Search Climate Insights Directory

The IAI Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) managed the review and selection of CRN3 proposals from June 2011 to June 2012. Out of 88 pre-proposals, 26 full proposals were reviewed, and 8 were selected for funding. These 8 projects involve 117 investigators from 75 institutions across 16 countries. The SAC emphasized the need for multi-country teams, capacity building, and the integration of human dimensions and social sciences into climate research.

The report examines foreign investment in agriculture across MERCOSUR, identifying three primary models: state-level cooperation agreements, direct private land purchases, and foreign direct investment in production via contract farming. It highlights a general lack of reliable data, though estimates suggest foreign ownership varies significantly, from 1.7% of arable land in Brazil to 19.4% of national territory in Paraguay. While Brazil and Argentina have implemented laws to restrict foreign land ownership, Uruguay is debating similar measures, and Paraguay has seen little public discussion on restrictions despite high foreign ownership. The document recommends the establishment of national land registries and clear definitions of 'foreign stakeholders' to better manage and monitor these investments.

The report analyzes foreign investment in the agricultural sectors of MERCOSUR countries, identifying three primary models: state-to-state cooperation agreements, direct private land purchases, and foreign direct investment in production via contract farming. It highlights a general lack of robust data across the region, though it notes that foreigners own approximately 1.7% of Brazil's arable land and an estimated 3.4% of Argentina's. Paraguay shows the highest level of foreign ownership at 19.4% of its national territory, largely held by Brazilians. The document details the legislative shift toward restricting foreign land ownership in Argentina and Brazil, while noting that Uruguay is debating similar measures and Paraguay lacks significant public debate or effective restrictions. It concludes that while foreign investment can bring technology, it often risks displacing local producers and threatening food security if not properly regulated through clear definitions of foreign ownership and national land registries.

The 34th Meeting of the IAI Executive Council established its leadership for two years, approved previous action items and the current agenda, and initiated the development of electronic voting procedures and amendments to voting and accreditation rules.

This document is a list of participants for the 34th Executive Council Meeting of the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, which took place on June 29, 2012, in Arlington, Virginia, USA.

The IAI proposes transitioning to a tripartite governance model to enhance its ability to provide scientific information for public policy and increase public awareness of global change research. Under this structure, the Executive Directorate of Integrated Operations and Finance will be based in Montevideo, Uruguay; the Directorate of Scientific Development in São José dos Campos, Brazil; and the Directorate of Science-Policy Liaison in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The proposal aims to be budget-neutral regarding the IAI's operating budget, with host countries providing infrastructure and partial staffing. The transition was planned for completion by the end of 2012, with a proposed evaluation of the structure's success after one year.

The document is a participant list for the IAI 20th Conference of the Parties and associated Science-Policy Dialogue held on June 27-29, 2012, in Arlington, Virginia. It lists representatives from various governments, academic institutions, and international organizations.

The IAI Work Plan 2012-2013 details the implementation of the CRN3 program, small grants, and a MacArthur Foundation project on biodiversity in the tropical Andes. Capacity building includes training on water resource management in Chile and science-policy interface colloquia in the Dominican Republic and Ecuador, alongside an editorial forum in Argentina. Administratively, the institute aims to resolve operational instabilities and relocate to Montevideo.

The IAI Executive Council is managing the transition to a tripartite hosting arrangement for its Directorate, involving Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. While a distributed structure has been proposed—with the Directorate in Montevideo, science development in São José dos Campos, and science-policy liaison in Buenos Aires—the parties have not yet reached a consensus on the detailed integrated proposal. Additionally, the report notes the resignation of EC Chair Dr. Paul Filmer and the appointment of Dr. Carlos Ereño as acting chair.

The document details the efforts of the IAI Executive Council and an ad hoc commission to organize the hosting of the IAI Executive Directorate. Following interest from Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, a tripartite proposal was developed to distribute functions across these three countries. However, the report notes that consensus was not reached among the parties, resulting in two different options to be resolved by the Conference of the Parties (CoP-20).

The report details the financial status of the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research for the 2011/2012 fiscal year. While 99.5% of approved contributions for the year were received by April 30, 2012, the institute faces significant arrears totaling US$1.3 million, with Mexico and Venezuela cited as major debtors. Operational expenses through February 2012 were 11% below budget, though salary costs exceeded projections by 6.4%. Cash reserves cover 3.8 months of operations, increasing to 9.2 months if US committed funds are included. Administratively, the report notes instability regarding the contracting of four staff members via INPE.

