Search Climate Insights Directory

The paper analyzes various infrastructure banks, such as the European Investment Bank and the UK's Green Investment Bank, to identify effective financial instruments and operational models. It argues that infrastructure banks should prioritize financially viable, sustainable projects that offer high socioeconomic multipliers while avoiding the crowding out of private capital. Key recommendations include tapping capital markets, providing technical assistance for project preparation, and utilizing risk-sharing instruments to leverage limited public resources.

The brief finds that while 66% of EU cities have climate plans, there is significant disparity based on city size and national legislation. National mandates in countries like Denmark and the UK significantly increase the likelihood of cities having plans, while many cities in Spain and Italy rely on international networks like the Covenant of Mayors due to a lack of national guidance.

Scaling up 10 existing climate solutions in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine could reduce 2030 emissions by approximately 149 Mt (CO2e), representing a 13% reduction compared to baseline projections. The most significant absolute reductions are possible in Poland (71 Mt) and Ukraine (64 Mt), while the highest relative impacts are in the Baltic States, potentially cutting emissions by nearly 40% in Estonia and over 30% in Latvia and Lithuania. Energy efficiency in buildings and industry offers the highest potential and is the most cost-effective, with building efficiency alone potentially saving 2.9 billion euros by 2030. Conversely, wind power provides the greatest relative potential in the Baltic States. The report identifies common barriers such as high investment costs, weak carbon pricing, and lack of financing, and recommends policies including the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies, stable legal frameworks, and targeted financial incentives.

The briefing contends that the EU ETS phase 4 (2021-2030) fails to drive sufficient decarbonisation due to low carbon prices and excessive free allowances. It recommends that Member States implement national carbon floor prices, unilaterally cancel allowances following coal plant closures to avoid the 'waterbed effect', and redirect auctioning revenues toward a just transition. For the industrial sector, it advocates replacing free allocations with a carbon border tax and increasing the Linear Reduction Factor (LRF) to align with a 2040 or 2050 decarbonisation timeline.

The report examines biomass co-firing across Europe, noting that in Finland, Denmark, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, biomass is often used alongside fossil fuels. It argues that subsidies for co-firing can hinder the phase-out of coal and peat, specifically citing cases in Finland and the Netherlands where financial support may extend the lifetimes of fossil-fuel plants.

The document outlines a methodology for volunteering economies to identify, measure, and evaluate fossil fuel subsidies (FFS). It details the 'building blocks' of a review—definition, scope, measurement, and evaluation—and analyzes the practical application of these tools through case studies of self-reports (Finland, Sweden) and peer reviews within the G20 and APEC frameworks (China, USA, Peru, New Zealand). It emphasizes that these reviews are voluntary, non-adversarial tools designed to create a baseline for reform and facilitate international peer learning.

The executive summary outlines a framework for countries to conduct voluntary self- and peer reviews of fossil fuel subsidies (FFS). It describes the 'building blocks' of these reviews—including scope, definition, measurement, and evaluation—and provides practical recommendations based on the experiences of countries such as China, Finland, New Zealand, Peru, and Sweden. The guide emphasizes that these reviews are tools for peer learning and domestic reform rather than compliance mechanisms, aiming to align subsidies with sustainable development and international commitments like those of the G7, G20, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

The document examines the South African e-commerce landscape, noting that while the market is growing—with online user penetration expected to reach 60.1% by 2021—it remains primarily a middle-class instrument. It identifies significant supply-side barriers, including high data costs and unreliable logistics, and demand-side barriers centered on a lack of trust in online payments and delivery. The author argues that while the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 2002 provides a foundational legal framework, South Africa lacks a single overarching e-commerce law and needs further policy interventions in education, financial services, and infrastructure to fully leverage the digital economy for poverty alleviation and women's empowerment.

A coalition of environmental organizations calls on Finland to advocate for stricter EU climate targets, specifically requesting a 95% emission reduction by 2050 and a 47% reduction in the effort-sharing sector by 2030. The letter argues against 'loopholes' in forestry and emissions trading and demands a LULUCF regulation that uses historical baselines for forest carbon accounting and includes mandatory wetland protections.

Scott Vaughan argues that traditional GDP is an insufficient measure for the circular economy because it ignores resource savings and environmental damage. He advocates for 'beyond GDP' accounts, such as the Comprehensive Wealth framework, to highlight the economic necessity of resource efficiency. Vaughan also discusses the potential for job growth in the circular economy, particularly in the EU and Denmark, while warning that automation in mining may displace workers in developing countries. Finally, he calls for the removal of fiscal incentives that encourage raw material extraction over recycling and promotes the use of green bonds and clean finance to support the transition.

