Search Climate Insights Directory

The document provides a detailed breakdown of 'green jobs' in the US and internationally, contrasting clean energy employment with fossil fuel industry figures and detailing specific subsectors such as solar, wind, and energy efficiency.

The document highlights 2016 as a pivotal year for green bonds, noting the emergence of sovereign green bonds in Poland and France and the increasing use of these instruments to fund Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). It argues that a green debt market of at least $1 trillion per year is necessary by 2020 to meet low-carbon infrastructure needs. Key policy tools identified include credit enhancement, tax incentives, and the establishment of official national guidelines, with specific examples of initiatives in China, India, Brazil, and Mexico.

The document provides a detailed breakdown of jobs in clean energy, contrasting them with fossil fuel employment in the U.S. and highlighting global leaders like China and Brazil. It details specific employment numbers for solar, wind, biomass, and energy efficiency subsectors, while noting the methodological challenges in comparing data from different sources.

The document examines the controversial role of Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) clauses in bilateral investment treaties (BITs), specifically the trend of investors importing more favourable provisions from third-party treaties. It details the divergence in tribunal rulings regarding the import of procedural rules—such as circumventing domestic court requirements—and the import of substantive protections. The guide highlights the risks of 'treaty-shopping' and the creation of 'super-treaties' that undermine state sovereignty. It concludes with strategies for states to mitigate these risks, including the use of 'like circumstances' criteria, explicit exclusions of dispute settlement mechanisms, and the adoption of positive lists for pre-establishment liberalization.

The document examines the global push for beneficial ownership transparency to combat illicit financial flows, money laundering, and corruption. It focuses on the G20 High-Level Principles and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) guidelines, analyzing how these standards are applied across diverse institutional contexts. A significant portion of the paper is dedicated to South Africa's efforts to align its domestic laws, such as the FIC Amendment Bill, with these global norms. It also provides a comparative analysis of implementation in G20 countries (including the UK, US, China, and Russia) and African nations (Nigeria and Ghana), highlighting common obstacles such as weak institutional capacity, political resistance, and the misuse of shell companies and trusts.

Friends of the Earth International condemns the long detention of Hiroji Yamashiro and other anti-US military base protesters in Okinawa, Japan. The organization argues that the Japanese government's forced construction of military facilities leads to environmental degradation and human rights violations.

The report argues that achieving the EU's 2050 climate targets requires a broad portfolio of innovative production processes, material substitution, and efficiency gains. It proposes an integrated policy approach combining EU ETS reform—specifically the 'inclusion of consumption' to ensure carbon price pass-through—with public procurement and targeted innovation support, such as carbon contracts for differences, to overcome investment risks and the 'technology valley of death'.

Between 2010 and 2014, US$748 million in climate finance primarily targeting climate change was committed to 15 Pacific SIDS, predominantly as grants. The funding was split between adaptation (59%) and mitigation (36%), with 72% sourced through bilateral channels, led by Australia. The vast majority of support (86%) was project-based, with a heavy concentration in creating 'enabling environments' and renewable energy. The analysis notes that Polynesian countries were more successful in attracting diverse funding than Micronesian countries, and highlights significant differences in flexibility and transaction costs between bilateral and multilateral funding sources.

Between 2010 and 2014, US$748 million in climate finance was committed to 15 Pacific SIDS, primarily as grants and delivered through bilateral channels. Adaptation received 59% of this funding, while 36% went to mitigation. The majority of support (86%) was project-based, with a strong focus on creating an 'enabling environment' for climate policy and planning.

Between 2010 and 2014, the Federated States of Micronesia received US$ 3.93 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with 99.4% (US$ 3.91 million) dedicated to adaptation. Australia was the primary source of this funding, with the largest allocations directed toward environmental research and disaster prevention and preparedness. Additionally, between January 2015 and September 2016, the country received US$ 0.3 million from the Green Climate Fund for readiness support and US$ 0.85 million from the Global Environment Facility for reporting purposes.

Between 2010 and 2014, Kiribati received US$30.5 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change objectives, with a majority supporting mitigation. An additional US$81.7 million in ODA provided climate co-benefits. The primary contributors were Australia, the United Arab Emirates, and the Global Environment Facility, with funding concentrated in environmental policy and solar energy.

Between 2010 and 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands received US$7.9 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with the Global Environment Facility and Australia as the primary sources. Mitigation activities received the largest share of this funding (50.8%), followed by adaptation (44.4%).

Between 2010 and 2014, Nauru received US$5.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change objectives, with the largest contributions coming from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Australia, and the European Union. Mitigation activities received the highest share of this funding at 50.7% (US$2.7 million), followed by adaptation at 36.1% (US$1.9 million). The GEF's funding focused on biodiversity, Australia's on environmental research, and the EU's on disaster prevention and preparedness.

Between 2010 and 2014, Papua New Guinea received US$41.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically for climate change, with a majority (60.6%) supporting mitigation. An additional US$147.4 million in ODA provided climate co-benefits. Major donors included Australia, Japan, the European Union, and the Adaptation Fund. From January 2015 to September 2016, further allocations were made via the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (US$25 million), the Global Environment Facility (US$2.84 million), and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (US$3.8 million).

Between 2010 and 2014, the Solomon Islands received US$42.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with a primary focus on adaptation. Major contributors included the Global Environment Facility, Japan, and the Adaptation Fund, with funding directed toward disaster prevention, forestry, and water policy. Additionally, the country received US$6.70 million for solar power development between 2015 and 2016.

Between 2010 and 2014, Timor Leste received US$102.5 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with a strong emphasis on adaptation and water-related infrastructure. Japan, Australia, and the Least Developed Countries Fund were the primary contributors, focusing on irrigation, water and sanitation, and environmental policy respectively.

Between 2010 and 2014, Tonga received US$67.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with a majority (59.7%) supporting mitigation. The primary contributors were Japan and the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs), with significant funding directed toward renewable energy and environmental policy. Additionally, Tonga was allocated US$2.64 million from the Global Environment Facility for a renewable energy project between January 2015 and September 2016.

Between 2010 and 2014, Tuvalu received US$37.9 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with a significant portion dedicated to renewable energy. Major contributors during this period included New Zealand, the United Arab Emirates, and the Global Environment Facility. Additionally, between January 2015 and September 2016, Tuvalu was allocated US$36 million from the Green Climate Fund for coastal adaptation and US$2.64 million from the Global Environment Facility for national energy targets.

Between 2010 and 2014, Vanuatu received US$49.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with a majority supporting mitigation. The primary sources of this funding were the Global Environment Facility, Australia, and the United Arab Emirates, focusing on environmental policy, renewables, and disaster preparedness. Additionally, between January 2015 and September 2016, Vanuatu received further allocations from the Green Climate Fund, the LDCF, and the Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program.

The document examines the tension between 'mainstreaming' climate change adaptation—integrating it into development, business, and other policy sectors—and treating it as a specialized 'silo' of expertise. Drawing on the Adaptation Futures 2016 conference, it argues that neither approach is inherently superior; rather, the choice depends on the specific purpose and context. While mainstreaming promotes resource efficiency and policy coherence (particularly regarding poverty reduction), the author notes that it can make adaptation progress invisible, complicating monitoring, evaluation, and the tracking of earmarked finance. The brief highlights the expansion of mainstreaming into business operations and city planning, while recommending a pragmatic approach that recognizes the value of both integrated and stand-alone adaptation efforts.