Search Climate Insights Directory

Kenya is highly vulnerable to climate change, with adverse events causing annual socioeconomic losses of 3–5 percent of GDP between 2010 and 2020. While some crop yields may increase due to CO2 fertilization and higher elevations, the livestock sector faces significant risks from heat stress and drought, particularly in arid and semi-arid lands. The report highlights critical vulnerabilities in hydropower, tourism, and coastal infrastructure, while noting that the government is a regional leader in policy but struggles with financing and subnational coordination. Recommendations focus on granular climate scenario analysis, diversifying agriculture, improving agricultural insurance, and mobilizing large-scale funding through ARIPs.

Climate change is projected to increase temperatures and decrease rainfall in Zambia, particularly in the south and west, threatening food security, energy stability, and transport infrastructure. The report highlights that maize yields could drop by over 9% by 2050 under high emissions scenarios, and hydropower generation—which provides 85% of installed capacity—is highly vulnerable to drought. Road infrastructure is also at risk, with flooding in Lusaka and the north potentially disrupting trade and supply chains. While the Zambian government has integrated climate goals into its Eighth National Development Plan and is developing a National Adaptation Plan, significant barriers remain, including severe debt distress and limited technical capacity. The report recommends a programmatic approach to funding via ARIPs to mobilize the estimated US$50 billion needed by 2030, emphasizing region-specific agricultural adaptation and the diversification of the energy mix.

The global aligned GSS+ debt market reached a cumulative volume of USD 4.2 trillion by the end of Q3 2023, though year-to-date volumes declined by 10% compared to 2022. Green bonds remain the dominant theme, surpassing a cumulative USD 2.5 trillion milestone. In the Middle East and Africa (MEA), the market grew by 158% in 2023, driven largely by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, with a strong preference for green instruments and a recent increase in public sector issuance.

The document outlines the operational framework for tracking global climate finance, defining mitigation and adaptation finance, and establishing principles to avoid double counting and carbon lock-in. It details the financial instruments captured, the classification of public and private actors, and the data sources used. Additionally, it describes the methodology for estimating annual investment needs across sectors and the framework for calculating the economic and social costs of climate inaction.

The report finds that comprehensive requirements for benefit sharing arrangements are not common practice across major carbon crediting programmes. While some projects, particularly those under Plan Vivo, demonstrate best practices by providing detailed monitoring reports on monetary and non-monetary benefits, many others provide only procedural information or limited evidence of actual implementation. Major carbon crediting programmes like Verra (VCS), CAR, and ACR have largely resisted mandatory disclosure of benefit sharing terms, citing commercial confidentiality and a lack of institutional expertise to monitor downstream financial flows.

The briefing reveals a systemic lack of rules and enforcement regarding benefit sharing arrangements (BSAs) in the voluntary carbon market. An analysis by Öko-Institut found that only two of five assessed carbon standards referenced BSAs, and only four of 47 reviewed projects provided clear evidence of benefit sharing with stakeholders beyond project implementers. The document argues that payments for results (such as payments for ecosystem services) are often incorrectly conflated with benefit sharing, which should instead be a distribution of revenues. It further notes that major standards like CAR, ACR, and VCS have opposed mandatory BSA rules from the ICVCM, citing confidentiality and capacity constraints.

The document examines the prevalence and quality of benefit-sharing agreements in the voluntary carbon market (VCM). Based on an Öko-Institut study, it finds that most carbon standards and projects lack clear, enforceable mechanisms to distribute financial and non-financial benefits to local communities. It highlights a critical confusion between 'benefit-sharing' and 'payment for results' (such as salaries or payments for ecosystem services), arguing that the former should be a separate share of profits. The brief concludes that the absence of uniform definitions and the opposition of major standards to mandatory rules hinder the equitable distribution of carbon credit revenues.

The document analyzes the lack of standardized rules for benefit-sharing agreements (BSAs) in the voluntary carbon market, finding that most carbon standards and projects fail to provide evidence of equitable benefit distribution to indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs).

The document reports on a study by the Öko-Institut commissioned by Carbon Market Watch, which found that benefit-sharing arrangements (BSAs) in the voluntary carbon market are largely insufficient and lack transparency. Analysis of five carbon standards and 47 projects revealed that most standards do not require BSAs, and very few projects provide evidence of distributing benefits beyond simple performance-based payments. The brief argues that performance payments (like salaries) should not be conflated with benefit-sharing and calls for the Integrity Council for Voluntary Carbon Markets (ICVCM) to mandate standardized, transparent BSA rules.