The report argues that global meat consumption, particularly beef, is a primary driver of tropical deforestation due to extreme land-use inefficiency. It highlights that beef uses about three-fifths of global agricultural land while providing less than 5% of global protein. The authors propose solutions including increasing livestock productivity on existing lands, shifting diets from beef to more land-efficient proteins like poultry or pork, and eliminating government subsidies that encourage forest clearing. The document also examines the role of corporate moratoriums and the environmental costs of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

The document analyzes the International Bar Association's Model Mining Development Agreement (MMDA 1.0), providing a template and narrative to ensure mining contracts promote sustainable development, transparency, and equitable resource distribution. It details key contractual areas including land tenure, royalties, taxation, and community obligations, while emphasizing the use of international standards like the IFC Performance Standards and EITI. Additionally, the report investigates the existence of similar model agreements for the oil and gas sector, concluding that no internationally accepted model currently exists despite the availability of various national form contracts.

The IAI Core Budget request for fiscal year 2012-2013 is US$1,312,578, a slight decrease from the previous year. The budget supports the Directorate's operations, including the management of the Collaborative Research Network (CRN) and Small Grants Programs, and accounts for the relocation of the Directorate from Brazil to Uruguay in January 2013. Salaries and benefits constitute 72% of the core budget. The document also outlines member country contributions, with the United States providing the largest share at US$762,000.

The report details a global movement of small-scale farmers and activists resisting the corporate power of agribusiness, specifically Monsanto. It highlights legal battles, moratoria, and direct actions against GM crops in Europe, India, Latin America, and Africa. The document argues that the 'green economy' and 'climate-smart agriculture' frameworks are being used to further corporate control over seeds and land through market-based mechanisms and carbon offsets, while promoting food sovereignty as a sustainable alternative.

The report details a global movement of peasants and civil society organizations resisting Monsanto's influence on agriculture. It highlights specific battles in Europe, India, Latin America, and Africa, where activists fight against GMO seeds, toxic pesticides like Roundup, and the corporate control of seed systems. The document argues that the 'green economy' and 'climate-smart agriculture' are market-driven frameworks that facilitate corporate land grabbing and the spread of biotechnology. It advocates for food sovereignty—the right of peoples to define their own food and production systems—as a sustainable path to mitigate climate change and ensure food security.

The report documents global opposition to Monsanto and other biotechnology firms, highlighting the social and environmental costs of GM crops. It details resistance movements in Europe, India, Latin America, and Africa, while critiquing the 'green economy' and 'climate-smart agriculture' as market-driven mechanisms that reinforce corporate control. The authors advocate for food sovereignty and peasant-led agroecology as the only viable paths to climate resilience and food security.

The document analyzes the tension between protecting foreign investments and the sovereign right of states to regulate for the public interest. It examines how the lack of a clear definition of 'indirect expropriation' in most investment treaties allows arbitration tribunals to apply varying criteria—such as the 'sole effect doctrine' or proportionality—which can lead to substantial compensation claims even for legitimate public health or environmental regulations.

The report analyzes the challenges of defining 'indirect expropriation'—measures that deprive an investor of the economic value of an investment without formally seizing the title. It contrasts the 'sole effect doctrine,' which focuses exclusively on the prejudice suffered by the investor, with more balanced approaches like proportionality and the 'police powers' doctrine, which protect legitimate non-discriminatory public regulations. The author argues that current investment treaties often lack precise definitions, leading to inconsistent arbitral rulings that may discourage states from implementing essential public health, environmental, or social protections due to the risk of costly compensation claims.

The briefing examines the funding gap for climate change in the global South, specifically Africa, where adaptation costs are projected to reach $30 to $60 billion annually by 2030. It evaluates several funding mechanisms—including direct budgetary contributions, shipping and aviation levies, financial transaction taxes, Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), the redirection of fossil fuel subsidies, and carbon taxes—against criteria for fairness, such as adequacy, predictability, and transparency. The document argues that public funding must be prioritized over private finance and carbon markets, which it claims are often biased toward profitable mitigation projects in middle-income countries and fail to provide meaningful support to the poorest African regions.