Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that communication and information poverty—characterized by lack of access to platforms, media misrepresentation, and low media literacy—undermines the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It specifically analyzes the intersections between communication rights and SDGs 5, 9, 16, and 17, while providing recommendations for a rights-based approach to communication. The report highlights the need to democratize media systems, increase digital media literacy, and address the specific needs of marginalized groups, particularly Indigenous peoples, which it claims are insufficiently addressed in Agenda 2030.

The document examines why many countries have integrated climate adaptation into policy documents without translating these plans into concrete projects. It identifies key barriers including lack of finance, technical knowledge limitations, and insufficient political will. By analyzing 'early movers'—Afghanistan, Colombia, Germany, India, and Rwanda—the paper highlights five critical success factors: sustained political leadership, legally binding policy mandates, inter-agency coordination, access to tailored information, and supportive budgetary processes.

The report identifies a growing "restoration economy" where businesses generate financial returns by improving the ecological function of degraded landscapes. It categorizes these opportunities into four main investment themes: technology, consumer products, project management, and commercial forestry. Through case studies of 14 companies across eight countries, the authors illustrate how various models—from drone-based reforestation and climate-smart credit for smallholders to sustainable timber and bamboo plantations—can scale. The document highlights that while significant market opportunities exist due to government pledges and rising resource demand, investors face hurdles such as high transaction costs, low liquidity, and insecure land tenure in developing regions.

The document argues that global agricultural production has declined by 1-5% per decade over the last 30 years due to climate change, necessitating an urgent transition to climate-resilient systems. It identifies critical risks, including heat stress, extreme weather, and pests, which disproportionately affect smallholder farmers and women in the tropics. The authors propose a roadmap based on five pillars: promoting resilient and low-emission technologies, expanding digital climate information, mobilizing innovative finance, strengthening farmer organizations, and delivering enabling policies. The paper highlights successful examples of 'no regret' options, such as stress-tolerant crop varieties and sustainable intensification, and emphasizes the need for context-specific, participatory approaches to scale these solutions.

The GCF Board's 18th meeting in Cairo focused on operationalizing the fund's implementation phase. Key outcomes include the approval of multiple funding proposals across various regions, the accreditation of five new entities, and the adoption of a Simplified Approval Process (SAP) pilot for small-scale activities. The Board also approved a new Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Policy and a revised administrative budget and staffing target of 250 employees for 2018. However, consensus was not reached on a risk management framework or the selection process for a Permanent Trustee.

The document analyzes the conceptual frameworks, global and regional experiences, and existing sectoral information systems in Peru to guide the creation of a national M&E system for climate change adaptation. It highlights that while Peru has strong political commitments and sectoral data, it lacks a formally approved National Adaptation Plan and a corresponding national M&E system.

The briefing by WWF and IISD offers policy guidance for COP 14 regarding the mainstreaming of biodiversity into the infrastructure sector, following a decision from COP 13 to address biodiversity in energy, mining, infrastructure, manufacturing, and health. It mentions upcoming discussions by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) and references two specific case studies: bus fleet electrification in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, and hybrid infrastructure in the Bogotá River basin, Colombia.

The report finds that 16 of the 25 major emitting countries and regions analysed are not on track to meet their self-determined NDC targets. While some countries like Brazil, China, and India are likely to achieve their targets with current policies, others, including the US, EU, and Canada, require additional measures. Furthermore, current policies are projected to fail to prevent emissions from increasing up to 2030 relative to 2010 levels in both developing and OECD nations, with only Japan and the EU projected to see further decreases.

The paper explores the intersection of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) and climate goals, arguing that exponential technologies—those with rapidly falling costs and improving performance—can allow developing nations to 'leapfrog' obsolete infrastructure. By analyzing the NDCs of six priority countries, the authors map potential applications of AI, blockchain, IoT, and advanced materials across energy, transport, and agriculture sectors. While highlighting opportunities for decarbonization and financial inclusion, the document warns of risks including job displacement due to automation and the potential for energy-intensive technology lock-in.

Colombia's National Adaptation Plan (NAP) is described as a dynamic process rather than a static document, designed to integrate climate risk management into sectoral and regional planning. The process has evolved through several phases since 2011, including the establishment of the SISCLIMA system and a Green Growth strategy. The plan identifies priority sectors for adaptation—including agriculture, health, finance, and energy—and targets specific climate impacts such as floods, droughts, heatwaves, and sea level rise.

