Search Climate Insights Directory

The report details a rapid foresight exercise and backcasting analysis conducted with 18 practitioners from Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) to identify gaps in sustainable development planning. It emphasizes the need to transition from siloed, sector-based planning to integrated, multistakeholder processes that align national visions with subnational implementation. The document outlines a capacity-building agenda for 2014-2015 focusing on vertical and horizontal collaboration, cross-cutting policies for water, energy, and food security, and the shift from expenditure-based reporting to objective-based monitoring, evaluation, and reporting (MER). It also maps existing regional networks, such as REDEPLAN and CLAD, to coordinate knowledge sharing and avoid duplication of efforts.

The report identifies four core areas for improving sustainable development (SD) planning: multistakeholder participation, integrated vertical planning across government levels, cross-sectoral policy integration, and monitoring, evaluation, and reporting (MER). Across Africa, Asia-Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean, the report finds a prevalence of 'silo' sectoral planning and a lack of institutional frameworks for stakeholder engagement. It argues for the creation of national SD councils chaired by heads of state and the adoption of 'glocal' planning to align global goals with local implementation. Key capacity gaps include a lack of data for evidence-based policy, poor coordination between governmental and non-governmental agencies, and limited technical skills for information management at subnational levels.

The document discusses the necessity of localised adaptation to climate change and the potential to 'scale out' community-based adaptation (CBA) solutions. It defines scaling out as providing "more quality benefits to more people over a wider geographical area, more equitably, more quickly, and more lastingly". Rather than focusing on high-level policy, the paper examines how local actors can pilot and showcase innovations until they are replicated. Based on CDKN's work in Bangladesh, Colombia, and eastern and southern Africa, the paper identifies four key elements common to successful scaling: networks and partnerships, documenting evidence and learning, adaptive capacity, and institutional channels and finance mechanisms.

This guide by the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) examines the technical, operational, and institutional barriers that prevent disaster risk assessments from effectively informing public policy and investment decisions. Drawing on research from Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as case studies from Ghana, India, and Pakistan, the document provides a framework for improving the 'uptake' of risk information to support the successor to the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA2).

The document argues that climate compatible development is won or lost at the subnational level, where local actors face intense pressure from climate extremes but possess unique advantages in local knowledge and cross-sectoral coordination. It identifies key barriers, such as scientific uncertainty at local scales and a gap between public expectations and available resources. To overcome these, the paper recommends strategies including the cultivation of local political 'champions', the creation of 'knowledge partnerships' to translate climate science for communities, and the use of participatory planning to mobilise in-kind resources. It emphasizes that for these local successes to contribute to global transformational change, they must be 'scaled out' to other localities and 'scaled up' into national policy frameworks.

The guide argues that effective mainstreaming of disaster risk management (DRM) requires a supportive policy environment, strong leadership, risk knowledge, consistent financing, and innovation. It identifies key barriers, such as the compartmentalisation of DRM, climate change, and development into separate policy streams, and the lack of technical capacity for risk assessment. The document proposes solutions including strategic inter-ministerial coordination, the use of 'data-light' risk assessment methods, and the creation of political incentives by demonstrating the economic returns of risk-informed investments. It emphasizes that mainstreaming is a political process requiring inclusive partnerships and the navigation of vested interests to protect development gains from climate-related disasters.

The guide argues that effective mainstreaming of disaster risk management (DRM) requires a supportive policy environment, strong leadership, accurate risk knowledge, consistent financing, and innovation. It highlights that DRM is often compartmentalised from climate change and sectoral development, leading to 'risk-blind' decisions. The document proposes overcoming these barriers through strategic inter-ministerial coordination, the use of cost-benefit analyses to prove the economic value of risk-informed planning, and the engagement of the private sector. It emphasizes that mainstreaming is a political process that requires inclusive, multi-stakeholder platforms and visionary leadership to navigate vested interests and institutional inertia.

The document identifies significant gaps between the production of disaster risk assessments and their application in policy, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean. It argues that risk assessments often fail because they are treated as one-off projects rather than continuous processes, lack alignment with political timescales, and are presented in overly technical language. To improve uptake, the guide recommends engaging end-users in design, targeting sectoral agendas, and building local technical capacity.

The report argues that there is no single blueprint for a green economy, but rather multiple pathways driven by local communities. It critiques 'green growth' for focusing on GDP and resource efficiency while often ignoring social justice, structural power asymmetries, and the needs of the poor. The document emphasizes the need to connect international financial and policy mechanisms with ground-level realities, suggesting that developing countries can 'leapfrog' industrialised pathways by investing in low-carbon infrastructure. Key recommendations include 'greening' existing financial flows like Official Development Assistance (ODA), integrating social justice goals from the outset of policy design, and diversifying political narratives to include indigenous and non-Western knowledge.

