Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing proposes a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty based on three pillars: preventing new exploration licenses, phasing out existing production equitably, and ensuring a just transition for workers and dependent communities. It outlines a strategy for 'precursor countries' to drive international cooperation, suggests specific diplomatic actions for national governments, and provides a menu of domestic policy options to reduce fossil fuel dependency.

The briefing advocates for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty based on three pillars: non-proliferation of new fossil fuels, a fair phase-out of existing production, and a global just transition. It positions the treaty as a necessary supply-side complement to the Paris Agreement, arguing that current production plans exceed the 1.5°C carbon budget. The document outlines a business case for support, citing risks such as stranded assets and increased climate litigation, while proposing specific actions for companies, including public advocacy and the implementation of absolute emission reductions.

The document proposes a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty based on three pillars: non-proliferation (ending new exploration), fair phase-out of existing production, and a Global Just Transition. The Global Just Transition pillar focuses on enabling countries, workers, and communities to move away from fossil fuel dependence through economic diversification, the rapid deployment of renewable energy, and robust social protection. It emphasizes that wealthy nations must transition fastest and provide financial, technological, and capacity-building support to the Global South to ensure a sustainable and equitable transformation.

The briefing asserts that current climate frameworks, including the Paris Agreement, are insufficient because they focus on emissions (demand) rather than production (supply). It proposes a new legal instrument—a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty—to prevent the proliferation of fossil fuels, manage a fair phase-out where wealthy nations transition fastest, and ensure a global just transition for workers and communities. The document outlines building blocks for this cooperation, such as the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) and a Global Registry of Fossil Fuels, and calls for governments to support the initiative and an ICJ Advisory opinion on climate change.

The briefing asserts that current global production plans for fossil fuels will lead to emissions more than double what is compatible with the 1.5 °C target. It argues that while the Paris Agreement focuses on emissions, a new international legal instrument is needed to specifically target the supply side by ending new exploration and managing the equitable decline of existing production. The proposed treaty framework emphasizes a 'just transition' where wealthy nations transition fastest and provide financial and technological support to poorer, dependent nations. The document suggests a path toward this treaty through new country coalitions, such as the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA), increased transparency via the Global Fossil Fuel Registry, and the potential creation of a Global Commission on Fossil Fuels.

The briefing advocates for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty to address the climate crisis by targeting the supply side of fossil fuels. It argues that existing frameworks like the Paris Agreement are insufficient because they focus on emissions rather than production. The proposed treaty would focus on three pillars: non-proliferation of new fuels, an equitable phase-out of existing production, and a global just transition. The document outlines necessary international cooperation, including new coalitions like the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) and tools like the Global Fossil Fuel Register, while drawing parallels to successful treaties on nuclear weapons and landmines.

The report analyzes 41 multisectoral National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) to explore their role in managing loss and damage. It finds that while nearly half of NAPs explicitly mention loss and damage and almost all incorporate disaster risk management, there are significant gaps in addressing non-economic losses and irreversible impacts. The authors argue that NAPs are essential tools for minimizing loss and damage and recommend that international funding and planning for loss and damage build upon existing NAP risk assessments and institutional frameworks.

The report analyzes 41 multisectoral NAPs to determine the extent to which they integrate loss and damage (L&D) information and actions. It argues that NAPs are fundamental tools for minimizing L&D through adaptation and disaster risk management, though they often lack detailed analysis of irreversible impacts and non-economic losses. The authors propose a 'spectrum' approach to L&D—ranging from avoidance (mitigation) to minimization (adaptation/DRR) and addressing (humanitarian response/reparations)—and recommend that international financing mechanisms leverage existing NAP risk assessments to avoid duplication and ensure climate justice.

The report analyzes 41 multisectoral National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) to assess their integration of loss and damage (L&D) strategies. It finds that while nearly half of NAPs explicitly mention L&D and almost all include disaster risk management (DRM) components, there is a significant gap in addressing non-economic losses and irreversible impacts. The document proposes a 'spectrum' approach to L&D, ranging from avoidance (mitigation) and minimization (adaptation/DRR) to remediation (humanitarian response and reparations). It recommends that governments and international funders leverage existing NAP risk analyses as a starting point for L&D assessments and ensure that new L&D financing targets impacts that exceed adaptation limits to avoid duplicating existing adaptation efforts.

The document explains that while MOUs are often viewed as non-binding 'soft' agreements, they can unintentionally create binding legal obligations or 'legitimate expectations' enforceable under international investment treaties. It provides specific drafting strategies to avoid these risks, such as using explicit non-binding statements and avoiding overly broad commitments regarding land tenure, permits, and tax incentives. Additionally, it demonstrates how governments can use MOUs as a positive tool to establish a roadmap for pre-contractual due diligence, including the screening of investors' experience and financial capacity, and the requirement for feasibility studies and environmental and social impact assessments.

