Search Climate Insights Directory

This briefing by Somos El Cambio explains the necessity of the energy transition, defined as phasing out fossil fuels in favor of renewable sources and more efficient energy use to mitigate global warming. It highlights the economic and environmental benefits of this shift, particularly for Latin America and the Caribbean, while emphasizing the need for fairness and equity to avoid repeating the extractivist patterns of the fossil fuel era.

The document argues that international investment agreements (IIAs) and the ISDS mechanism act as legal barriers to climate action by allowing fossil fuel companies to sue governments for compensation when regulations impact their returns. It outlines a three-part framework for States: removing risk through treaty termination, carveouts, or removal of ISDS clauses; reducing risk via the adoption of 'right to regulate' provisions, interpretative statements, and the careful design of climate measures; and responding to active claims using jurisdictional challenges, the 'necessity defense', and arguments against the 'legitimate expectations' of investors. The toolkit emphasizes that the urgent need to limit warming to 1.5°C may justify the termination of treaties like the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) based on a fundamental change of circumstances.

The brief presents evidence from the Gender Equality in a Low Carbon World (GLOW) programme, demonstrating that integrating gender-responsive policies and women's empowerment into business models enhances the productivity and viability of climate-smart SMEs. It highlights specific successes in aquaculture, hydroponics, and solar irrigation across Africa and Latin America, while urging impact investors and public financiers to adopt gender-lens investment strategies to unlock untapped markets and improve social equity.

The document presents findings from the Gender Equality in a Low Carbon World (GLOW) program, demonstrating how gender-responsive business models in agriculture and aquaculture improve productivity and market access. It highlights specific successes in Kenya, Senegal, Rwanda, and Nicaragua, while urging impact investors and public funders to adopt gender-lens investment strategies to support the energy transition.

The document outlines how gender-responsive approaches—identifying barriers for women and promoting their leadership—enhance the efficiency of climate-smart technologies in agriculture and aquaculture. Drawing on the GLOW programme (2021–2024), it provides evidence from Africa and Central America showing that empowering women leads to higher yields, better market access, and increased attractiveness for impact investors.

The report argues that climate action and gender equality are synergistic and must be integrated to achieve a just transition. Based on 12 projects in 17 countries, it identifies four axes for empowerment: improving productivity of existing activities, helping women enter male-dominated sectors, consolidating low-carbon business plans, and providing access to new green technologies. Key findings highlight that women's traditional knowledge is often inherently low-carbon and that removing discriminatory barriers—such as limited land rights and social norms—can accelerate climate resilience and economic growth. The document provides specific recommendations for policymakers to integrate gender-sensitive budgeting and support women's leadership in sectors like regenerative agriculture, the blue economy, and ecotourism.

The GLOW program demonstrates that gender equality and climate action are synergistic, arguing that women's leadership and participation are essential for the effectiveness and sustainability of low-carbon transitions. Through projects in the Global South, the report identifies four pathways for empowerment: improving the productivity of existing women's economic activities via climate-smart methods, integrating women into traditionally male-dominated value chains, consolidating low-carbon business models, and creating entirely new green jobs using emerging technologies. Key findings highlight that women often possess traditional knowledge that is inherently low-carbon and that emerging technologies, such as solar irrigation and circular bioeconomy tools (e.g., black soldier fly farming), can reduce servile labor and lower barriers to entry for women. The report recommends integrating gender-transformative policies into National Determined Contributions (NDCs), increasing women's access to productive assets and digital markets, and addressing the disproportionate burden of unpaid care work as a core component of climate action.

The GLOW programme identifies four primary routes for simultaneous women's empowerment and climate action: improving existing activities, enabling entry into male-dominated sectors, consolidating low-carbon business models, and accessing new green technologies. Key findings emphasize that climate action must be rights-based and locally appropriate, as social norms significantly shape women's ability to adopt new practices. The report argues that women's leadership in decision-making and access to productive assets are essential for the effectiveness and sustainability of just transitions. It recommends integrating gender-responsive budgeting, strengthening the gender capacity of local government personnel, and promoting technologies that reduce the drudgery of unpaid care work.

