Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that climate finance for small-scale agriculture is disproportionately low, averaging USD 10 billion annually in 2017/2018, which represents only 1.7% of total tracked global climate finance. This funding is overwhelmingly public (95%) and primarily delivered via grants (50%). The analysis highlights a significant gap between these flows and the estimated annual financial needs of small-scale farmers, which are approximately USD 240 billion. The report identifies critical barriers, including limited land tenure, high transaction costs for dispersed customers, and a lack of private sector investment. It recommends enhancing public-private collaboration through blended finance, implementing weather-indexed insurance, and improving data collection on domestic and private financial flows to better target climate-smart agricultural investments.

The authors contend that the COVID-19 pandemic exposed fragilities caused by a global economic focus on productivity over resilience, disproportionately impacting informal workers and vulnerable regions. They advocate for post-pandemic stimulus packages to prioritize inclusive governance by empowering grassroots organizations, diversifying concentrated food, energy, and finance value chains, and recognizing the interdependence of human and planetary wellbeing.

The report presents a critique of the capitalist, patriarchal, and colonial systems as the root causes of the Covid-19 pandemic and broader ecological crises. It advocates for a 'transformative economy' that prioritizes the sustainability of life over capital accumulation, emphasizing the central role of care work, food sovereignty, and the decommodification of public services. The authors call for a new internationalism based on solidarity and the payment of ecological debts from the Global North to the Global South, while rejecting corporate 'greenwashing' and 'net-zero' strategies.

The research examines low-cost modifications to open wood fires in marginalized communities where clean-cooking fuels are inaccessible. While interventions like rock beds and ceramic or metal grates reduce fuelwood consumption and emissions, they are unlikely to reduce the adverse health impacts associated with household air pollution.

The briefing analyzes the intersection of climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, economic instability, deteriorating governance, and nuclear-armed geopolitical tensions in South Asia. It argues that these converging risks create non-linear dynamics that could lead to a systemic collapse or 'regime shift,' posing significant spillover risks to the global international system.

The briefing analyzes Green Climate Fund (GCF) funding proposals from 2015 to July 2018, finding that interventions for energy access receive significantly less funding than other energy projects and largely neglect low-income and 'high-impact' countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

Between January 1 and June 15, 2020, China saw a significant increase in coal plant development, with 249.6 GW of capacity under development, a 21% increase over end-2019. This boom is driven by economic stimulus efforts to offset COVID-19 impacts and a relaxation of the central government's 'traffic light policy', despite an existing estimated 400 GW of excess coal-fired capacity. While some new plants are intended for long-distance transmission to the coast, the majority risk exacerbating the country's overcapacity crisis and hindering global climate targets.

The document argues that COVID-19 recovery should be leveraged to advance climate neutrality through international solidarity that goes beyond simple cooperation to include reparations and loss and damage. It highlights the tension between short-term survival needs in developing countries and long-term climate mitigation, suggesting that multilateral regimes for conditional debt relief and bottom-up innovation financing in energy and water sectors could bridge this gap. The paper calls for a critical reassessment of globalisation and the use of the Paris Agreement's Article 6 to implement non-market approaches, such as bulk procurement of low-carbon technologies for least developed countries.

The analysis reveals that the Green Climate Fund (GCF) significantly underfunds energy access compared to large-scale renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, with only 9% of its total portfolio and 14% of its energy-related funding dedicated to energy access. Furthermore, the GCF largely neglects 'high-impact' countries—those with the greatest energy deficits—allocating them only 15% of energy intervention dollars, which represents less than 1% of the annual funding required to meet Sustainable Development Goal 7 by 2030. The report argues that GCF's prioritization of greenhouse gas mitigation over social benefits creates institutional barriers for small-scale, decentralized projects in low-emission, low-income regions.

The analysis argues that the European Union has experienced a period of 'regulatory fatigue' and 'backsliding' in financial oversight since 2014. It highlights five specific failures: the abandonment of structural banking reforms to separate high-risk activities, the adoption of dysfunctional prudential rules (such as an inoperative 3% leverage ratio), the failure to effectively limit food speculation through high technical thresholds, the lack of supervision for the growing shadow banking system, and the 'resurrection' of risky securitisation practices. The author concludes that these failures, combined with the shift of risk to under-regulated entities and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, leave the EU ill-equipped to handle a new financial crisis.

