Search Climate Insights Directory

The statement emphasizes that climate change disproportionately increases the burdens and vulnerabilities of women, particularly regarding poverty, food and water shortages, and violence. It calls for future climate agreements to include equitable provisions and for governments to recognize and protect women's leadership in climate activism, noting that the systemic causes of violence against women and nature are identical.

The document details a discussion on the failure of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects to provide sustainable development, highlighting human rights violations and the lack of social safeguards. It specifically cites the Reliance Sasan Ultra Mega Power Plant in India for violating additionality and stakeholder consultation rules, and coal mining in Colombia for causing coercive displacement and killings. The report emphasizes the urgent need for a grievance mechanism within the CDM and introduces the CDM Benefit Tracker to monitor discrepancies between promised and actual project benefits in India.

The briefing outlines three key areas of contention at the COP 20 climate talks in Lima: the establishment of a formal process to assess the ambition and fairness of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), the mobilization of $100 billion in dedicated climate finance by 2020, and the integration of adaptation goals and assessment cycles into the final agreement. It emphasizes that these decisions are essential prerequisites for the agreement to be concluded in Paris at the end of 2015.

The statement criticizes developed nations, specifically Japan, for using climate finance to fund coal-fired power plants in developing countries like Indonesia. It highlights a lack of coherent rules for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and argues that current international climate agreements, including the US-China deal, are insufficient and non-binding. The author demands that climate finance be restricted to renewable energy and that developed countries fulfill their 'climate debt' through public finance and technology transfers.

The document analyzes the evolution of community-company engagements in the mining, oil, and gas sectors, emphasizing the need for community-driven processes to ensure fair outcomes. It categorizes types of agreements—ranging from Joint Venture Agreements to Consultation and Negotiation Agreements—and evaluates the risks associated with government-led processes. Through case studies in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and Ghana, the paper highlights the importance of self-identification of affected communities and the role of international human rights frameworks, such as the UN Guiding Principles and FPIC, in protecting community rights.

The author contends that shorter UNFCCC commitment periods (five years) are superior to longer ones (ten years) because they prevent the 'locking in' of under-ambitious emissions targets. While the EU has advocated for a ten-year period to provide investment security and align with its 2030 Energy Package, the author argues this package lacks sufficient ambition and could freeze global climate aspirations. The text also notes that the US supports shorter periods due to domestic political volatility and the likelihood that a long-term legally binding agreement would be rejected by the US Congress.

The CFAS Guide outlines the state of climate finance negotiations leading up to COP20 in Lima. It details the progress of the US$100 billion annual mobilization goal, the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), and the financial challenges facing the Adaptation Fund. The document also examines the role of the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) in improving the measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) of financial flows and the coordination of forest financing. Additionally, it discusses the integration of finance into Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and the elements of the forthcoming 2015 climate agreement.

The CFAS Guide outlines the state of climate finance negotiations leading up to COP20 in Lima, focusing on long-term funding goals, the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund, and the roles of various financial mechanisms under the UNFCCC.

The CFAS Guide outlines the state of climate finance negotiations leading up to COP20 in Lima. It details the goal of mobilizing 100 billion USD annually by 2020, the role of the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) in monitoring financial flows, and the operational progress of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), Adaptation Fund, and Global Environment Facility (GEF). The document emphasizes the need for predictability in funding, the balance between mitigation and adaptation, and the development of measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems for climate support.

Carbon Market Watch argues that previous market-based mechanisms, such as the CDM and EU ETS, failed due to oversupply and poor environmental integrity. To prevent these failures in a post-2020 regime, the organization recommends strict eligibility rules based on national ambition, the exclusion of REDD-plus and agriculture from carbon markets, and the implementation of discounting to ensure net atmospheric benefits. It further calls for a UN-led standard-setting body, a robust institutional safeguard system to protect human rights, and a share of proceeds from all traded units to be allocated to the Adaptation Fund.

Carbon Market Watch opposes expanding LULUCF activities within the CDM, citing risks to climate adaptation, a lack of market demand for offsets, and the non-permanent nature of land-based carbon sequestration compared to permanent fossil fuel emissions. The organization suggests that LULUCF activities are better suited for Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), and REDD+, emphasizing a rights-based approach to food security and land rights.

