Search Climate Insights Directory

The research design for 'State Futures in the Global South' integrates the World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), expert workshops, horizon scanning, and a four-scenario framework to analyze governance outcomes. The methodology involves benchmarking governance performance across six dimensions and incorporating regional perspectives from Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia to validate scenario assumptions and identify emerging risks.

The document establishes a conceptual framework for analyzing the future of state governance in the Global South. It defines state governance as the structures and processes used to exercise authority and manage resources, emphasizing a shift away from Global North-centric democratic models toward 'accountable governance'. The research employs a foresight-driven approach to investigate how technology, economic transitions, and geopolitical shifts influence governance trajectories across seven defined regions of the Global South.

The report analyzes the evolution of state governance in the Global South, identifying a disconnect between political participation and institutional capacity. It employs a horizon scan across five domains and develops four scenarios—the Growth World, Sustainable World, Divided World, and World at War—to model potential governance trajectories. Key findings highlight the rise of hybrid governance, the destabilizing effect of extreme inequality, and the urgent need for anticipatory governance to manage systemic shocks like the global debt crisis and climate vulnerability.

The document analyzes greenwashing practices, specifically focusing on H&M's 'conscious' clothing line and the carbon offsetting strategies of companies like Apple and Shell, as well as the social impacts of the Trees for Global Benefit project in Uganda.

The analysis finds a very weak correlation between a country's institutional readiness and its citizens' perceived personal preparedness for extreme weather. While some countries like Vietnam show high levels of both, others like Armenia have high institutional readiness but low personal preparedness, and the Philippines shows high personal preparedness despite lower institutional readiness. The study emphasizes that climate resilience requires tailored strategies based on these distinct gaps, noting that 48 of the 68 examined countries rank in the bottom half of global institutional readiness.

The document introduces a conceptual framework for evaluating gender equity and sustainable livelihoods in renewable energy value chains (REVCs). Using a social reproduction lens, it moves beyond simple employment metrics to examine the interplay between paid and unpaid labour, care responsibilities, and structural inequalities. The framework is structured around three dimensions: the global distribution of value, work and livelihoods, and ecological justice. It is intended as an assessment tool for policymakers and researchers to ensure that the transition to net zero emissions does not reproduce existing patterns of dependence or inequality, with illustrative applications mentioned for South Africa, Kenya, and Ghana.

The document advocates for a transformative approach to climate adaptation that moves beyond infrastructure to include 'communication justice'. It highlights the role of constructive journalism in combating 'climate fatigue' and the potential of AI to improve disaster prediction and information dissemination. The author criticises global agendas, such as those for COP30, for overlooking the role of independent journalism and public engagement. The statement calls for coordinated collaboration between governments, the private sector, and local communities to close digital divides and ensure that the voices of the most vulnerable are integrated into national development plans.

This working paper examines the tension between quantitative 'precisionism' and qualitative 'groundtruthing' in climate-risk mapping within the global South, proposing a framework called 'epistemic diplomacy' to integrate both evidence types for more equitable and effective policy interventions.

The document argues that climate-risk mapping in the global South is currently split between 'precisionism'—the reliance on standardized indices and models—and 'groundtruthing'—the use of lived narratives and ethnography. Precisionism often creates a 'metrics mirage' that obscures social inequalities and justice claims, while groundtruthing struggles to gain policy traction in indicator-driven bureaucracies. To resolve this, the authors introduce 'epistemic diplomacy,' a power-aware procedural approach for integrating mixed evidence. This framework includes five guiding principles, a ten-step operating model, and specific governance safeguards to ensure community co-production and prevent knowledge extraction. The paper provides practical method pairings, such as combining heat sensors with social diaries, to create 'boundary objects' that maintain both technical precision and social meaning for policymakers.

The report analyzes the role of Global North private equity firms in maintaining fossil fuel assets across the Global South, highlighting a pattern of extracting profits while offloading environmental and social risks onto local communities. Using data from the 2024 Climate Risk Scorecard, it identifies 13 firms with assets in 32 Global South countries, with a significant concentration of risky assets in Latin America, particularly Mexico. The document details specific instances of pollution in India, social displacement in Brazil, and financial instability in the Philippines, while providing a comprehensive case study on Mexico's LNG and pipeline infrastructure. It concludes that the private equity model's lack of transparency and short-term focus exacerbate climate injustice and expose institutional investors, such as public pensions, to significant financial risk.

