Search Climate Insights Directory

The South African Climate Finance Landscape 2025 reports an annual average of ZAR 188.3 billion in climate finance for 2022–2023, though this remains well below the estimated annual need of up to ZAR 499 billion. Investment is heavily skewed toward the energy sector, which receives 74.1% of total flows, primarily for renewable electricity generation. In contrast, adaptation finance is lagging, accounting for only 11.3% of tracked flows. While domestic sources provide nearly 60% of funding, international flows are dominated by public development finance institutions, particularly from Western Europe. The report highlights significant barriers, including grid bottlenecks, policy uncertainty, and a lack of concessional capital for high-risk or non-revenue-generating adaptation and just transition projects.

The report critiques debt-for-nature swaps as 'greenwashing' tools that benefit private creditors and international NGOs while stripping Global South countries of territorial control. It details how these financial instruments often replace old debt with new, higher-interest loans and divert funds into financial markets before they reach conservation projects. The document highlights specific cases in countries like Ecuador, Belize, and Gabon to illustrate the loss of sovereignty and the persistence of extractive industries. It concludes by calling for the cancellation of illegitimate debts and the recognition of the Global North's historical ecological debt to the South.

The report critiques debt-for-nature swaps as 'green traps' that benefit creditors and international NGOs over debtor nations and local communities. It details how these mechanisms often replace old debts with new, more expensive loans, transfer territorial control to external actors, and encourage the commodification of nature. Through case studies in countries like Belize, Ecuador, and Gabon, the document illustrates the gap between promised conservation funds and actual spending, while highlighting the social costs, including the displacement of indigenous peoples. The author calls for the cancellation of illegitimate debts and the recognition of the North's ecological debt to the South.

The document critiques debt-for-nature swaps (DNS) as a 'green trap' that fails to provide real debt relief or effective conservation. It argues that these mechanisms, particularly recent market-based 'blue bonds', transfer territorial control to international NGOs and private actors, often imposing higher interest rates and restrictive conditionalities. The report highlights how sovereign debt forces Global South countries into extractivist models to generate foreign currency, and calls for the cancellation of illegitimate debts and the recognition of the North's ecological debt to the South.

The report outlines nine fundamental principles of resilience science designed for decision-makers. It defines resilience as the capacity to cope, adapt, and transform, emphasizing that it is an active process rather than a passive state. Key themes include the necessity of diversity, the role of social and ecological relationships, the importance of managing trade-offs through collaborative governance, and the requirement to address power imbalances to ensure equitable outcomes. The document argues that proactive investment in resilience provides a 'triple dividend' by avoiding losses, stimulating economic growth, and delivering social and environmental benefits.

The report outlines nine 'Must-Knows' of resilience science, defining resilience as the capacity to cope, adapt, and transform. It argues that resilience is a continuous process of learning and innovation, requiring diversity in knowledge and nature, strong social-ecological relationships, and the active management of trade-offs. The document emphasizes that investing in resilience provides a 'triple dividend' by avoiding losses, boosting economies, and strengthening societies, while stressing that equitable resilience requires addressing power imbalances and historical injustices.

The document provides a comprehensive guide to transdisciplinary (TD) science through seven case studies in Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, Panama, Jamaica, Mexico, Colombia, and Uruguay. It emphasizes the integration of academic knowledge with local and indigenous systems to create actionable solutions for global environmental change. Key themes include the necessity of 'bridge-builders' in leadership, the importance of epistemic justice, and the shift from 'ecosystem services' to 'nature's contributions to people' (NCP). The case studies cover diverse issues such as Amazonian forest fires, community biodiversity monitoring, gender gaps in coffee farming, and public sanitation in riverine communities. A final synthesis identifies critical success factors: inclusive leadership, co-design of goals with communities, and the translation of technical data into accessible formats for local decision-making.

The document details the engagement of Mexico within the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI), highlighting specific research projects on extreme heat in Mexico City, the participation of Mexican scientists in IAI advisory committees, and the availability of the Science, Technology and Policy (STeP) Fellows program for public officials.

The document outlines transdisciplinary (TD) research practices through seven case studies in Latin America and the Caribbean, focusing on the co-creation of solutions for global environmental change. It emphasizes the shift from 'ecosystem services' to 'Nature’s Contributions to People' (NCP) and highlights the necessity of epistemic justice, community leadership, and the role of 'brokers' or liaisons in bridging gaps between academic scientists and local stakeholders. Key examples include wildfire monitoring in the Amazon, biodiversity monitoring in Panama, women's empowerment in the Jamaican coffee industry, community conservation in Mexico, sanitation in Brazil, watershed protection in Uruguay, and social water management in Colombia.

