Search Climate Insights Directory

The CESCR addressed climate change in most of its 2023 work, including twelve Concluding Observations and seven Lists of Issues. The Committee focused on mitigation policies, urging states like Brazil, Panama, and Portugal to meet their Paris Agreement NDCs, and recommended that China expand its emissions trading system and stop financing overseas coal power. Adaptation efforts were highlighted in nineteen statements, with specific calls for national adaptation plans in Cambodia, Palestine, and Yemen, and an emphasis on the participation of Indigenous Peoples in Panama. Additionally, the Committee challenged the fossil fuel reliance of states such as Qatar and China, while inquiring about oil refinery pollution in Curaçao.

Global investments in energy transition technologies reached a record USD 1.3 trillion in 2022, yet this remains insufficient to meet climate goals, with annual needs estimated at over USD 5 trillion. While renewable energy investments are growing, they are heavily concentrated in a few regions—primarily East Asia and the Pacific—and specific technologies like solar PV and wind. Conversely, fossil fuel investments continue to rise, and subsidies remain high, particularly in Europe and the MENA region. The report emphasizes the need for a fundamental shift in financing for the Global South, calling for more innovative public finance instruments, the mobilization of institutional capital, and a transition away from fossil fuel funding to ensure a just and inclusive energy transition.

Global energy transition investments reached a record USD 1.3 trillion in 2022, but this is less than one-third of the annual USD 5 trillion needed to meet the 1.5°C Scenario. While renewable energy investments grew to nearly USD 0.5 trillion in 2022, they remain heavily concentrated in solar and wind technologies and a few regions, primarily East Asia and Pacific. Developing and emerging markets receive a disproportionately small share of finance; for example, Sub-Saharan Africa received less than 1.5% of global investments between 2000 and 2020. The report emphasizes that private capital prioritizes low-risk, commercially viable projects, leaving a critical gap in less mature technologies and high-risk regions. It argues for a fundamental shift in public financing, moving beyond simple de-risking to provide more grants, concessional loans, and innovative instruments like local currency lending and green bonds to ensure a just and inclusive transition.

The report analyzes how different audiences perceive the intersection of climate change and health and evaluates the effectiveness of various communication frames. It finds that framing climate change as a public health issue, particularly by emphasizing the health benefits of solutions (gain framing) and the harms of air pollution, can increase public engagement and reduce political polarization. The document highlights health professionals as highly trusted messengers who are generally willing to engage in advocacy but face barriers such as lack of time and specialized knowledge. It also notes that public officials exhibit varying levels of awareness and face institutional barriers to prioritizing climate-health issues. The report concludes with a research agenda calling for more diverse geographic data, better integration of equity in messaging, and the expansion of climate-health curricula in medical education.

The document argues that nature-based solutions (NBS) and carbon offsets often serve as a distraction for 'Big Polluters' to continue emitting while facilitating land grabs and violating Indigenous rights. It provides detailed evidence of inflated carbon baselines, lack of additionality, and social harms across Africa, Asia Pacific, Europe, Latin America, and North America. Key examples include REDD+ projects in Zimbabwe and Gabon that overestimated carbon savings, and soil carbon initiatives in the US and Kenya that threaten food sovereignty and traditional livelihoods. The report also critiques improved cookstove offsets for using flawed accounting to generate 'fake emission cuts'.

The document argues that carbon markets and offsets are 'false climate solutions' that fail to reduce emissions, allow major polluters to continue emitting, and facilitate land grabs and human rights violations, particularly in the Global South. It details the mechanisms of the UNFCCC's Article 6, various voluntary and regional trading schemes, and provides a strategic framework for civil society to oppose these markets through policy advocacy, legal tactics, and community solidarity.

The document critiques soil carbon offset programs, asserting they do not reduce global emissions but instead serve as a mechanism for agribusinesses to maintain industrial models. It highlights risks such as the erosion of traditional agricultural knowledge, the promotion of patented seeds and chemicals, and the unreliability of soil carbon measurement. The text specifically identifies companies like Yara and Boomitra as drivers of these markets, expanding from industrial farms in the US, Australia, and Brazil into small-scale farming in Africa, India, and South America.

The document argues that carbon markets and offsetting mechanisms are ineffective 'false solutions' that allow major polluters to continue emitting while causing harm to ecosystems and communities, particularly in the Global South. It details the mechanisms of the UNFCCC's Article 6, various regional and national carbon pricing initiatives, and provides strategies for civil society to resist these systems through advocacy, legal action, and community mobilization.

The document argues that carbon markets and emission offsets are ineffective at reducing emissions and instead serve as a distraction for major polluters while enabling extractivism and neocolonialism, particularly in the Global South. It details the mechanisms of the UNFCCC's Article 6, including the cooperative approaches of 6.2 and the UN-managed market of 6.4, as well as various regional and national systems in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The guide concludes by offering strategies for opposition, such as policy advocacy, community awareness, and legal challenges, while providing resources for tracking carbon projects.

The document examines decentralisation across five Eastern African countries, highlighting a recurring gap between formal policy and actual practice. While Rwanda is noted for significant achievements in inclusion and service delivery through strong political commitment, other countries like Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, and Uganda struggle with elite capture, central government interference, and financial constraints. The report argues that decentralisation often serves as a tool for political control or patronage rather than genuine local empowerment, and recommends deepening participatory democracy and strengthening the capacity of local leaders.

