Search Climate Insights Directory

In 2017, Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) reached a record $35.2 billion in climate finance commitments, with all six banks increasing their contributions. However, the report identifies critical gaps: adaptation finance grew slower than mitigation, private investment mobilization remains below 2015 levels, and vulnerable nations like SIDS and LDCs received only 10.5% of total funding. Additionally, the author notes a lack of transparency regarding project-level data and the need for MDBs to align their entire portfolios with the Paris Agreement.

The document examines how green bonds support the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically identifying SDGs 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 as those receiving the most direct benefit from green investment. It highlights that while clean energy (SDG7) remains the largest market share at 40%, other sectors like low carbon buildings (24%) and transport (15%) are significant. The author argues that climate change is a crosscutting threat to all SDGs and calls for the application of 'green' definitions and climate risk disclosure across all thematic bonds—including social and sustainability bonds—to avoid short-term gains that fail long-term climate targets. The briefing concludes that annual green bond issuance must scale to USD1 trillion by 2020 to meet these goals.

The brief contends that the environmental impact analysis (ANDAL) for the PLTU Celukan Bawang expansion in Bali is legally insufficient under Law no. 32/2009 because it omits a comprehensive climate change assessment. The authors argue that such assessments must include the project's direct and life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, the project's vulnerability to climate-driven sea level rise and storm surges, and how climate change exacerbates the project's local environmental harms. Drawing on international legal precedents from South Africa, Australia, and the United States, as well as guidance from the European Union and Canada, the brief asserts that climate considerations are essential for meeting Indonesia's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and Paris Agreement commitments. Specifically, the expansion is projected to release over 200 million tons of CO2 over 30 years and faces physical risks due to its low-lying coastal location and the degradation of protective coral reefs.

The document outlines the environmental risks associated with the EU-Indonesia FTA, specifically regarding palm oil and timber trade, and proposes specific textual amendments and structural safeguards to ensure the agreement supports climate goals and human rights.

The policy brief assesses the evolution of the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) and identifies strategic opportunities for South Africa during its 2017-2018 chairmanship. While acknowledging IORA's progress in establishing priority areas like the Blue Economy and maritime security, the author argues that the organisation is hindered by a consensus-based decision-making process that avoids controversy and a 'member-driven approach' that lacks continuity and transparency. The brief recommends that South Africa focus on institutional reforms to better integrate academic and policy research, strengthen ties with other African member states and the 2050 Africa’s Integrated Maritime Strategy, and improve the Secretariat's monitoring and reporting functions.

The document examines the 'jurisdictional approach' (JA)—a comprehensive, government-led strategy for forest and land-use governance across defined political territories. It argues that subnational jurisdictions (states, provinces, districts) are critical for scaling emissions reductions because they are closer to land users and possess the authority to shape land-use decisions. Through case studies in Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, Peru, and Mexico, the paper highlights that while JA fosters multi-stakeholder collaboration and policy innovation, it is frequently hampered by political turnover, limited public sector capacity, and a lack of tangible financial incentives. The authors conclude that JA is not a 'silver bullet' but a necessary recognition of the role of multi-level government in protecting forests and enhancing livelihoods.

The document argues that tropical forests, mangroves, and peatlands can provide 23 percent of the cost-effective mitigation needed by 2030 to limit warming to 2°C. It highlights that deforestation impacts the climate not only through carbon emissions but also through non-radiative forcings like disrupted water cycles and surface albedo changes, which can lead to hotter and drier conditions locally and continentally. The authors emphasize that while reforestation has high potential, it faces uncertainties regarding land availability and competition with food security, whereas avoiding deforestation provides more certain mitigation benefits.

The report argues that the proliferation of certification labels creates consumer confusion and allows companies to greenwash their operations without achieving substantive environmental improvements. In fisheries, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and Friends of the Sea (FOS) are criticized for certifying overfished areas and lacking transparency. In the palm oil sector, programs like RSPO, ISCC, and ISPO are found to have failed in slowing deforestation or peatland drainage. In textiles, the Higg Index and Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) are highlighted for weaknesses such as reliance on self-assessment and allowing GMO seeds. The authors call for a shift toward mandatory government regulations and a reform of certifications based on transparency, independence, holistic life-cycle approaches, and scientific standards.

The report assesses voluntary sustainability certifications in fisheries, palm oil, and textiles, concluding that many schemes act as 'greenwash' and fail to prevent deforestation, overfishing, or pollution. It argues that the proliferation of labels creates consumer confusion and a 'race to the bottom' in standards. The authors call for the abolition of ineffective schemes and a transition toward science-based, transparent, and holistic regulations that cover the entire product life-cycle.