The document critiques the 'financialization of nature,' where biodiversity is converted into financial assets and commodities. It argues that assigning prices to nature ignores its intrinsic value, marginalizes indigenous and local communities, and allows corporations to continue destructive activities through 'offsetting' mechanisms. The author calls for the protection of biodiversity through strong legislation and community-led governance rather than market-based instruments.

The IISD guide outlines a framework for negotiating agricultural investment contracts, emphasizing the primacy of national legislation over contracts and international treaties. It provides a comprehensive model contract covering land rights, financial obligations, social and environmental commitments, and dispute resolution, while advocating for transparency and community engagement to ensure sustainable rural development.

The IISD Guide to Negotiating Investment Contracts for Farmland and Water is a comprehensive tool designed for governments and communities to manage foreign investments in agricultural land. It emphasizes the primacy of domestic law over investment contracts and international treaties, while providing a model contract to fill gaps where domestic laws are weak. The guide outlines a preparatory phase involving investor screening, community engagement, and impact assessments, and proposes specific contractual provisions covering tenure, financial obligations, social development, and environmental protections. It strongly advocates for transparency, the avoidance of stabilization clauses, and the use of domestic courts for dispute resolution to protect the national interest and ensure long-term project viability.

The document analyzes the 2014 U.S.-China climate agreement, detailing the specific emissions targets for both nations and their plans to transition away from coal toward renewables and natural gas. It discusses the diplomatic significance of the deal for the 2015 Paris negotiations and the specific pressures it places on Canada to increase its own climate ambitions and regulate its oil and gas sector.

The paper applies second-generation social network analysis to map a criminal network centered on security racketeering in Cape Town's central business district. By analyzing 112 nodes and 224 interactions based on media reports from 2010 to 2013, the study identifies a highly centralized network where a small number of 'grey' agents—individuals operating across both lawful and unlawful sectors—exercise significant control. The analysis highlights that the network's operation relies more on lawful economic interactions, such as business investments and employment, than on overt violence, posing significant challenges for traditional law enforcement.

The report argues that conservation initiatives frequently violate the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, despite an increasing international legal consensus on their protections. It asserts that responsibility for upholding these rights extends beyond states to include international organisations, businesses, and NGOs. The authors analyse a vast array of international instruments and find that while normative trends are moving toward greater recognition of rights, enforcement and redress remain significant challenges. The document concludes by suggesting the creation of core standards, stakeholder guidance, and potentially a dedicated global grievance mechanism or 'Roundtable on Ethical Conservation' to ensure just conservation practices.

The paper examines the rise of 'mega-regional' trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which aim for deep regulatory integration beyond WTO standards. It argues that while overall GDP impacts on outsiders may be small, these agreements risk eroding trade preferences and establishing new global regulatory norms that could marginalise developing countries. For South Africa, the authors recommend a strategy of unilateral regulatory reform, deeper regional integration within SADC and COMESA, and constructive engagement in the WTO to avoid being left behind by 'competitive liberalisation'.

The document argues that success at COP20 in Lima depends on rich nations delivering climate finance, specifically filling the Green Climate Fund, which has only seen "USD 2.3 billion in pledges" despite a "USD 100 billion a year by 2020" goal. It emphasizes the need for an international accounting framework to prevent "double counting" and ensure that only countries with "stringent targets" can access carbon markets to avoid the "hot air" issues seen under the Kyoto Protocol. The author calls for the accounting framework to be embedded in the new climate treaty separately from the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) and highlights the need to streamline human rights safeguards for the CDM, REDD+, and Green Climate Fund.

The briefing identifies six critical areas for progress at the upcoming COP 20 in Lima, Peru, following negotiations in Bonn. These include establishing transparency and assessment mechanisms for intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), framing the long-term structure of the 2015 agreement, addressing adaptation goals, clarifying the role of climate finance via the Green Climate Fund, and implementing pre-2020 low-carbon actions. It also notes the European Union's recent commitment to reduce emissions by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 as a positive signal for future negotiations.