Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines the health and economic costs of coal in Indonesia, highlighting the link between coal combustion and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It argues that the Indonesian government's continued subsidies for coal, which reached USD 946 million in 2014, contradict public health needs and the availability of cheaper renewable energy alternatives.

The report analyzes the health and economic costs of coal in Indonesia, highlighting that coal-related air pollution causes thousands of premature deaths and significant financial burdens on low-income households. It argues that the Indonesian government's continued subsidies for coal production and power plants contradict public health goals and that transitioning to cheaper renewable energy would reduce these burdens.

The report identifies newly adopted policies in 25 major emitting countries and regions—representing 79% of 2012 global GHG emissions—that support long-term decarbonisation goals. These policies include carbon taxes, coal phase-outs, and support for renewable energy and electric vehicles, focusing on legislative decisions and executive orders with direct effects on reducing emissions.

The briefing emphasizes that the Paris Agreement requires a strong 'rulebook' of implementing guidelines to turn the pact into a functioning regime. It highlights the upcoming April 2018 negotiations in Bonn, Germany, as a critical step toward finalizing these rules by December 2018 at COP24 in Katowice, Poland. Key areas of negotiation include transparency, the global stocktake, NDC communication, market approaches, and finance predictability. The author stresses that the rulebook must balance universal frameworks with flexibility for developing countries based on their capacities to ensure equity and durability.

The policy brief contends that climate risks are often 'borderless' and that treating adaptation as a local problem hinders global ambition. It advocates for a shared terminology and a transboundary framing of risk—recognizing how impacts in one country create risks in others via trade, migration, and ecosystems—to better utilize the Paris Agreement's mechanisms, such as the global stocktake and National Adaptation Plans, for collective resilience.

The briefing argues that climate adaptation is currently undervalued and incorrectly viewed as a local problem, which hinders global ambition. It proposes a 'transboundary' approach to climate risk, recognizing that impacts in one country create risks in others through trade, biophysical flows, people, and finance. The authors review progress from COP23 and suggest that the Paris Agreement's mechanisms—such as the global stocktake and National Adaptation Plans—should be operationalized to track and manage these cross-border risks to avoid 'climate change contagion' in the global economy.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing groundWork, Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, the Highveld Environmental Justice Network, and the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance, opposes the Department of Environmental Affairs' (DEA) proposal to create an expert panel to address sulphur dioxide (SO2) abatement. The CER contends that Eskom and Sasol, the country's largest polluters, are using the proposal to avoid compliance with minimum emission standards (MES) and to secure 'rolling postponements'. The document argues that the necessary solution—retrofitting plants with flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) technology or decommissioning non-compliant plants—has already been established through a five-year multi-stakeholder process. Furthermore, it highlights that South African SO2 standards are significantly weaker than those in other developing and developed nations, and that the DEA has no legislative authority to weaken the MES based on industry claims of economic infeasibility.

The document describes Thailand's top-down approach to developing a bioeconomy focused on adding value to existing commodities like sugarcane and cassava. It highlights a model where the private sector drives innovation while the government facilitates through tax incentives, R&D funding, and regulatory easing. However, the authors note significant challenges regarding social equity, as the system prioritizes large industrial players over smallholder farmers.

The global green bond market reached a cumulative issuance of USD 521bn by 2018, with USD 167.6bn issued in 2018 alone. The USA, China, and France emerged as the leading national markets. The report highlights a significant increase in issuance from financial institutions, particularly commercial banks, and a growing trend toward shorter-dated bonds. While Europe remains the largest overall market, the Asia-Pacific region saw the highest year-on-year growth at 35%. The market is also diversifying into other labelled instruments, including sustainability, social, and blue bonds, and expanding into emerging markets through the adoption of regional standards like the ASEAN Green Bond Standards.

The document advocates for Community Forest Management (CFM) as a holistic approach to territorial governance that prioritizes the 'Good Living' of indigenous and peasant communities over capitalist development. It asserts that CFM is more effective at reducing deforestation than absolute protection regimes and is essential for maintaining biodiversity and climate stability. The report warns against 'commercial logging' disguised as sustainable management and rejects REDD+ and carbon markets, arguing they centralize power and commodify nature. It recommends strengthening community land tenure, investing in local capacity building, and shifting international finance away from fossil fuels toward community-led conservation.