The report examines voluntary sustainability certifications in the palm oil, fisheries, and textile industries, concluding that these schemes often lack transparency, lower their standards to increase volume, and fail to prevent deforestation or overfishing. It argues that certifications are being used as 'greenwashing' tools by corporations and governments and calls for a shift toward strict, independent, and comprehensive standards that cover the entire product life cycle, while emphasizing that voluntary initiatives cannot replace government regulation.

The document argues that the proliferation of voluntary certifications in the palm oil, fisheries, and textile sectors has created consumer confusion and a 'race to the bottom' in standards. It finds that these schemes often fail to stop deforestation, overfishing, or pollution, and are sometimes used by companies to mask unsustainable operations. The report calls for the abolition of most current schemes in favor of a few high-ambition, transparent, and science-based standards that complement, rather than replace, government regulation.

The report investigates voluntary certification in three high-impact sectors: fisheries, palm oil, and textiles. It concludes that a proliferation of low-ambition schemes creates consumer confusion and allows companies to 'greenwash' unsustainable practices. In fisheries, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and Friend of the Sea (FOS) are criticized for certifying fisheries with high bycatch and destructive methods. In palm oil, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and government-led schemes like ISPO are found ineffective at stopping deforestation and peatland drainage. In textiles, the report highlights the lack of transparency in the Higg Index and the low standards of the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) compared to the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS). The authors call for the abolition of the least ambitious schemes and a shift toward mandatory due diligence, transparency, and science-based regulations.

The report highlights a pipeline of 38 green infrastructure projects in Indonesia for 2018-2019, ranging from a USD15m solar project to a USD6bn high-speed rail development. It emphasizes the role of green finance, specifically green bonds and the world's first sovereign green sukuk, in bridging a USD150bn infrastructure investment gap. Key sectors identified include low-carbon transport (rail and BRT), renewable energy (geothermal and hydropower), sustainable water and waste management, and the built environment (certified green buildings).

The report examines the health and economic costs of coal in Indonesia, highlighting the link between coal combustion and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It argues that the Indonesian government's continued subsidies for coal, which reached USD 946 million in 2014, contradict public health needs and the availability of cheaper renewable energy alternatives.

The report analyzes the health and economic costs of coal in Indonesia, highlighting that coal-related air pollution causes thousands of premature deaths and significant financial burdens on low-income households. It argues that the Indonesian government's continued subsidies for coal production and power plants contradict public health goals and that transitioning to cheaper renewable energy would reduce these burdens.

The document analyzes the rapid expansion of Indonesia's coal sector, driven by political decentralization and intertwined interests between politicians and mining companies. It examines the resulting environmental and social legacies, recent government attempts to regulate the sector through licensing reforms and production caps, and the impact of global shifts toward renewable energy and divestment from coal.

The report identifies newly adopted policies in 25 major emitting countries and regions—representing 79% of 2012 global GHG emissions—that support long-term decarbonisation goals. These policies include carbon taxes, coal phase-outs, and support for renewable energy and electric vehicles, focusing on legislative decisions and executive orders with direct effects on reducing emissions.

This report evaluates civil society participation within the Open Government Partnership (OGP) across Georgia, South Africa, and Indonesia, highlighting the risk of "open-washing" where governments dominate initiatives and treat civil society involvement as tokenistic.

The report evaluates the APRM, OGP, and EITI, finding that while the OGP and EITI successfully employ peer learning and pressure to enforce standards and protect civil society, the APRM lags behind due to a lack of critical engagement and a failure to implement sanctions for non-compliance.

The report examines how civil society organizations (CSOs) engage with the Open Government Partnership (OGP), a multi-stakeholder initiative (MSI) designed to increase government transparency and civic participation. Through case studies of Georgia, South Africa, and Indonesia, the authors analyze the gap between the OGP's 'co-creation' aspirations and the reality of government dominance. Georgia is presented as a success story where a permanent multi-stakeholder forum fostered genuine partnership, while South Africa is characterized by tokenism and a lack of political will. Indonesia's experience is described as mixed, with active CSOs facing logistical hurdles and a restrictive political environment. The report concludes that while MSIs can open spaces for dialogue, their success depends on political commitment, institutional structures like permanent forums, and the ability of CSOs to form strategic coalitions.