Search Climate Insights Directory

Friends of the Earth Africa criticizes the draft Paris agreement for failing to provide adequate resources for adaptation, ignoring climate debt, and promoting market-based mechanisms like REDD that may facilitate land grabs. The organization warns that the current trajectory could lead to 5 to 8 degrees of warming in Africa, causing systemic ecological collapse and mass casualties.

The document is a declaration calling for the end of fossil fuel exploration and extraction to address the climate crisis and mass extinction. It demands a just transition to a democratized, 100% renewable energy system, the removal of fossil fuel industry influence from policymaking, and the recognition of the rights of Indigenous and frontline communities.

The research paper examines how China's 'one road-two belts' strategy, the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and increased UN peacekeeping commitments impact Africa. It highlights a shift toward regional development nodes on Africa's east coast and the Horn of Africa, while cautioning that Africa's strategic importance to Beijing is limited compared to China's immediate region and its interests in Asia and Europe.

The paper examines two contrasting models for financing clean infrastructure in middle-income countries: Brazil's centralized approach led by the national development bank (BNDES) and India's decentralized system involving various public and private institutions. Through case studies of wind energy projects, the authors find that despite their structural differences, both systems are dominated by public financing and struggle with a lack of true non-recourse project finance and limited financial innovation. Brazil's model effectively supports national industrial goals through local content requirements and centralized auctions but faces risks of crowding out private investment and governance issues. India's model allows for more diverse participants and smoother integration of international development finance but suffers from higher system costs, uneven investment across sectors, and significant revenue risks due to the poor financial health of state-owned power distribution companies (discoms). The report concludes that the effectiveness of these models is heavily dependent on complementary regulatory and policy frameworks rather than the financing structure alone.

The briefing argues that carbon markets have historically failed to increase climate commitments and have often undermined emissions reductions through 'hot air' loopholes. It recommends that the Paris agreement prevent double counting, ensure that international trading is supplementary to ambitious domestic action, and restrict market mechanisms to countries with adequate carbon budgets. The text notes a shift from a single global UN-led market toward a fragmented landscape of national and regional initiatives, while advocating for a transition from carbon offsets toward direct financial support for climate actions in developing countries.

The document examines Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) as tools for developing countries to achieve mitigation and sustainable development goals. It highlights a significant gap between the high interest in NAMA development and the actual financial support provided, noting that less than 2% of requested support has been offered. The brief argues that the lack of official UNFCCC guidelines for stakeholder consultation and the absence of sector-specific environmental criteria—such as 'negative lists' to exclude harmful technologies—risk promoting 'greenwashing' and locking countries into high-carbon infrastructure. It recommends adopting universal safeguards, harmonized sustainable development assessments, and mandatory guidelines for effective stakeholder engagement, including indigenous peoples, to ensure NAMAs drive true transformational change.

The document is a call to action by cleantech entrepreneurs and supporting organisations directed at COP21. It argues that viable solutions for decarbonisation already exist but are hindered by policy influence and capital allocation favouring the fossil fuel industry. The signatories demand a global shift to 100% renewable energy by 2050, the redirection of finance away from fossil fuels, and the implementation of science-based targets and carbon pricing.

The document critiques industrial agriculture as a primary driver of climate change and social inequality, while presenting agroecology as a viable, small-scale alternative. It specifically attacks 'Climate Smart Agriculture' (CSA) as a corporate-led 'false solution' designed to greenwash industrial practices. The text advocates for a transition toward food sovereignty and the relocalisation of food systems, highlighting the role of women and traditional knowledge in building climate resilience.

The document contrasts industrial agribusiness with agroecology, asserting that the former is a primary driver of climate change and social inequality. It dismisses 'climate-smart agriculture' as a marketing tool for corporations to maintain power structures without addressing the root causes of the climate crisis. Instead, it advocates for a transition to agroecology, which supports small-scale producers, protects biodiversity, and enhances climate resilience. The text highlights the role of women and traditional knowledge in this transition and calls for public policies that shift resources away from industrial meat and crop production toward food sovereignty.

The report estimates that the cost of inaction regarding climate change in Uganda's agriculture, water, energy, and infrastructure sectors will range between US$273 billion and US$437 billion from 2010 to 2050. These costs are estimated to be 24-46 times greater than the proposed adaptation budget. The study identifies water and energy as the sectors with the highest costs of inaction, while infrastructure is expected to require the most adaptation investment in the long term. Key recommendations include prioritizing the government's Costed Implementation Strategy and mainstreaming climate adaptation into national and district development plans.

The report argues that the cost of inaction regarding climate change in Uganda is significantly higher than the cost of adaptation, estimating annual losses between US$3.1 bn and 5.9 bn by 2025 compared to an adaptation cost of US$406 m over five years. It identifies critical vulnerabilities in water availability, agricultural exports (particularly coffee), biomass energy supply, and infrastructure resilience, while highlighting that many proposed adaptation measures are 'no regrets' investments that provide immediate development benefits.

