Search Climate Insights Directory

The report evaluates ten Global Resilience Partnership (GRP) Round 1 projects, which supported over 5 million people. Key findings highlight the effectiveness of 'layering' interventions, participatory design, and close government partnerships in increasing resilience. Successes include the deployment of early warning systems reaching 1.2 million people in Uganda, the empowerment of urban slum women in South Asia, and the implementation of road water harvesting benefiting 3 million people in Ethiopia. The synthesis emphasizes that combining traditional tools like microcredit with innovative digital technology and inclusive social strategies creates sustainable, transformational change.

The report identifies five key intervention areas for building resilience: nature-based solutions, empowering marginalized groups, information and technology, inclusive financial services, and low-cost infrastructure. It argues that effective resilience programming must be systemic by design, utilize layered and linked interventions, create agile networks, promote equity and inclusion, and prioritize iterative learning and scaling. Evidence from GRP's USAID and Z Zurich Foundation challenges, as well as 42 partner programs, demonstrates that these approaches can protect development gains and improve well-being in the face of climate and economic shocks.

The report finds that while the 2017 ivory ban significantly reduced purchase rates compared to pre-ban levels, demand remains persistent among 'Diehard Buyers' and regular overseas travelers. By 2019, self-reported ivory purchase in the past 12 months rose to 17% from 14% in 2018. The study identifies three consumer segments: Rejectors, Ban Influenced Citizens, and Diehard Buyers, noting that the latter are increasingly likely to purchase ivory in the future. Overseas travel to Thailand, Hong Kong SAR, and Cambodia is a primary channel for ivory acquisition. Awareness of the ban is high when prompted, and conservation campaigns are generally viewed positively, though they are less effective at persuading the most persistent buyers.

The document analyzes the vulnerability of MSMEs in low- and middle-income countries to physical and transition climate risks, highlighting how these risks are amplified through value chains. It identifies significant barriers to adaptation, including limited access to climate data, finance, and technical skills. The authors argue for a participatory, inclusive approach where MSMEs are not only resilient but also act as providers of adaptation goods and services, supported by state policies, large businesses, and financial institutions.

The document examines the material risks climate change poses to global supply chains and the current state of private sector adaptation. It argues that while companies recognize climate risks, they often misdiagnose them by focusing on exposure rather than underlying vulnerability. Using the cotton industry as a detailed example, the paper proposes a resilience framework based on six capital assets—natural, human, social, physical, financial, and political—and provides recommendations for companies to commit to science-based resilience strategies and gender-transformative empowerment of women workers.

The report examines the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, describing it as a "parallel justice system" that privileges wealthy investors and multinational corporations over public interests. Through ten case studies across Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the document illustrates how ISDS is used to challenge environmental protections, public health measures, and land rights. It specifically criticizes the European Union's efforts to institutionalize the system through the Investment Court System (ICS) and a proposed Multilateral Investment Court, arguing these reforms do not address the fundamental imbalance of power. The report concludes that ISDS creates a "regulatory chill," where governments avoid passing progressive laws to avoid multi-billion dollar lawsuits, and calls for the complete dismantling of these "VIP courts."

The document examines the synergies and challenges of aligning the NAP and NDC processes under the Paris Agreement. It argues that because the NDC provides high-level direction and the NAP elaborates implementation strategies, they are complementary tools. Based on dialogues with 16 countries and workshops in Grenada and Peru, the brief identifies that most countries currently have informal alignment and suggests using the 2020 NDC update cycle to integrate NAP results, improve data quality, and enhance adaptation goals.

The document provides a comparative overview of National Adaptation Plan (NAP) processes in multiple countries, detailing their specific strategic approaches, priority sectors, and implementation milestones. It emphasizes the integration of climate adaptation into national development planning, the importance of cross-sectoral coordination, and the mobilization of climate finance to build resilience against diverse hazards such as sea-level rise, droughts, and extreme weather events.

The document argues that aligning NDCs and NAP processes under the Paris Agreement provides a feasible starting point for countries to improve the coherence and efficiency of their climate policies. While NDCs offer high-level direction, NAPs provide the technical strategies for implementation. The briefing identifies common challenges, such as differing timelines and institutional silos, and suggests that the 2020 NDC update cycle is a critical opportunity to integrate NAP findings into national climate commitments. Furthermore, it positions this alignment as a gateway to integrating the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The document argues that aligning NDCs and NAP processes provides a feasible starting point for countries to improve the coherence and efficiency of their climate policies. While NDCs offer high-level guidance, NAPs provide the technical strategies for implementation. The briefing identifies a continuum of alignment—ranging from informal to systematic—and highlights that the 2020 NDC update cycle presents a critical opportunity for countries to use NAP results to enhance the quality and ambition of their adaptation goals. It further suggests that this alignment can serve as a foundation for broader integration with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The GCF Secretariat report for early 2019 details progress across six strategic goals. Key achievements include the launch of the first formal replenishment process, the development of a Theory of Change to drive paradigm shifts, and the expansion of the Readiness Programme. While the number of projects under implementation rose to 51 by 30 April 2019, the Secretariat noted bottlenecks in signing agreements due to the immediate effectiveness of new Board policies. The report also highlights the operationalization of a 'community of practice' with 28 expert organizations and the refinement of second-level due diligence processes.

