Search Climate Insights Directory

The joint submission by CIEL, IISD, and ClientEarth asserts that ISDS mechanisms create a 'regulatory chill' that hinders states from implementing climate and environmental policies. It highlights that while investment treaties have negligible effects on promoting foreign direct investment, they impose significant costs on states, particularly in the Global South, by allowing investors to challenge environmental regulations. The authors recommend the termination of old-generation treaties, the carving out of climate measures from ISDS scope, and a shift toward resolving disputes in domestic courts.

The guide outlines a five-step methodology to integrate nature-based solutions into project lifecycles, moving from qualitative systems thinking to quantitative economic valuation. It emphasizes the use of systems mapping, climate data analysis, and scenario modeling to compare NbS against traditional 'grey' infrastructure and 'business as usual' scenarios. The framework concludes with strategies for identifying financing structures and communicating findings to diverse stakeholders.

The SAVi assessment of Bogota's Sustainable Transport Strategy—comprising the TransMilenio BRT, non-motorized transport (NMT) infrastructure, and the under-construction Metro de Bogota MRT—indicates a cumulative discounted net benefit of USD 12,237 million. While a traditional benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 0.6 suggests the project is not economically viable based only on tangible costs and revenues, the sustainable BCR (S-BCR) is 4.5 when accounting for wider externalities. The largest added benefit is increased retail revenues around stations (USD 5,941 million), followed by health benefits (USD 2,177 million) and increased property values (USD 1,895 million). The MRT system alone represents an investment of USD 5 billion and is expected to serve 1.05 million passengers daily by 2030.

The document lists the top 15 oil palm-producing countries as of 2016, including major producers such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea, while categorizing them based on harvest area and VSS compliance.

The NAP Global Network's Targeted Topics Forums (TTFs) are a series of workshops that bring together representatives from developing countries and development cooperation agencies to exchange lessons on technical aspects of the National Adaptation Planning (NAP) process. Unlike one-off workshops, TTFs use a sustained peer learning model, reconvening the same cohorts of international specialists to build a supportive community. Each forum is structured around three pillars: technical inputs from experts, relational opportunities for peer sharing, and reflexive opportunities for countries to apply inputs to their own contexts. Current focus areas include building political support, cross-sectoral integration, financing implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. The Network also provides a Country Support Hub for submitting questions and advice on the NAP process.

The fact sheet describes Biocultural Community Protocols (BCPs) as endogenous, inclusive tools used by indigenous and local communities to define their rights and responsibilities under customary, state, and international law. It details how BCPs facilitate proactive responses to threats like illegal mining and infrastructure projects, and how they support the protection of traditional knowledge and biodiversity. The document provides several case studies from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and promotes a toolkit and website for community facilitators to develop and implement these protocols.

The document introduces 'biocultural community protocols' as tools for Indigenous and local communities to articulate their customary laws, values, and decision-making processes to external actors. It provides a structured four-part framework for facilitators to guide communities through the process of documentation, implementation, and reflection. The toolkit emphasizes endogenous development, legal empowerment, and participatory methods—such as community mapping, participatory video, and 'Legislative Theatre'—to reduce power asymmetries and safeguard collective biocultural heritage against external threats like land grabbing and industrial resource extraction.

The document defines biocultural community protocols as participatory instruments used by Indigenous and local communities to document their customary laws, values, and decision-making processes. These protocols aim to bridge the gap between community worldviews and external actors—such as governments and companies—to prevent resource exploitation and ensure the respect of customary stewardship. The toolkit outlines a four-part process: understanding the community, documenting the protocol, using it for engagement, and reflecting on outcomes. It provides a wide array of participatory tools, including community sketch maps, trend line analysis, and participatory theatre, to empower communities through legal awareness and social mobilization.

The document outlines a framework for using biocultural community protocols to manage interactions with governments, companies, and NGOs. It details methods for establishing dialogue, raising awareness through participatory media, and engaging in impact assessments and international legal processes. It emphasizes the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) and provides guidance on conflict resolution and responding to human rights violations.

The document describes Biocultural Community Protocols (BCPs) as community-determined frameworks that define values, procedures, and priorities to guide engagement with governments, companies, and NGOs. It outlines how BCPs help communities secure customary rights and respond to threats like illegal mining or infrastructure projects. The briefing provides case studies from Ghana, Malaysia, Kenya, India, and South Africa, illustrating the use of BCPs for resource mapping, legal empowerment, and the protection of traditional knowledge and biodiversity. It also promotes a four-part Toolkit for Community Facilitators to support the endogenous development of these protocols.