The report identifies a significant gap in tracking private finance for climate adaptation, noting that less than 10% of publicly-mobilized private climate finance is directed toward adaptation. It proposes four methodological approaches—ranging from 'Direct' to 'Indirect Expanded'—to better capture how public interventions, including those providing enabling outputs like capacity building, trigger private investment. Through case studies in Northern Uganda and the African Risk Capacity, the authors demonstrate that relying solely on direct co-financing data leads to underestimations of mobilization. The report concludes that while indirect mobilization is harder to measure and carries higher risks of double counting, tracking it is essential to incentivize the upstream public support necessary for climate resilience.

The report addresses the difficulty in tracking private finance for climate adaptation, noting that it currently represents less than 10% of total mobilized private climate finance. It proposes four methodological approaches—ranging from direct co-finance to expanded indirect mobilization—and tests them using two case studies: the NU-TEC project in Northern Uganda and the African Risk Capacity (ARC) insurance mechanism. The findings highlight a trade-off between the accuracy and incentive potential of a method and its practicality and standardization potential. The authors conclude that relying solely on direct co-finance underestimates the impact of 'enabling' interventions like technical assistance and capacity building.

The document advocates for Community Forest Management (CFM) as a critical tool for biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation. It presents evidence that CFM often outperforms strict protection regimes in reducing deforestation, particularly when supported by secure land tenure and local autonomy. The briefing highlights the role of CFM in carbon sequestration and climate adaptation, while warning against 'false solutions' like REDD+ and the financialisation of nature, which it claims threaten community rights and traditional governance.

The report advocates for community forest management (CFM) as a superior strategy for environmental conservation and social justice. It provides evidence that forests managed by indigenous peoples and local communities often have lower deforestation rates and higher carbon storage than state-protected areas. The document identifies secure land tenure, local autonomy in decision-making, and strong social capital as critical success factors. It also warns against 'false solutions' like REDD+ and the financialization of nature, which it claims can lead to land grabbing and the erosion of traditional knowledge. The report concludes by recommending that governments prioritize collective land rights and traditional knowledge over market-based conservation mechanisms.

The document presents community forest management (CFM) as a superior alternative to industrial logging and strict protected areas for preserving biodiversity and mitigating climate change. It highlights that CFM can be more effective at reducing deforestation, as evidenced by data from Brazil and Costa Rica, and provides critical livelihood support to approximately 1.6 billion people. The text identifies key success factors for CFM, including secure land tenure, local decision-making autonomy, and strong social capital. Conversely, it warns against 'false solutions' such as REDD+ and the financialization of nature, which it claims risk land grabbing and the erosion of traditional governance. The document concludes by recommending the prioritization of decentralized, authentic CFM and the legal protection of indigenous and local community rights to ensure ecological and social justice.

The document examines the illegal wildlife trade as a reflection of complexities in China-Africa relations, specifically focusing on the demand for rhino horn and ivory in China and the supply challenges in South Africa. It highlights the role of cultural status, traditional medicine, and corruption in driving demand, while noting that supply is fueled by poverty and a lack of sustainable economic alternatives for local communities. The brief compares the conservation and enforcement models of South Africa and Kenya, suggesting that reducing demand through public awareness and linking wildlife protection to national priorities like anti-corruption is essential for long-term success.

The policy brief examines the intersection of the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the COP 21 climate negotiations, and the Financing for Development agenda. It advocates for a 'bottom-up' approach to climate mitigation through INDCs that are integrated with domestic socio-economic priorities to create co-benefits in sectors like agriculture and energy. The author emphasizes that African nations should leverage clean energy and the energy-food-water nexus to leapfrog fossil-fuel-based development, while highlighting South Africa's green economy strategies as a model for job creation and GDP growth.

A coalition of 98 global entities argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) fails to comply with international human rights obligations, specifically those recognized in the 2010 Cancun Agreements. The letter calls for the establishment of an independent accountability mechanism, the adoption of international sustainable development safeguards, and the implementation of improved stakeholder consultation processes to prevent environmental and social harms.

The report finds that malaria cases in Tororo and Kabale are projected to more than double by 2050, driven primarily by population growth and secondarily by rising temperatures. Economic costs are expected to at least double, with Tororo's annual costs potentially rising to between US$20.1 million and US$560.5 million, and Kabale's to between US$1.55 million and US$41.7 million. While the evidence base for climate-malaria linkages in Uganda is limited, the study suggests that temperature increases will be particularly significant in the highland region of Kabale. Recommended adaptation strategies include strengthening disease surveillance, improving drainage in infrastructure projects, and continuing the distribution of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS), both of which are identified as cost-effective interventions.