Carbon Market Watch criticizes the EU's proposed 2040 climate target for relying on international carbon credits and including 'flexibilities' that weaken domestic ambition. The author calls for a strict domestic emissions reduction target, the exclusion of credits from the EU ETS, and the prevention of delays to the ETS2 system for buildings and road transport. The document also warns against using natural disturbances in forestry as a justification to lower overall climate targets.

The report argues that climate change threatens decades of global health progress and calls for the embedding of health priorities into all UNFCCC negotiations. It recommends operationalising the Global Goal on Adaptation with health indicators, phasing out fossil fuels to prevent millions of pollution-related deaths, and establishing a global mechanism for just transitions. The document highlights a severe finance gap, noting that current climate finance is insufficient to protect health, and suggests redirecting fossil fuel subsidies toward health-protective climate resilience. It also advocates for a transition to agroecology in food systems and the implementation of a robust Gender Action Plan to address gender-differentiated health impacts.

The document critiques debt-for-nature swaps (DNS) as a 'green trap' that prioritizes creditor profits over biodiversity and sovereignty. It asserts that these mechanisms reinforce a cycle of extractivism and austerity in the Global South, where governments are forced to prioritize debt servicing over social and ecological investments. The author calls for the cancellation of illegitimate debts and a radical overhaul of the global financial architecture based on justice and reparation.

The document critiques debt-for-nature swaps (CDN), asserting they function as a 'green trap' that reinforces financial dependence and extractivism in the Global South. It claims these mechanisms transfer control of national territories and policies to foreign NGOs and private actors while providing minimal conservation funding. The text argues that the current international financial architecture forces indebted nations into a cycle of austerity and extractivism to service debts, and calls for the cancellation of illegitimate debts and the recognition of the North's ecological debt to the South.

The document critiques debt-for-nature swaps (EDN), asserting they are a 'green' facade for an unjust financial system. It argues that these mechanisms reinforce financial dependence, facilitate the privatization of common goods, and shift control of territories to foreign NGOs and private actors. The text highlights a 'vicious circle' where debt repayment forces countries toward extractivism and austerity, while modern EDN structures—often involving 'blue' or 'green' bonds—replace old debts with more opaque loans from international entities.

The policy brief by Friends of the Earth International advocates for a UN Binding Treaty to replace corporate self-regulation with enforceable legal obligations for transnational corporations (TNCs). It argues that TNCs across sectors like fossil fuels and agribusiness have driven the climate crisis and used 'green' branding to evade responsibility. The brief outlines five key recommendations: recognizing environmental rights as human rights, establishing direct corporate obligations for global value chains and emissions, mandating prevention and precaution measures, ensuring full ecological reparation and restoration, and rejecting ESG schemes as 'false solutions'.

Friends of the Earth International argues that transnational corporations drive the climate crisis through legal loopholes and voluntary codes of conduct. The organization advocates for a UN Binding Treaty that establishes legally enforceable obligations for companies to prevent environmental harm, recognize the right to a healthy environment as a human right, and provide full reparations for ecological damage, moving beyond corporate self-regulation and 'greenwashing'.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) argues that the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) promotes the 'financierization of nature' by treating forests as financial assets. FoEI criticizes the TFFF's structure for prioritizing private investor returns over conservation, creating a potential debt cycle for Global South countries, and maintaining colonial power asymmetries through the involvement of the World Bank and other international financial institutions. While acknowledging the TFFF's commitment to allocate 20% of payments to Indigenous Peoples and local communities (PICL), FoEI deems this insufficient and calls for a systemic shift toward community-led forest management, debt cancellation, and historical reparations.

The report analyzes the intersection of climate and trade policy frameworks to enhance technology transfer for climate change adaptation in the Global South. It examines the roles of the UNFCCC and WTO, identifies barriers to technology transfer, and provides recommendations for aligning national adaptation plans with trade policy mechanisms to improve climate resilience.

The Global Resilience Partnership (GRP) Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan 2024-2029 outlines the framework for tracking progress, capturing lessons, and assessing the impact of its resilience initiatives. The plan emphasizes an adaptive management approach and a 'Triple Loop Learning' system to improve resilience outcomes in the Global South, focusing on food, finance, and communities.