The submission argues that indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) are the most effective guardians of biodiversity, yet they face systemic threats including non-recognition of land rights, 'fortress conservation' models, and violence against land defenders. It provides global case studies of successful community-led conservation and calls for a shift toward rights-based conservation, secure tenure, and the protection of environmental defenders.

The document outlines the process of creating community protocols—codified rules and procedures based on customary law—to help communities manage interactions with external parties like governments and investors. It details the role of facilitators, the common elements of a protocol (such as identity, values, and governance), and strategies for using these documents for advocacy, negotiation, and conflict resolution. A significant focus is placed on ensuring Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and challenging top-down impact assessments through community-led evidence.

The Community Protocols Toolbox is a guide designed for NGOs and civil society to support local communities in documenting their identity, customary laws, and development priorities. It emphasizes a participatory, community-led process to enable meaningful engagement and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) when facing industrial investment projects. The toolbox includes practical methodologies—textual, visual, verbal, and dramatic—to map territories, analyze power dynamics, and navigate legal landscapes across national and international frameworks.

The document analyzes the illicit arms trade, categorizing it into semi-legal, state-sanctioned, and wholly illicit flows. It argues against the 'amorphous image' of easy global access to weapons, asserting instead that supply and demand are geographically and temporally variable. The authors detail how weapons are diverted from legal stocks, the role of illicit pricing as an indicator of supply constraints, and the multi-level governance structures—societal, national, and international—used to counter trafficking. It also evaluates international instruments like the Arms Trade Treaty and the UN Programme of Action, noting the challenges posed by state complicity and capacity gaps in developing nations.

The report argues that civil war is 'development in reverse,' creating a 'conflict trap' where poverty and institutional failure increase the risk of war, and war further degrades development. It identifies three rings of adverse effects: internal civilian suffering, regional spillovers (such as arms races and disease), and global costs (including drug trafficking and terrorism). The authors find that civil war is increasingly concentrated in 'marginalized' low-income countries and those in the conflict trap. To combat this, the report proposes a policy package including improved aid timing, transparent natural resource governance, and coordinated military-development sequencing in postconflict decades.

The report finds that 2025 was the third most violent year since 1989, with 245,000 battle-related deaths. It highlights a record high of 65 state-based conflicts and a concerning doubling of international conflicts to eight in 2025. While non-state conflicts decreased slightly, one-sided violence surged to 76,500 fatalities, primarily driven by massacres in Sudan.

The review finds a general scholarly consensus that higher levels of education have a pacifying effect on civil conflict, though this relationship is complex and varies by the type of violence. While low education is often linked to recruitment in civil wars, higher education levels are frequently observed among terrorists and genocide perpetrators. The authors highlight that inter-group educational inequalities—particularly along ethnic and religious lines—significantly increase conflict risks, whereas rapid expansions in tertiary education do not appear to drive destabilization. The document concludes that while education generally promotes peace, its impact is mediated by factors such as regime type, gender equality, and the specific nature of the political violence.

The report presents findings from the Mapping Attitudes, Perceptions and Support (MAPS) project, based on 12,052 interviews in 73 municipalities across 16 PDET areas in Colombia. It reveals a complex landscape where 38% of respondents are satisfied with the Peace Agreement's implementation, while 58% are not. While the influence of armed groups has decreased from 55% to 30% since 2016, significant insecurity persists, and interpersonal and institutional trust remain low. The most positively perceived implementation areas are illicit crop substitution and truth, justice, and reparation for victims, whereas FARC political participation and health/education improvements are the least valued. The report emphasizes the strong correlation between perceived security and overall satisfaction with the peace process.

The report finds that while general satisfaction with the 2016 Peace Agreement's implementation increased from 36% in 2019 to 48% in 2021, significant challenges remain. Security perceptions have deteriorated, with 43% of respondents reporting worsening conditions in the 12 months prior to 2021. While the reincorporation of ex-combatants is valued as a policy, deep mistrust persists, with 87% of respondents not trusting former FARC-EP members. The report also highlights a gap between the high value placed on the PDETs and the perceived lack of tangible infrastructure and land titles. Victims' reparation and truth-seeking are highly valued, but only 12.6% of respondents reported receiving reparations in 2021. The study emphasizes the need for regionalized peace agendas and improved state presence in health, education, and security to foster trust and sustainable peace.

The research examines the determinants of external state support for rebel groups using a new dataset of 403 organizations. It argues that support is not merely a function of the civil war's general characteristics but depends on the specific attributes of the rebel group and the international relations of the target state. The findings indicate that moderately strong groups with transnational constituencies are most likely to receive aid, particularly when the target state is involved in an international rivalry or receives its own external support. Conversely, very strong or very weak groups, and those in democratic states, are less likely to be supported.