Search Climate Insights Directory

The document evaluates the Paris Agreement as a positive step that increased global ambition to limit warming to 1.5ºC, though it notes that current Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) remain inadequate. It details the creation of three frameworks under Article 6 for carbon markets and non-market approaches, while warning against the use of temporary land-use carbon sequestration to justify continued fossil pollution. The analysis highlights gaps in climate finance, the lack of explicit mandates for international aviation and shipping, and the historic inclusion of human rights in the preamble.

The document outlines various structural options for integrating principles into a Fossil Fuel Treaty, such as through dedicated provisions or preambles. It details 16 potential international law principles—including common but differentiated responsibilities, precaution, and just transition—explaining their legal nature, precedents in other treaties, and how they could be applied to regulate the phase-out of fossil fuel production.

The report examines various international legal frameworks and principles that could be incorporated into a future treaty to phase out fossil fuels. It discusses structural options for including these principles—either in a dedicated provision, the preamble, or substantive articles—and evaluates 16 specific legal principles, such as 'common but differentiated responsibilities' and 'intergenerational equity', detailing their legal status and potential application to fossil fuel production and a just transition.

The document reports on the third Sustainability School organized by COECOCeiba AT in the community of Juanilama, Costa Rica. It advocates for 'Buen Vivir' (Good Living) as a foundation for sustainability, emphasizing the role of popular education in descolonizing thought and empowering social movements. The text contrasts the community-led agroecological practices and forest management in Juanilama with the destructive impacts of industrial agribusiness, such as pineapple and sugarcane monocultures. It further calls for climate justice, the rejection of carbon offsets and free trade agreements, and the promotion of food sovereignty through peasant mobilization and the recovery of ancestral knowledge.

The document describes the European Investment Bank (EIB) as a powerful but 'invisible' institution that operates with significant independence from EU oversight. It details systemic failures identified by NGOs, including a lack of clear environmental standards, insufficient staffing for environmental expertise, and a refusal to provide public access to project information. The text highlights the EIB's failure to support the Kyoto Protocol and its tendency to fund technological 'fixes' rather than proactive environmental protection. It also outlines civil society campaigns, such as 'EIB: no reform, no money!', which pressured EU member states to link capital increases to institutional reforms.

The document examines the European Investment Bank's (EIB) involvement in development projects, particularly in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (ACP) under the Cotonou Agreement. It highlights a gap between the EIB's financial activities and the EU's sustainable development and poverty eradication goals, noting a lack of transparent project evaluations and public consultation. The text concludes with recommendations for the EIB to adopt binding sustainability criteria and establish an independent inspection mechanism.

The document argues that community forest management (CFM) is a more effective strategy for forest conservation and poverty reduction than industrial logging or strict state protection. It identifies seven key rights—state obligations, self-determination, consultation, territorial rights, livelihoods and economic development, women's rights, and cultural/traditional knowledge—and maps these against international legal frameworks to provide a tool for advocates to pressure governments for the legal recognition of community-led forestry.

The report finds that the majority of the seven examined High Level Groups are either corporate-controlled or unbalanced in favor of industry, leading to policy recommendations that prioritize industrial competitiveness over environmental and social standards. It highlights a lack of democratic legitimacy and inconsistent transparency, calling for the dissolution of industry-controlled groups and the establishment of more equitable consultation mechanisms.

The guide provides alphabetical definitions of key WTO terms, including the agreements resulting from the Uruguay Round, the functions of WTO governing bodies, and specific legal clauses related to trade, environment, and intellectual property.

The report analyzes the escalating extraction and consumption of natural resources, highlighting a stark divide between wealthy and poor regions. It argues that while resource efficiency has improved, absolute consumption continues to rise due to economic growth, a phenomenon termed the 'rebound effect'. The document emphasizes the environmental degradation and social injustices resulting from resource extraction in the Global South, and calls for a transition toward development models based on well-being rather than constant material growth.

The report examines the EIB's operations in the Global South, specifically in Zambia, Chad, Cameroon, Laos, Philippines, Indonesia, Mexico, and Brazil. It contends that the EIB functions as a demand-driven institution that finances high-yield projects for European firms rather than prioritizing social or environmental goals. Key criticisms include a lack of transparency, failure to adhere to EU environmental and social standards, and the promotion of harmful projects such as large dams and extractive industries. The document concludes with recommendations for a fundamental review of the EIB's project selection, accountability, and monitoring processes.

The report argues that excessive financial speculation in agricultural commodity derivatives and the financing of land grabs by European banks, pension funds, and insurance companies contribute to food price volatility and human rights abuses. It identifies key institutions such as Deutsche Bank, Barclays, and BNP Paribas as significant actors in these markets and recommends strict EU regulations, including position limits and bans on index funds for agricultural commodities, to protect the right to food.

The world is off track to meet 2025 and 2030 forest goals, with commodity-driven deforestation increasing by 5.6% in 2022. While some leading agricultural companies and governments (notably the EU) are taking action, overall impact is limited by low political priority, insufficient corporate transparency in extractives, and systemic risks to environmental defenders.

The world is off track to meet 2025 and 2030 forest goals, with commodity-driven deforestation increasing by 5.6% in 2022. While some leading agricultural companies and EU regulations show progress, most governments deprioritize forests in macroeconomic planning, and the mining sector lacks transparency. Indigenous Peoples and local communities have increased international awareness but face severe violence and funding gaps. Collaborative jurisdictional efforts are emerging but remain in early stages.

The report identifies a significant gap between the high demand for green financing driven by Morocco's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and the limited supply of tailored financial instruments for SMEs. While energy efficiency and renewable energy projects are well-covered, sectors like fisheries and sustainable housing are underserved. The study recommends improving the regulatory framework for ESCOs, introducing fiscal incentives, and designing new equity or guarantee mechanisms to catalyze green investment.

The GCF Initial Investment Framework establishes the rules and targets for the fund's first resource mobilization period. It defines a balanced portfolio approach between mitigation and adaptation, sets specific targets for vulnerable countries and the private sector, and provides a six-criterion framework for assessing project proposals.

The GCF Environmental and Social Policy defines a comprehensive framework for managing environmental and social risks across all GCF-financed activities. It mandates that accredited entities maintain an Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) and adhere to a mitigation hierarchy to avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse impacts. The policy introduces a risk-based categorization system (Categories A, B, and C for activities; I1, I2, and I3 for intermediaries) to determine the depth of required assessments and stakeholder engagement. Key protections are specified for indigenous peoples, including the requirement for free, prior and informed consent in applicable circumstances, as well as safeguards for human rights, gender equality, and biodiversity. The framework also establishes a three-tier grievance redress system operating at the GCF, accredited entity, and activity levels.

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 investment framework defines the rules for granting grants and concessional loans to support low-carbon and climate-resilient development. It sets a 50/50 balance between mitigation and adaptation, prioritizes vulnerable countries, and outlines six criteria for evaluating project proposals, including potential impact and paradigm shift potential.

The GCF EFA Guidance outlines the methodologies for performing financial analysis (from an investor's perspective) and economic analysis (from a societal perspective) to support the assessment of GCF investment criteria. It provides sector-specific recommendations for areas such as transport, water security, energy efficiency, and agriculture, while detailing the required profitability indicators, baseline scenario development, and sensitivity analysis needed for project appraisal.