The document analyzes the SDG indicators used in voluntary reviews from nine countries, comparing them to the global framework developed by the UN Statistical Division. It recommends that countries strengthen reporting capacities using existing systems, complement global metrics with national ones where gaps exist, and ensure reporting covers challenging areas like sustainable consumption and production rather than only convenient metrics.

The document examines how countries customize the global Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicator set to fit national contexts. Analyzing nine countries, it finds that while 65% of reported indicators match the UN Statistical Commission (UNSC) suggestions, there is significant under-reporting of environmental goals. The authors argue that the choice of indicators reflects a country's policy commitment and recommend that nations build reporting capacity using existing systems while avoiding 'cherry-picking' easy targets.

The paper examines interactions between six specific SDGs (1, 2, 3, 5, 9, and 14) using a seven-point scale to categorize relationships as reinforcing, enabling, or constraining. It finds that positive interactions generally outweigh negative ones, particularly for gender equality, which acts as a lever for multiple other goals. However, it highlights significant institutional barriers to integrated implementation, as most governments operate through sectoral ministries that lack joint agendas. The author argues for the creation of an international open knowledge platform to systematize SDG interaction analysis and suggests that 'mission-oriented innovation' and strategic foresight mechanisms can help overcome short-termism in infrastructure and industrial policy.

In a speech at the Regional Forum on Sustainable Development for the UNECE Region, IISD President and CEO Scott Vaughan emphasizes that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are fragile and require a shift toward holistic measurement of national well-being. He argues that GDP fails to reflect the anxieties of citizens regarding wages, health, and the environment, and advocates for a framework based on human, natural, produced, and social capital. Vaughan calls for the alignment of green and climate finance with the SDGs to support sustainable infrastructure and highlights gender equality as a prerequisite for achieving all SDG targets.

The document evaluates EU countries' positions on the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR), which covers 60% of EU greenhouse gas emissions. Using a scoring system across five categories—starting point, land use loopholes, ETS surplus loopholes, governance, and ambition levels—it ranks Sweden as the leader and Poland as the lowest performer. The brief argues that most EU countries are pushing for loopholes that undermine the Paris Agreement, with the European Commission's own proposal scoring only 20 out of 100 points.

The EU Climate Leader Board ranks EU member states on their support for the Effort Sharing Regulation across five categories: starting point, ETS surplus loophole, land use loophole, governance, and ambition level. Sweden ranks highest with a score of 67, while Malta ranks lowest with a score of 2. The analysis concludes that no EU country is currently doing enough to make the regulation compatible with the Paris Agreement.

The report argues that the European Commission and various Member States are undermining the 2013 bans on four bee-harming pesticides, including neonicotinoids and fipronil, by exploiting a legal loophole for 'emergency authorisations'. Analysis of 62 notifications reveals that these authorisations are frequently granted without evidence of a genuine emergency, without considering alternative pest control methods, and are often driven by the pesticide and seed industry. The document highlights Romania as a primary example of this abuse, noting it granted one-third of all EU derogations for neonicotinoids between 2014 and 2016 despite evidence of bee colony losses and a lack of research into sustainable alternatives. The authors call for the Commission to increase transparency, systematically scrutinise notifications, and reject industry-led requests.

The Mauritius Convention on Transparency, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 2014, provides a mechanism for States to 'opt-in' to the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency for arbitrations brought under investment treaties concluded before April 2014. The document highlights that investor-State arbitrations often involve public interests, including policies on nuclear or alternative energy, tobacco control, and the protection of drinking water, yet typically lack the openness of legal systems governed by the rule of law. By mandating the disclosure of documents and open hearings, the Convention aims to improve democratic participation, accountability, and the ability of governments to reform international economic governance. As of January 2017, Mauritius and Canada had ratified the Convention, while several other States had signed it.

The document outlines Finland's legal framework for the EU Timber Regulation, identifying the Agency for Rural Affairs (Mavi) as the Competent Authority. It details the penalty regime, which distinguishes between intentional breaches (criminal sanctions) and unintentional breaches (administrative sanctions), and notes that between March 2015 and November 2016, the CA conducted 32 checks on imported timber and 19 on domestic timber. The briefing highlights a lack of formal procedures for NGOs to challenge the CA's inaction regarding substantiated concerns, though criminal complaints can be filed directly with police.

COP23 was intended as a technical summit to establish the Paris Agreement Rulebook, but achieved only modest progress on these rules. Key breakthroughs included a first-time agreement to address climate challenges in agriculture and the establishment of a Gender Action Plan and a Local Communities and Indigenous People’s Platform. The conference launched the Talanoa dialogue to accelerate action and increase ambition. While official negotiations were slow, strong political support was demonstrated by non-state actors and an alternative US delegation. Additionally, the 'Powering Past Coal' alliance was endorsed by 28 countries and regional actors, though Germany was notably absent from the pledge.