Search Climate Insights Directory

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 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 report finds that while Korea has a massive overall bond market and strong climate policies, its climate bond market remains small with only six bonds issued by four entities. It identifies a potential USD 18bn in unlabelled climate-aligned bonds and suggests that Korea could lead the Asian region by adopting national guidelines, sovereign issuance, and tax incentives, drawing on successful models from China, India, and other ASEAN nations.

The document advocates for 'green urban industrialisation' in Ethiopia, specifically through a corridor approach that connects urban clusters. Using the Kombolcha–Mek’ele corridor as a case study, it suggests that integrating transport, infrastructure, and resource management across administrative boundaries can prevent carbon-intensive development and maximise economic productivity. Key recommendations include identifying catalytic projects in green housing, waste, and water management, improving institutional coordination between federal and regional levels, and aligning local urban plans with national climate strategies.

In 2017, global green bond issuance reached USD 155.5 billion, a 78% increase over 2016. The market was led by the US, China, and France, with a notable rise in sovereign issuance and the emergence of new issuers from 37 countries. While renewable energy remains the primary use of proceeds, there was significant growth in allocations for low carbon buildings and transport. The report highlights a push toward harmonized international standards and forecasts a need for the market to reach USD 1 trillion by 2020 to impact climate targets.

The report analyzes the growth of green bond markets in emerging economies, highlighting the critical role of national guidance and alignment with international standards like the Green Bond Principles. Through case studies of countries such as China, Indonesia, and Morocco, it identifies key barriers—including lack of capacity and limited investor demand—and proposes a 'Green Bond Market Development Toolkit' featuring a self-assessment matrix and a roadmap of milestones to accelerate sustainable capital flows.

The global green bond market reached a cumulative issuance of USD 521bn by 2018, with USD 167.6bn issued in 2018 alone. The USA, China, and France emerged as the leading national markets. The report highlights a significant increase in issuance from financial institutions, particularly commercial banks, and a growing trend toward shorter-dated bonds. While Europe remains the largest overall market, the Asia-Pacific region saw the highest year-on-year growth at 35%. The market is also diversifying into other labelled instruments, including sustainability, social, and blue bonds, and expanding into emerging markets through the adoption of regional standards like the ASEAN Green Bond Standards.

The report advocates for Community Forest Management (MCB) as a sustainable alternative to industrial logging and top-down conservation. It links MCB to the 'Buen Vivir' philosophy, emphasizing the need for secure land tenure, social capital, and gender equity. The text critiques market-based mechanisms like REDD+ and the Payment for Environmental Services (PSA) for promoting privatization and centralizing control. It concludes with recommendations to shift funding from fossil fuel subsidies toward community-led conservation and the restoration of ancestral rights.

The report promotes community forest management (GCF) as a holistic approach to forest conservation and social justice, contrasting it with destructive industrial logging and the REDD+ mechanism. It argues that GCF, rooted in the 'bien-vivre' paradigm, effectively reduces deforestation and protects biodiversity by empowering indigenous and local communities with secure land tenure and ancestral knowledge. The document highlights the failures of carbon markets and 'sustainable forest management' labels used by corporations to mask extraction. It recommends strengthening community land rights, eliminating fossil fuel subsidies to fund adaptation, and reducing international trade in tropical hardwoods.

The report evaluates global progress in forest governance and land rights, noting a record 182 killings of environmental defenders in 2016. While it highlights positive developments in illegal timber import controls in countries like South Korea, Malaysia, and the US, and the implementation of EU FLEGT agreements in Indonesia and Vietnam, it warns that climate finance for local communities remains insufficient, with only 10 percent reaching the local level in 2016. The document also emphasizes the lack of gender-sensitive provisions in community-based tenure regimes and the ongoing effort to track tenure security via SDG Indicator 1.4.2.

The report highlights a critical lack of aggregate global data to measure progress in reducing deforestation caused by basic needs. It uses the distribution of clean cookstoves and related funding as proxy indicators, noting that while annual distributions reached approximately 20 million, the number of stoves meeting clean and efficient standards declined from nearly 15 million in 2014 to 13 million in 2015. Financial support also showed a downward trend between 2012 and 2015, with Official Development Assistance (ODA) for fuelwood dropping from USD 81 million to USD 3.2 million and carbon offset transactions falling from USD 65 million to USD 15 million.

Singapore established itself as a regional petroleum trading hub by combining a strategic geographical location with a 'twin-track' industrial strategy of minimal regulation and strong institutional support. Starting with oil refining in the 1960s, the government transitioned toward the petrochemicals sector in the 1980s via the 'cluster approach' at the Jurong Island Export Processing Zone. While facing challenges from regional competition, land scarcity, and environmental concerns, Singapore has maintained its edge through massive infrastructure projects, such as underground rock caverns for storage, and proactive policy adaptation.

The report argues that SADC countries can reduce processed food trade deficits and mitigate climate change risks by shifting from national industrial policies to regional value chains (RVCs). It identifies a significant opportunity for Zambia, Tanzania, and Mozambique to replace South Africa's deep-sea soya oilcake imports with regional production. However, it notes that the sugar sector is hindered by protectionist policies and the market power of dominant firms, which keep industrial sugar prices high and stifle downstream confectionery processing. The author proposes practical interventions, including a regional transportation information system to solve 'backhaul' constraints and the harmonisation of quality standards to facilitate intra-regional trade.

The report identifies a growing "restoration economy" where businesses generate financial returns by improving the ecological function of degraded landscapes. It categorizes these opportunities into four main investment themes: technology, consumer products, project management, and commercial forestry. Through case studies of 14 companies across eight countries, the authors illustrate how various models—from drone-based reforestation and climate-smart credit for smallholders to sustainable timber and bamboo plantations—can scale. The document highlights that while significant market opportunities exist due to government pledges and rising resource demand, investors face hurdles such as high transaction costs, low liquidity, and insecure land tenure in developing regions.

The report analyzes investment laws in ASEAN countries, noting that not all members have a dedicated investment law and that such laws are only a small part of the broader regulatory regime. It distinguishes these laws from investment treaties, highlighting that ASEAN investment laws generally lack the vague investor rights and general consent to investor-state arbitration typically found in treaties.

The We Mean Business coalition calls for corporate support of the Powering Past Coal Alliance, highlighting the health and economic costs of coal and the financial benefits of transitioning to 100% renewable electricity.

The report finds that there is no single 'good practice' model for investment laws in ASEAN, as their functions vary significantly by country—ranging from managing entry approvals to granting incentives. Some members, such as Singapore, have no specific investment law, relying instead on general and sector-specific legislation. A key distinction is made between national investment laws and investment treaties; the report notes that ASEAN investment laws generally lack the vague, broad investor rights (such as 'fair and equitable treatment') and the general consent to investor-state arbitration typically found in treaties. The author argues that investment laws cannot be evaluated in isolation and must be understood as part of a broader national regulatory regime.