders, and direct contracting—and the criteria used for awarding contracts, suggesting shifts from 'lowest-price' to 'lowest-cost' or 'conjugated' criteria to better account for environmental and social impacts.

The 2013 SAIIA Young Leaders Declaration outlines youth-led priorities for the global development agenda following the Millennium Development Goals. It calls for the reduction of structural inequalities, the protection of refugees and displaced persons, and the implementation of sustainable environmental practices. Key recommendations include the creation of 'Green Jobs' in Africa, the adoption of renewable energy systems in South African housing, and the establishment of a global disaster relief network. The declaration emphasizes the need for youth participation in governance and the alignment of national policies with the Sustainable Development Goals and South Africa's National Development Plan for 2030.

The document serves as a comprehensive manual for Estonian state and municipal agencies to adopt systematic environmental management. It details the differences between ISO 14001 and EMAS, outlining the latter's five-step implementation process: initial environmental review, EMS implementation, environmental statement preparation, verification, and registration. It emphasizes the public sector's role in leading by example through green public procurement and resource efficiency. Additionally, it introduces the 'Green Office' concept as a simplified entry point for organizations to improve their immediate working environment and reduce energy and material consumption.

The Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) implemented the web-based Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Communication (PMEC) system in 2010 to systematically track project outcomes. Based on the International Development Research Centre’s Outcome Mapping methodology, PMEC shifts focus from activities to the influence on 'boundary partners'—specific people and organizations the project aims to affect. The system integrates project planning, budget management, and communications, requiring all SEI projects to use it for monitoring progress via 'progress markers' and 'journals'. For projects with budgets exceeding 200,000 SEK, an outcome evaluation of specific indicators is mandatory. PMEC also feeds into SEI's organizational learning by tracking contributions to six key performance areas and four institutional themes, ultimately informing reports for funders like the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and the SEI Board.