The report argues that nature-based solutions (NBS) and carbon offset schemes often serve as 'escapes' for major polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases while facilitating land grabbing and violating human rights. It provides numerous case studies across Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, and the Americas, highlighting systemic issues such as inflated carbon baselines, lack of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), and the failure of projects to deliver promised carbon reductions or community benefits. Specific examples include REDD+ projects in Gabon and Zimbabwe, soil carbon initiatives in Kenya and the US, and cookstove offsets in India.

The document advocates for a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) in South Africa, defining it as a government commitment to ensure all adults receive a minimum income to meet basic needs. It argues that current social grant systems have gaps, particularly for adults aged 18 to 59, and that a UBIG would address systemic poverty, improve health and education outcomes, and stimulate local economies. The text asserts that such a guarantee is a constitutional right under Section 27 of the South African Constitution and aligns with international obligations under the ICESCR.

The document advocates for a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) in South Africa, defining it as a government commitment to ensure all adults receive a basic income to meet essential needs. It highlights that current social grants, while effective, leave a gap for adults aged 18 to 59. The text argues that UBIG would not only reduce poverty and hunger—noting that 18.3 million people lack sufficient income for basic food—but also improve health, education, gender equality, and local economic growth.

The document outlines how a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) can address systemic gender inequalities and social instability in South Africa. It highlights the economic vulnerability of women, who face higher unemployment and perform unpaid care work, and suggests that unconditional cash transfers can increase women's autonomy and reduce intimate partner violence. Additionally, the text argues that UBIG fosters social cohesion by reducing poverty-related crime and increasing trust in local governance, provided the benefit is universal rather than means-tested.

This fact sheet from the Institute for Economic Justice argues that a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG)—defined as a continuous government payment or provision forS provided to all residents to meet basic needs—can improve gender equality and social cohesion. It highlights how UBIG can reduce poverty and financial dependence for women, decrease intimate partner violence, and lower crime rates, provided the payments are unconditional and universal rather than targeted.

The document outlines how a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) can address systemic gender inequalities and social instability in South Africa. It argues that by providing a guaranteed income to all adults, UBIG empowers women—who face higher unemployment and unpaid care burdens—and reduces intimate partner violence. Furthermore, the text asserts that unconditional cash transfers strengthen social cohesion, increase trust in government, and lower crime rates, contrasting these benefits with conditional transfers that can create social division.

The document outlines how a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) functions as a tool for economic empowerment rather than just a social grant. It presents evidence from various countries showing that guaranteed income allows the poor to invest in productive assets, start small businesses, and increase local consumption, which in turn stimulates broader economic activity through a multiplier effect.

The fact sheet challenges the narrative that social grants discourage work or hinder economic growth in South Africa. It argues that income support actually increases autonomy, enables job seeking by reducing poverty, and stimulates local economies through a multiplier effect. The document advocates for a Guaranteed Universal Basic Income (UBIG) to address structural poverty, support unpaid care work—primarily performed by women—and provide workers with the leverage to refuse exploitative employment.

The document challenges the notion that social grants create a 'cycle of dependency' or hinder economic growth in South Africa. It argues that basic income supports job seekers by reducing poverty-related barriers, stimulates local economies through increased spending, and provides a safety net that empowers workers to negotiate better wages and conditions. The text emphasizes that employment and social support are complementary rather than contradictory, particularly for unpaid caregivers and those in structural poverty.

The document challenges the belief that social grants discourage work, asserting instead that unconditional cash transfers can increase labor market participation and stimulate local economies. It argues that because structural poverty in South Africa prevents many from succeeding through hard work alone, and because essential unpaid care work (primarily by women) is ignored by traditional employment metrics, a UBIG is necessary to ensure a dignified life and provide a safety net that empowers workers to negotiate better conditions.

The document challenges the notion that social grants discourage work, asserting instead that a basic income guarantee supports labor market participation by reducing poverty and providing a safety net. It provides evidence from South Africa and other Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) to show that cash transfers can stimulate local economies, improve educational outcomes, and empower workers to seek better employment conditions. The text emphasizes that UBIG is particularly essential for women, who perform significant unpaid care work, and for the millions of South Africans living in poverty due to systemic economic structures.