The report examines the severe biodiversity loss in Latin America and the Caribbean, highlighting phenomena like 'empty forest syndrome' and the 'reverse terraforming' caused by gold mining in the Amazon. It emphasizes the critical link between biodiversity and human well-being, citing the water crises in the Northern Andes due to páramo degradation and the role of soil organic matter in climate mitigation. The document advocates for 'inclusive conservation' that integrates Indigenous and local knowledge, arguing that Indigenous lands are essential for climate mitigation. It also analyzes the impact of global trade and 'telecoupling'—where demand for energy transition minerals like lithium in the Global North drives environmental degradation in the Andes—and calls for a sustainable blue economy and the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

The document assesses the effects of US Executive Order 14257, which introduced a 10% universal tariff and higher country-specific tariffs (11% to 50%) on imports from 190 countries. While mineral-exporting nations like Angola and South Africa may find relief through exemptions for oil and critical minerals, countries like Lesotho and Madagascar face severe economic risks, particularly in the textile sector. The analysis highlights a strategic divide: some nations seek bilateral deals, others aim for self-sufficiency, and a group of African WTO members are coordinating through the 'Friends of the System'. The authors argue that African nations should negotiate collectively under the African Union to protect regional integration and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) as the AGOA program faces expiration on September 30, 2025.

The 2025 Expert Survey on the Global Information Environment, involving 438 researchers across 76 countries, examines the state of 'epistemic security'—the reliability of information supply chains. The report finds that while social media can increase political participation, it also drives polarization and distrust in institutions. A significant 66% of surveyed experts reported experiencing harassment, intervention, or chilling effects in their scientific work, with funding constraints and data access remaining primary barriers. Regarding AI, there is strong expert consensus (60%) that AI-generated content should be clearly labeled, and 83% believe such labeling would improve the information environment. The document advocates for treating the information environment as critical infrastructure, recommending independent algorithmic auditing and stronger protections for researchers and journalists.

The IPIE analyzed GenAI usage across 50 countries with competitive national elections in 2024. Findings show that GenAI was reported in 80% of these countries, primarily for content creation (90% of cases). While 69% of instances served malicious ends, 16% were benevolent. The study highlights a significant challenge in actor identification, with 46% of cases remaining unclear, and notes that foreign actors were involved in 20% of reported incidents, all for nefarious purposes.

The report presents findings from the 2025 IPIE Expert Survey, highlighting a growing pessimism about the future of the information environment. It identifies the availability of accurate information and diverse voices as essential for a healthy environment, while citing lack of platform accountability as a primary threat. The document also examines the mixed impact of social media, the negative perceptions of generative AI, and the increasing barriers faced by researchers, particularly regarding funding and academic freedom.

The 2025 IPIE expert survey reveals growing pessimism about the global information environment, with 72% of respondents expecting it to worsen. The report highlights a 'chilling effect' on researchers, the complex dual role of social media in promoting political participation while increasing polarization, and a strong expert consensus on the need for clear labeling of AI-generated content and regular algorithmic audits to safeguard cognitive security.

The 2025 IPIE expert survey reveals growing pessimism regarding the global information environment, with 72% of experts expecting further deterioration. While social networks are seen as drivers of both political polarization and engagement, researchers face significant barriers including self-censorship and harassment. The report advocates for systemic safeguards in the AI era, such as mandatory content labeling and algorithmic audits, to protect the integrity of information supply chains.

The 2025 IPIE Expert Survey reveals increasing pessimism about the global information environment, with 72% of experts expecting further degradation. While social media is seen to both increase political participation and exacerbate polarization, there is a strong expert consensus on the need for AI-generated content labeling and algorithmic auditing. Additionally, the report highlights significant systemic pressures on researchers, including harassment and self-censorship, particularly in developing economies.

The 2025 IPIE Expert Survey reveals increasing pessimism regarding the global information environment, with 72% of experts expecting it to worsen. While social media is seen as a driver of both political polarization and participation, researchers face significant barriers, including harassment and self-censorship. Experts advocate for specific AI safeguards, such as mandatory labeling of synthetic content and periodic algorithmic audits, to protect the reliability of information supply chains.

The 2025 Expert Survey on the Global Information Environment reveals growing pessimism, with 72% of experts expecting the information environment to worsen. The report highlights a complex relationship with social media, where platforms are seen to increase polarization while promoting political participation. It also documents significant 'chilling effects' on researchers, with 73% reporting harassment, self-censorship, or funding fears. To safeguard epistemic security in the AI era, experts recommend clear labeling of AI-generated content and regular algorithmic audits.

The 2025 IPIE expert survey reveals a growing pessimism regarding the global information environment, with 72% of experts believing it is deteriorating. The document highlights the dual nature of social media—increasing both political polarization and engagement—and reports significant pressures on researchers, including self-censorship and harassment. It advocates for 'epistemic security' through measures such as clear labeling of AI-generated content and regular algorithmic audits.