A coalition of social movements and NGOs argues that the FAO's current forest definition is reductionist and primarily benefits industrial timber, pulp, paper, and rubber companies. The authors contend that by defining forests simply as land with a certain percentage of tree cover, the FAO erroneously classifies large-scale monoculture plantations as 'reforestation' and ignores the structural and cultural importance of forests to the 300 million people who depend on them for their livelihoods. The letter calls for a new, community-led definition process that recognizes the role of forests in food sovereignty and biological diversity.

The document argues that climate change and development are inextricably linked, as climate impacts threaten to undermine poverty eradication and sustainable development goals. It suggests that the post-2015 framework should be 'climate-smart,' incorporating targets that simultaneously address poverty, low-carbon development, and resilience. The briefing explores two primary integration options: mainstreaming climate-related targets across various goal areas or establishing a stand-alone climate change goal. It highlights that people living in poverty are disproportionately affected by climate change, particularly through impacts on agriculture, water security, health, and infrastructure. The document concludes that the success of the post-2015 agenda depends on its ability to foster policy coherence and encourage private sector and sub-national engagement.

The author argues that climate policy is inherently contested because it creates winners and losers, necessitating a strategic approach to communication and implementation. The proposed plan includes simplifying the climate narrative through personal and emotional storytelling, framing action as a transformational economic opportunity (green growth), designing policy packages that compensate those negatively impacted, building cross-party long-term consensus to avoid policy reversals, and focusing on rigorous implementation. The text highlights various international examples, such as Rwanda's green growth strategy and Bolivia's payments for ecosystem services, to illustrate how climate action can be integrated with development goals.

The guidebook introduces a systems-based approach to the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) nexus, arguing that agricultural investments are most sustainable when they protect underlying environmental determinants and social capital. It proposes a four-stage operational process: assessing the current WEF security system, envisioning future landscape scenarios, developing a specific investment strategy, and transforming the system through implementation and adaptive management. The framework emphasizes the use of watershed-scale analysis, stakeholder engagement, and quantitative modeling to identify synergies and trade-offs, ensuring that investments do not harm tenure rights or ecosystem services.

The report analyzes the systemic power imbalances in compensation processes for extractive industries, where benefits often accrue at the state level while costs are borne by local communities. It evaluates several mechanisms for improving outcomes: Community Development Agreements (CDAs) in mining, strategic human rights litigation, and Biocultural Community Protocols. A specific case study of the Chad-Cameroon Oil & Pipeline Project illustrates the failures of individual-based monetary compensation and argues for a paradigm shift toward livelihood restoration and 'land for land' replacement.

The International Conservation Budget 2014 details U.S. government initiatives to protect global biodiversity and natural resources. It highlights the strategic link between conservation and national security, noting how resource scarcity and illegal wildlife trafficking fuel instability and terrorism. The report outlines funding and activities across agencies including USAID, the Department of the Treasury (via the Global Environment Facility and Tropical Forest Conservation Act), the Department of State, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Key efforts include combating wildlife trafficking, managing transboundary landscapes through the SCAPES program, and implementing REDD+ initiatives in Mexico and the Amazon. The document emphasizes the role of public-private partnerships and community-based natural resource management in achieving sustainable development and protecting critical ecosystems across Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

The briefing argues that while the Green Climate Fund's initial readiness program may be narrowly focused on facilitating access to the Fund, it must eventually address broader enabling conditions—such as policy development and capacity building—to achieve transformational climate-resilient development. It further suggests that the GCF should remain flexible regarding the institutions used to channel readiness funds before the formal accreditation process is complete.

The document argues that high debt costs in rapidly emerging economies can increase the cost of utility-scale wind and solar PV projects by 24-32%. It proposes two primary solutions: indexing renewable energy tariffs to foreign currencies to attract lower-cost international capital by mitigating currency hedging costs, and implementing government-backed concessional debt programs to reduce the total support required to make projects viable. The report provides detailed analysis of these mechanisms using India as a primary case study, suggesting that these interventions could lower the cost of renewable energy support by up to 30%.

The document posits a correlation between domestic climate laws and international ambition, suggesting that national legislation provides the confidence and evidence needed for negotiators to defend ambitious global commitments. It identifies several factors influencing a country's negotiation position, including economic competitiveness, national interest, and leadership goals, while noting that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) serves as the primary system for these negotiations.

The document outlines the observed and projected climate impacts in Latin America, emphasizing the need for integrated adaptation and low-carbon development to protect economic growth and human security.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) opposes the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) system, whether market-based or publicly funded. FoEI argues that REDD treats forests as mere carbon stocks, which ignores their social and cultural value and creates perverse incentives for deforestation. The document highlights risks such as the criminalization of traditional forest management, the displacement of communities, and the failure of carbon offsets to permanently reduce emissions. Instead of financial incentives, FoEI proposes strengthening the land rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, supporting collective forest management, and demanding that industrialized nations reduce fossil fuel emissions without relying on offsets.