The author argues that the EU has experienced a 'regulatory retreat' in the financial sector, characterized by the abandonment of structural reforms, the implementation of dysfunctional prudential ratios, and the failure to regulate shadow banking. The text highlights how lobbying and the 'better regulation' agenda have weakened rules on food speculation and securitization, leaving the EU vulnerable to future financial crises, potentially triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic.

The authors use the 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment's accurate prediction of a pandemic to urge policymakers to act on similar warnings regarding climate change. They highlight how environmental degradation and climate hazards threaten global infrastructure, food and water security, and geopolitical stability, particularly in coastal areas and the Arctic.

The report identifies a significant 'Valley of Death' between the production of climate science and its practical application in resilience and adaptation. While short-term forecasting is generally accurate and used, decadal information is urgently needed but largely unavailable, leading some practitioners to misuse long-term projections. The study argues that a 'science-first' approach is ineffective and recommends that the CLARE programme adopt a user-driven, transdisciplinary structure that prioritizes co-production, capacity building for 'discerning users', and the development of knowledge brokers to bridge the gap between scientists and decision-makers.

The document identifies three typologies of rights-based claims in the extractive sector of South and Southeast Asia: environmental justice, Indigenous rights and land claims, and the right to conduct artisanal and small-scale mining. It highlights that while international law provides a framework for these rights, local actors face significant institutional, financial, and informational barriers. The brief recommends strengthening the rule of law, formalizing artisanal mining, and incorporating free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) into domestic legal frameworks.

The paper identifies three main categories of rights-based claims: environmental justice, Indigenous rights and land claims, and artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) rights. It finds that claimants often use multi-scalar strategies, combining domestic litigation with mass protests and international advocacy. While some claims lead to the suspension of extractive activities or improved corporate engagement, others are met with state oppression or violence. The study highlights the critical role of civil society organizations (CSOs) as enablers and the importance of framing strategies to maximize available resources.

The paper advocates for a systemic shift in peacebuilding and development, moving away from linear causal models toward resilience thinking to address the interconnected risks of the Anthropocene. It highlights how climate change acts as a risk multiplier, potentially triggering violent conflict through forced migration and resource competition. The authors emphasize that systemic risks, such as hydrological teleconnections and global food system dependencies, require anticipatory management tools and a focus on social capital to sustain peace and prevent system collapse.

The paper finds that while green bonds can finance adaptation, they do so to a very limited extent, with mitigation receiving approximately 95% of current funding. Between March 2010 and April 2019, only 5% of all green bonds issued included adaptation as an eligible project category. The study identifies significant mismatches in geography, project scale, and the types of activities funded, noting that adaptation needs are often too small-scale or lack the revenue streams required for traditional bond issuance. Furthermore, a low level of corporate understanding of physical climate risk limits the adoption of these instruments. The author concludes that green bonds alone will be too slow to close the adaptation finance gap but can serve as awareness-raising tools to encourage broader risk management and investment.

The document argues that while climate change is unlikely to be the proximate cause of war between India and Pakistan, it acts as a risk multiplier by increasing the volatility of river flows in the Indus River Basin (IRB). This volatility heightens mutual distrust regarding dam operations and water manipulation, placing unprecedented stress on the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). The author suggests that the IWT's framework of partitioning water is inadequate for modern climate challenges and recommends a shift toward joint sustainable management to prevent natural calamities from triggering armed conflict in a nuclear-armed region.

The document introduces a guide produced by CDKN, ODI, SSN, and ICLEI that extracts South Asia-specific data from the IPCC's 2019 Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. It highlights that human-driven climate change is altering ocean chemistry and temperature, harming marine life and dependent populations, and causing sea level rise and cryosphere changes in high mountain Asia. The guide emphasizes that early mitigation and future-proofing coastal development are essential to reduce risks and costs.

The report finds that donors must double their current annual contributions to food security, adding 14 billion USD per year, while low- and middle-income countries must provide an additional 19 billion USD annually through taxes. These combined investments of 33 billion USD per year would prevent 490 million people from hunger and double the incomes of 545 million smallholders. The analysis emphasizes that Africa has the highest need for these funds and recommends a balanced investment strategy across three categories: enabling inclusion, on-farm productivity, and post-harvest food systems.