The report advocates for Community Forest Management (MCB) as a sustainable alternative to industrial logging and top-down conservation. It links MCB to the 'Buen Vivir' philosophy, emphasizing the need for secure land tenure, social capital, and gender equity. The text critiques market-based mechanisms like REDD+ and the Payment for Environmental Services (PSA) for promoting privatization and centralizing control. It concludes with recommendations to shift funding from fossil fuel subsidies toward community-led conservation and the restoration of ancestral rights.

The report promotes community forest management (GCF) as a holistic approach to forest conservation and social justice, contrasting it with destructive industrial logging and the REDD+ mechanism. It argues that GCF, rooted in the 'bien-vivre' paradigm, effectively reduces deforestation and protects biodiversity by empowering indigenous and local communities with secure land tenure and ancestral knowledge. The document highlights the failures of carbon markets and 'sustainable forest management' labels used by corporations to mask extraction. It recommends strengthening community land rights, eliminating fossil fuel subsidies to fund adaptation, and reducing international trade in tropical hardwoods.

Singapore established itself as a regional petroleum trading hub by combining a strategic geographical location with a 'twin-track' industrial strategy of minimal regulation and strong institutional support. Starting with oil refining in the 1960s, the government transitioned toward the petrochemicals sector in the 1980s via the 'cluster approach' at the Jurong Island Export Processing Zone. While facing challenges from regional competition, land scarcity, and environmental concerns, Singapore has maintained its edge through massive infrastructure projects, such as underground rock caverns for storage, and proactive policy adaptation.

The NAP Global Network provided technical assistance to over 30 countries between November 2017 and November 2018, focusing on seven key themes including financing, gender, and monitoring and evaluation. The Network facilitated peer learning through Targeted Topics Forums and South-South exchanges, and worked to align bilateral donor support with national priorities, notably through a Donor Symposium in Barbados.

The report finds that while most reviewed National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) mention gender, they often conflate gender with women's issues and position women as vulnerable beneficiaries rather than agents of change. It highlights significant gaps in context-specific gender analysis and the underutilization of existing in-country gender capacities. The authors recommend that governments commit to gender-responsive processes, enhance institutional linkages between climate and gender actors, and that development partners invest in capacity building and harmonize gender mainstreaming guidance.

The report examines the intersection of global energy trends and gender equality, arguing that universal energy access by 2030 requires moving beyond 'business-as-usual' to address systemic discrimination. It identifies decentralization, affordability, and mobile payments as potential catalysts for inclusion, while urbanization and humanitarian crises present significant hurdles. Through case studies in five countries, the document highlights how barriers such as lack of land tenure, digital gender gaps, and inadequate financial services prevent women from leveraging these trends to improve their livelihoods and health.

The Greater Mekong region, comprising Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam, has lost a third of its tree cover since the 1970s and faces further loss due to industrial agriculture and infrastructure. The report highlights the critical role of forests in providing ecosystem services, such as water filtration and climate regulation, and their importance for biodiversity, including tigers and elephants. WWF advocates for a 'landscape model' that balances economic development with conservation. Key solutions include establishing Community Protected Areas (CPAs), promoting FSC-certified sustainable products like rattan and acacia, and transitioning to deforestation-free rubber supply chains. The report emphasizes that empowering local communities and integrating natural capital into government policy are essential for long-term forest stability.

The report analyzes investment laws in ASEAN countries, noting that not all members have a dedicated investment law and that such laws are only a small part of the broader regulatory regime. It distinguishes these laws from investment treaties, highlighting that ASEAN investment laws generally lack the vague investor rights and general consent to investor-state arbitration typically found in treaties.

The report finds that there is no single 'good practice' model for investment laws in ASEAN, as their functions vary significantly by country—ranging from managing entry approvals to granting incentives. Some members, such as Singapore, have no specific investment law, relying instead on general and sector-specific legislation. A key distinction is made between national investment laws and investment treaties; the report notes that ASEAN investment laws generally lack the vague, broad investor rights (such as 'fair and equitable treatment') and the general consent to investor-state arbitration typically found in treaties. The author argues that investment laws cannot be evaluated in isolation and must be understood as part of a broader national regulatory regime.

The report finds that 16 of the 25 major emitting countries and regions analysed are not on track to meet their self-determined NDC targets. While some countries like Brazil, China, and India are likely to achieve their targets with current policies, others, including the US, EU, and Canada, require additional measures. Furthermore, current policies are projected to fail to prevent emissions from increasing up to 2030 relative to 2010 levels in both developing and OECD nations, with only Japan and the EU projected to see further decreases.