Smallholder farms, particularly those between two and five hectares, produce 46% of the world's food and often exhibit higher land productivity and biodiversity than larger farms. While they are critical for global supply chains of products like coffee, cocoa, and tea, they face a 'yield gap'—ranging from 11% in East Asia to 76% in Sub-Saharan Africa—that could be closed through better access to modern agrifood chains and technology. In Africa, the adoption of climate-smart practices such as agroforestry and organic manure is heavily influenced by the availability of finance and credit. Smallholder agriculture is a primary economic driver in many developing nations, contributing 23% to the GDP of Sub-Saharan Africa.

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 Stockholm Environment Institute commemorates Dr. Lisa Segnestam, a Research Fellow from 2000 to 2023, noting her influence on the organization's approach to gender and social equity. Her work emphasized norm-critical and intersectional perspectives on power, vulnerability, and gendered constructions within the contexts of poverty alleviation, disaster risk reduction, and water governance.

The report identifies a critical policy gap where climate change, food insecurity, and national security are often addressed in silos. It argues that while the U.S. intelligence and military communities recognize these as top security concerns, current interventions remain focused on immediate humanitarian aid rather than long-term community resilience. The document recommends scaling up R&D, synchronizing agricultural emission cuts with food supply needs, and integrating geopolitical risks into strategic military and government planning to prevent global instability and conflict.

The report uses the Six Americas Super Short Survey (SASSY) to categorize Facebook users in 110 countries and territories into six groups: Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, and Dismissive. The 'Alarmed' group is the largest in approximately 80 of the surveyed locations, with the highest percentages found in Chile (65%), Mexico (64%), Malawi (63%), Bolivia (62%), and Sri Lanka (61%). Conversely, the United States exhibits a higher proportion of 'Doubtful' and 'Dismissive' respondents (22%) compared to other major carbon emitters and is less 'Alarmed' (34%) than many of its peers. Regional analysis shows South America has the highest proportion of countries with a majority of 'Alarmed' respondents, while Southwest Asia and North Africa show higher levels of doubt or dismissal, particularly in Yemen (34%).

The document defines seafood jurisdictional initiatives (JIs) as place-based efforts combining policy and market-based approaches to achieve holistic sustainability. It argues that traditional certification, ratings, and improvement (CRI) efforts are insufficient for global scale and systemic issues. The handbook outlines a three-step implementation process: scoping, co-designing, and co-implementing, emphasizing the necessity of government leadership, multistakeholder collaboration, and long-term blended finance.

The document outlines the concept of seafood Jurisdictional Initiatives (JIs) as place-based, multistakeholder efforts that combine policy reform and market-based incentives to address systemic sustainability challenges. It contrasts JIs with traditional certification, ratings, and improvement (CRI) projects, arguing that JIs are better suited for tackling cumulative impacts, climate resilience, and social equity across entire production geographies. The guide details a three-step implementation process—scoping, co-designing, and co-implementing—and emphasizes the critical roles of government leadership, private-sector engagement, and the inclusion of Indigenous peoples and local communities. It also provides guidance on establishing monitoring, reporting, and verification frameworks to ensure the credibility of sustainability claims.

The guidelines advocate for jurisdictional initiatives (JIs) as a complementary approach to traditional certification, ratings, and improvement (CRI) efforts. While CRI focuses on individual farms or fisheries, JIs operate at a broader scale to address systemic issues like climate resilience, biodiversity loss, and labor rights through policy reform and multistakeholder collaboration. The document outlines key enablers for success, including government leadership, long-term blended finance, and ecosystem-based management. It also provides frameworks for monitoring, reporting, and verifying claims, emphasizing that performance outcomes typically take eight to 20 years to materialize. Case studies, such as the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) for tuna and a shrimp aquaculture project in Indonesia, illustrate the application of these principles.