The document explains how host governments can use MOUs as non-binding preliminary frameworks for agricultural investments while avoiding unintended legal obligations. It details strategies to prevent the creation of 'legitimate expectations' under international investment treaties and suggests using MOUs to structure due diligence for investor and project selection.

The UN 2023 Water Conference, held in New York, focused on accelerating progress toward Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6) through the Water Action Agenda. The event resulted in approximately 700 voluntary commitments totaling USD 300 billion and the announcement of a UN Special Envoy for Water. Discussions emphasized the water-food-energy nexus, the human right to water and sanitation, and the need for innovative finance and improved global water data. While the conference generated significant political momentum and new partnerships, analysis suggests that many pledges lack quantifiable targets and that the international community must quadruple its efforts to meet 2030 goals.

The document reviews CEDAW's 2022 activities, noting that the committee issued climate-related recommendations or questions to 30 out of 49 States considered, with a primary focus on disaster risk reduction and adaptation over mitigation. It highlights specific concerns regarding fossil fuel extraction in Uganda and Namibia and details General Recommendation No. 39, which emphasizes the rights of Indigenous women and girls to free, prior and informed consent regarding extractive and climate projects on their territories.

The document outlines how to integrate conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding into the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process, emphasizing the mutual reinforcement of climate resilience and peace. It identifies six enabling factors—leadership, data, financing, institutional arrangements, stakeholder engagement, and capacity development—and provides specific entry points across the planning, implementation, and monitoring phases to ensure adaptation actions do not exacerbate tensions and instead contribute to sustainable peace.

The document argues that climate change and conflict are mutually reinforcing, and that adaptation planning can break this cycle if it is conflict-sensitive. It outlines six enabling factors—leadership, data, finance, institutional arrangements, stakeholder engagement, and capacity building—necessary for successful NAPs in fragile states. The guide provides a detailed framework for integrating conflict analysis into the three main phases of the NAP process: planning, implementation, and monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL).

The report examines the intersection of air pollution and labor markets in East and Southeast Asia, highlighting a significant gap in research and policy regarding informal workers. It finds that while formal sectors are regulated, informal workers—including street vendors and agricultural laborers—face high exposure with minimal social protection. Health burdens are highest in China and Mongolia for ambient pollution, and in Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar for household pollution. The report argues that current solutions are overly technocentric and fail to address the social inequalities and structural vulnerabilities that determine exposure levels.

The document details the re-accreditation reviews for three international entities: the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). All three entities are recommended for re-accreditation without conditions. ADB and EBRD are recommended for 'large' project sizes and 'high risk' (Category A/I-1) environmental and social (E&S) risk categories. UNEP is recommended for an upgrade to 'medium' project size and maintains a 'medium risk' (Category B/I-2) E&S category. The assessments cover fiduciary standards, E&S safeguards, gender policies, and the entities' overall climate portfolios, noting that all three have aligned their strategies with the Paris Agreement and GCF's 2020–2023 Strategic Plan.

The report finds that human rights are not systematically referenced in the reviewed NAPs, with few countries using them to guide the planning or implementation process. While some plans, notably Fiji's, demonstrate a strong commitment to human rights-based approaches, most others only make indirect or superficial references to rights. The authors argue for the development of detailed guidance to integrate social, political, administrative, and legal entry points into the NAP process to better protect vulnerable groups.

The GCF Secretariat exceeded several 2021 targets, allocating USD 1.2 billion in a single board meeting and reaching a total portfolio size of USD 10 billion. Key achievements include increasing the share of direct access entity (DAE) programming and reducing the time from project approval to first disbursement. However, the Secretariat faces significant capacity constraints in processing a pipeline of over 150 accreditation and re-accreditation applications, and the simplified approval process (SAP) remains the only programming target not met.

The U.S. Government Global Water Strategy 2022-2027 establishes a whole-of-government approach to achieve a water-secure world. It prioritizes four strategic objectives: strengthening sector governance and financing, increasing equitable access to climate-resilient water and sanitation services, improving the conservation of freshwater resources, and reducing water-related conflict. The strategy emphasizes local leadership, the needs of marginalized populations, and the integration of climate resilience. Implementation is coordinated through the Interagency Water Working Group (IWWG) and focuses on High-Priority Countries (HPCs) identified by a data-driven needs and opportunity index. Specific agency plans from USAID, the Department of State, CDC, and others detail how they will leverage technical expertise, diplomatic engagement, and financial tools to meet these goals.