The report examines the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, detailing ten case studies where corporations used international arbitration to challenge national laws and court rulings related to environmental protection, public health, and indigenous rights. It argues that ISDS creates a 'regulatory chill' where governments avoid passing public interest laws to avoid astronomical fines. The document specifically critiques the European Union's proposed Investment Court System (ICS) and Multilateral Investment Court, claiming these reforms only address procedural issues while maintaining the substantive imbalance that privileges investors over sovereign states and human rights.

The report examines the systemic injustices of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime, using ten case studies to demonstrate how corporations use international arbitration to bypass domestic courts and challenge public interest laws. It highlights the 'regulatory chill' effect, where the threat of multi-billion dollar lawsuits deters governments from implementing climate, health, and environmental protections. The document specifically criticises the European Union's proposed reforms, arguing that the Investment Court System (ICS) and the Multilateral Investment Court maintain the same substantive investor privileges that allow corporations to claim compensation for lost future profits and ignore human rights obligations.

The report argues that industrial aquaculture is unsustainable due to its heavy reliance on wild-caught fish for feed, which threatens marine ecosystems, undermines food security in the Global South, and creates a massive animal welfare crisis. It highlights that nearly 20% of wild fish catches are processed into FMFO, often targeting keystone forage species and juveniles. The document criticizes the lack of transparency among aquafeed companies and the inadequacy of current certification schemes like the MSC and IFFO. To address these issues, it recommends a transition toward herbivorous species, alternative proteins like insects and algae, and stricter governance to eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

The report argues that industrial aquaculture is fundamentally broken due to its dependence on wild-caught forage fish, which threatens marine ecosystems, food security in vulnerable coastal regions, and animal welfare. It highlights a lack of transparency among major feed producers and critiques existing certification systems, recommending a transition toward herbivorous species and sustainable alternative proteins.

The report argues that industrial aquaculture's reliance on fishmeal and fish oil (FMFO) is unsustainable, plundering marine ecosystems and undermining food security in the Global South. It highlights the exploitation of forage fish and 'trash fish', the lack of transparency among major aquafeed companies, and the failure of certification schemes to prevent the use of food-grade fish for animal feed.

The report finds a three-year decline in global coal power growth indicators as of 2018, driven by record reductions in permits in China and India and accelerated closures in the US. However, it highlights a contradictory trend where financial institutions from China, Japan, and South Korea have become the primary funders for overseas coal projects. While global planned capacity has dropped significantly since 2015, the report warns that current operational plants already exceed the IPCC's carbon limits for 1.5°C and 2°C warming targets. It specifically notes China's potential to add up to 290GW of capacity by 2030 if a proposal by the China Electricity Council is adopted.

The report finds a general global decline in coal power growth, with significant drops in approvals and planning since 2015. While the US leads in record retirements, China shows a contradictory trend: despite a drop in new approvals, it has resumed construction on previously delayed projects and proposed increasing its national coal capacity ceiling to 1,300 GW by 2030. India is also seeing a decline in coal approvals as solar and wind energy become more cost-competitive. The report emphasizes that current coal capacity exceeds IPCC limits for 1.5°C and 2°C warming targets.

The document defines natural infrastructure (NI) as ecosystems providing infrastructure services and distinguishes between 'natural' (e.g., wetlands) and 'green-grey' (e.g., permeable pavements) types. It argues that NI is generally more cost-effective than grey infrastructure, offering co-benefits in land security, climate regulation, and water security. However, adoption is hindered by high transaction costs, long time horizons for full capacity, and a lack of standardized quantitative evaluation tools. The report provides specific cost data for artificial wetlands and restoration projects, while identifying policy interventions—such as rating systems and market instruments—to incentivize investment.

The report examines the application of FSC certification, particularly the Small and Low-Intensity Managed Forest (SLIMF) scheme, among Thai smallholder rubber farmers. It finds that certification has primarily benefited processing companies rather than farmers, who see little direct economic gain. The study highlights systemic gender inequalities, where women are active in production but excluded from governance and training, and notes that land tenure issues prevent many smallholders from achieving certification. It concludes that FSC standards must move beyond labour rights to address systemic inequalities and land rights to be effective for smallholders.