The 2017 AdaptationWatch report argues that the Paris Agreement has shifted climate policy into an era of implementation, yet significant gaps remain in adaptation finance and transparency. It highlights that adaptation funding is overwhelmingly lower than mitigation funding and is often difficult for the most vulnerable nations to access due to complex accreditation processes and a lack of clear definitions distinguishing adaptation from general development. The report examines regional experiences, noting that while Latin American and Caribbean countries have made progress in institutional frameworks and GCF Readiness, Southeast Asia faces a disconnect between global finance scales and local needs. It also identifies a critical lack of compliance and standardized methodology in the Biennial Update Reports (BURs) of non-Annex I Parties, which obscures the actual amount of finance received. The document concludes with ten recommendations, emphasizing the need for increased adaptation finance, co-designing actions with local communities, and reorienting capacity building toward long-term, in-country ownership.

Friends of the Earth International asserts that the current global energy model, dominated by fossil fuels and corporate-led 'false solutions', is driving a planetary emergency. The statement criticizes the Paris Agreement as insufficient and legally unenforceable, calling for urgent emission reductions by wealthy nations and a shift toward decentralized, community-led energy systems.

The statement by Friends of the Earth International characterizes the current climate situation as a 'planetary emergency' and criticizes the Paris Agreement for lacking legal enforcement and science-based cuts. It calls for the immediate end of fossil fuels—noting that over 1600 new coal plants are planned in 62 countries—and warns against 'false solutions' such as nuclear power and large-scale hydroelectric projects. The document advocates for a just transition where developed countries, whose 10% population is responsible for 50% of emissions, lead deep cuts and fund sustainable development in the global South. It promotes decentralized, people-centered community energy, agroecology, and community forest management as the only viable future.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a global movement to replace the centralized fossil fuel industry and other harmful energy sources—including nuclear power and large hydroelectric dams—with community-centered, sustainable energy. The statement asserts that the Paris Agreement is insufficient to limit warming to 1.5 degrees and demands that developed nations, responsible for the majority of emissions, lead emission reductions and provide financial support to the Global South.

The document outlines six key tips for managing country-led development assistance: prioritizing in-country leadership by nationals, utilizing co-developed and flexible Theories of Change, aligning budgets with long-term goals, preferring local suppliers, and integrating monitoring and learning into ongoing strategic planning.

The document outlines nine key lessons for engaging the private sector in climate projects, emphasizing the need for context-specific approaches, strong public policy, and the use of innovative financial instruments. It argues that public sector leadership is essential to reduce risks and demonstrate the business case for private investment, particularly in adaptation projects which are typically seen as riskier than mitigation projects. Case studies from countries like Indonesia, Kenya, India, and Colombia illustrate the effectiveness of risk-sharing mechanisms, pilot projects, and the inclusion of private actors in the design phase of project lifecycles.

The report examines the synergies between Community Forest Management (CFM) and agroecology, positioning them as essential tools for food sovereignty and biodiversity conservation. It critiques the 'green economy' and market-based conservation models like REDD+, arguing that they erode traditional values and community autonomy. The document specifically challenges the FAO's definition of forests for including monoculture plantations, which it claims facilitates deforestation and undermines the livelihoods of the 1.6 billion people dependent on forests. It advocates for the recognition of territorial control, women's autonomy, and traditional knowledge as the primary drivers of effective forest protection.

The report argues that Community Forest Management (MCB) and agroecology are complementary political and technical practices that protect biodiversity and ensure food sovereignty. It critiques top-down conservation models like REDD+ and the FAO's narrow definition of forests, which the author claims facilitate industrial monocultures and the displacement of local communities. The document highlights the role of traditional knowledge, women's autonomy, and local markets in maintaining ecosystem health, providing evidence from the Amazon, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Europe.

The report argues that community forest management (CFM) and agroecology are complementary systems based on shared principles of territorial control, traditional knowledge, and gender autonomy. It contends that these community-led approaches are more effective at preserving biodiversity and ensuring food security than top-down 'green economy' solutions, such as REDD+ or industrial monoculture plantations. The document specifically critiques the FAO's definition of forests for excluding social and cultural dimensions, which it argues facilitates deforestation and the displacement of local populations. It advocates for the recognition of collective land rights and the promotion of local markets to support sustainable, non-anthropocentric relationships with nature.

The report finds that total 'green finance' for forest emissions reduction (roughly USD 20 billion since 2010) is insufficient and vastly outweighed by 'grey finance'—investments and subsidies that potentially drive deforestation—which totals USD 777 billion. While there is growth in impact investment and results-based REDD+ payments, the report argues that a dramatic shift away from traditional investments in deforestation drivers is required to achieve zero deforestation.