The analysis reveals that only 24% of the 67 sampled countries demonstrated a climate risk responsive recovery. A significant paradox was identified: a country's income level was a stronger determinant of whether it used COVID-19 funds for adaptation than its actual climate vulnerability. High-income countries were more likely to integrate physical climate risks into their recovery plans, while the most vulnerable countries were the least likely to do so, with only Kenya and Vanuatu among the 20 most vulnerable countries approving explicit adaptation actions. Most responsive measures focused on water resources management, disaster prevention, infrastructure, and nature-based solutions, primarily targeting drought and flooding.

The Resilience Evidence Forum 2023 Synthesis Report outlines a multi-scalar approach to building resilience, focusing on people, communities, urban systems, socio-ecological systems, and market systems. It emphasizes the transition from top-down measurement to co-produced evidence that integrates local and Indigenous knowledge with scientific data. The report identifies critical gaps in funding for climate resilience—noting that less than $50 billion is spent annually against needs of $160-340 billion—and advocates for gender-transformative approaches, integrated health and nutrition systems, and the use of mixed-methods to capture transformative, long-term outcomes rather than just short-term recovery.

The document advocates for a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG), defined as a government commitment to ensure all adults receive a regular payment sufficient to meet basic needs. It argues that UBIG is not merely a safety net but a tool for economic empowerment and growth. Evidence from Kenya, Zambia, Mexico, and Namibia is cited to show that guaranteed income allows people to invest in education, start small businesses, and increase agricultural production. Furthermore, the text highlights a 'multiplier effect' where cash transfers stimulate local economies, citing examples from Ghana and Zambia where spending by low-income recipients boosted local business activity and overall national income.

The IGF Mining Policy Framework Guidance 2023 outlines six pillars for sustainable mining governance. It emphasizes the creation of transparent legal frameworks, the optimization of public revenues through progressive fiscal regimes, and the promotion of local socioeconomic benefits with a strong focus on gender equality and indigenous rights. The guide details environmental standards for air, water, and biodiversity, mandates rigorous mine closure planning with financial guarantees, and provides specific strategies to formalize and support artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) while eliminating harmful practices like child labor and mercury use.

The IGF Mining Policy Framework is a detailed guide for governments to regulate the mining sector sustainably. It is organized into six pillars: laws and institutions, financial benefits, socio-economic benefits, environmental management, mine closure transition, and artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM). The framework emphasizes transparency, gender equality, human rights, and the protection of indigenous peoples. Key recommendations include the use of integrated environmental and social impact assessments (ESIAs), the establishment of robust financial assurance for mine closures, and the formalization of the ASM sector to reduce poverty and environmental harm. It specifically advocates for the elimination of mercury in ASM and the implementation of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for indigenous communities.

The document examines the tension between Africa's development goals, specifically Agenda 2063, and the risk of high-carbon growth. It argues that while pursuing traditional fossil-fuel-led development would significantly increase carbon emissions, Africa can leverage its vast reserves of critical minerals and renewable energy potential to achieve a low-carbon transition. The authors emphasize that climate change exacerbates existing instabilities and that current global climate finance architectures are inadequate, often treating adaptation as aid or providing loans that increase debt. The brief recommends a multi-actor approach to African agency and a strategic shift to place climate change at the center of all diplomacy and development to avoid the 'resource curse' and ensure equitable wealth redistribution.

The document examines the 'regionalisation' of peacekeeping in Africa, noting that troops from countries bordering crisis zones now constitute a significant portion of UN and AU missions. While these countries possess local knowledge, the authors argue that their involvement often prioritises national interests and 'collective defence'—the alliance against identified enemies—over the 'collective security' goal of addressing root causes. This shift is characterised by extreme militarisation and a lack of political strategy, which the authors suggest erodes the principles of impartiality and neutrality in peacekeeping.

The document examines the nexus between climate change, human mobility, and development in Africa, highlighting that while mobility can be a strategic adaptation tool, current funding and policy frameworks are inadequate. It identifies significant barriers, including a bias toward mitigation over adaptation, a lack of institutional knowledge, and the politicization of migration. The brief recommends that development actors and national governments mainstream climate-linked mobility across sectors and adopt a diverse range of financial instruments to support people who are staying, moving, or on the move.

The document argues that while Chinese lending is not the primary cause of Africa's debt distress, specific features of the 'China model'—including lack of transparency, resource-backed loans, and the exclusion of collective restructuring clauses—exacerbate financial vulnerabilities. It highlights how these factors, combined with broader economic shocks, can lead to socio-economic instability, reduced spending on essential services, and increased risks of conflict. The brief recommends enhanced loan transparency, the adoption of legally binding reporting protocols, and improved national debt management to protect human security and development.

The document argues that a 'social mandate'—broad public support and legitimacy—is essential for the successful implementation of climate adaptation policies. It recommends that NAP teams leverage the Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) framework, which includes education, training, public awareness, public participation, public access to information, and international cooperation. The briefing emphasizes values-led engagement, the use of trusted messengers, and audience segmentation to drive sustainable behavior change. It also provides evidence-based principles for visual communication to avoid stereotypes and connect with audiences emotionally. Case studies from Saint Lucia, Fiji, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Ghana illustrate various approaches, including the use of radio for rural outreach and visual storytelling by women to influence national policy.