Search Climate Insights Directory

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has introduced an updated monitoring and accountability framework for its Accredited Entities (AEs). The framework employs a risk-based approach to monitor AE performance and compliance with GCF policies, utilizing self-certification, self-assessment reports, and targeted reviews. It outlines specific reporting requirements for funded activities—including annual performance reports and financial statements—and defines a range of supportive and corrective measures, from capacity building to the potential termination of accreditation, in cases of non-compliance or poor performance.

The report outlines nine fundamental principles of resilience science designed for decision-makers. It defines resilience as the capacity to cope, adapt, and transform, emphasizing that it is an active process rather than a passive state. Key themes include the necessity of diversity, the role of social and ecological relationships, the importance of managing trade-offs through collaborative governance, and the requirement to address power imbalances to ensure equitable outcomes. The document argues that proactive investment in resilience provides a 'triple dividend' by avoiding losses, stimulating economic growth, and delivering social and environmental benefits.

The report outlines nine 'Must-Knows' of resilience science, defining resilience as the capacity to cope, adapt, and transform. It argues that resilience is a continuous process of learning and innovation, requiring diversity in knowledge and nature, strong social-ecological relationships, and the active management of trade-offs. The document emphasizes that investing in resilience provides a 'triple dividend' by avoiding losses, boosting economies, and strengthening societies, while stressing that equitable resilience requires addressing power imbalances and historical injustices.

GreenLatinos' 2025 Impact Report details a year of advocacy against federal environmental rollbacks and the implementation of community-led resilience projects. Key achievements include securing $10B in Proposition 4 funds in California, passing the Clean and Reliable Grid Affordability Act in Illinois, and managing over $30 million in funding for urban forestry and community grants. The organization mobilized over 250 environmental justice organizations to respond to EPA rollbacks and expanded its 'Climate Lotería' project to combat Spanish-language climate disinformation. Its Urban Greening Initiative diverted over 611,000 pounds of organic waste and planted hundreds of trees across Chicago, Los Angeles, and Albuquerque.

The Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development (IGF) was established in February 2005 as a UN Type II partnership following the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. It serves as a member-led platform for over 80 countries to advance sustainable development through the mining sector. The forum's central tool is the Mining Policy Framework (MPF), ratified in 2010 and updated in 2023, which provides a compendium of best practices across six pillars: laws, policies, and institutions; financial benefits; socio-economic benefits; post-mining transition; environmental management; and artisanal and small-scale mining. The IGF Secretariat has been hosted by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) since October 2015, with core funding provided by Canada and the Netherlands.

The Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals for Sustainable Development (IGF) was established in 2005 as a UN Type II partnership following the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. It serves as a member-led platform for over 80 countries to promote good mining governance. The IGF's central tool is the Mining Policy Framework (MPM), which provides best practices across six pillars: laws, policies and institutions; financial benefits; socio-economic benefits; transition to post-mining; environmental management; and artisanal and small-scale mining. Since 2015, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) has managed the IGF Secretariat, with core funding from Canada and the Netherlands.

The IGF was established in 2005 as a UN Type II partnership to help resource-rich countries improve mining governance for sustainable development. It is guided by the Mining Policy Framework (MPF), which covers six pillars including environmental management and post-mining transition. Now comprising over 80 member nations, the IGF provides technical assistance and national assessments to align mining laws with sustainable development goals, with its secretariat hosted by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and funded primarily by Canada and the Netherlands.

The document defines ring-fencing as a limitation on the consolidation of income and deductions across different projects or activities for tax purposes. It argues that while ring-fencing can discourage investment in marginal ore bodies and increase compliance costs, it is essential for capturing economic rents, preventing permanent revenue loss from unsuccessful exploration, and mitigating BEPS practices. The guide recommends ring-fencing by mining licence area and suggests that profit-based taxes like Resource Rent Tax (RRT) and Additional Profit Tax (APT) must be ring-fenced to be effective. It also provides technical recommendations on apportioning indirect and general expenditures, suggesting that capital expenditure (CapEx) is a more effective allocation key than production volumes to avoid tax deferral.

The document examines the use of ring-fencing—the limitation of consolidating income and deductions across different mining projects or activities—as a tool for governments to ensure timely tax collection and protect the tax base. It analyzes the trade-offs between accelerating state revenue and potentially disincentivizing investment, particularly in marginal deposits. The guide provides detailed design options, such as ring-fencing by mining license area, activity type (upstream vs. downstream), or specific project, and offers recommendations on allocating indirect costs and managing transfer pricing risks. It also discusses exceptions for unsuccessful exploration costs to balance revenue goals with the need to attract exploration investment.

The document examines 'ring-fencing'—the practice of limiting the consolidation of revenues and deductions for different activities or projects undertaken by the same taxpayer—as a tool for governments to protect the mining tax base. It analyzes the trade-offs between accelerating public revenue and potentially discouraging investment, particularly in marginal deposits. The guide details various design options, such as ring-fencing by mining license area, activity (upstream vs. downstream), or separating mining from non-mining activities. It also provides practical recommendations on allocating indirect and general expenses, managing national transfer pricing risks, and handling permanent losses from unsuccessful exploration to balance revenue needs with investment incentives.

The report details a year of significant friction in global environmental governance, where geopolitical fragmentation and a UN liquidity crisis hindered consensus on critical issues like fossil fuel phase-out and a plastics treaty. Despite these setbacks, it highlights successes in ozone recovery, the growth of renewable energy, and the establishment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution. It emphasizes the need for synergies between multilateral environmental agreements and a shift toward more accountable, integrated national reporting to improve efficiency amid shrinking budgets.

The 2025 Expert Survey on the Global Information Environment, involving 438 researchers across 76 countries, examines the state of 'epistemic security'—the reliability of information supply chains. The report finds that while social media can increase political participation, it also drives polarization and distrust in institutions. A significant 66% of surveyed experts reported experiencing harassment, intervention, or chilling effects in their scientific work, with funding constraints and data access remaining primary barriers. Regarding AI, there is strong expert consensus (60%) that AI-generated content should be clearly labeled, and 83% believe such labeling would improve the information environment. The document advocates for treating the information environment as critical infrastructure, recommending independent algorithmic auditing and stronger protections for researchers and journalists.

The document examines the dual-use nature of AI in peacebuilding, highlighting its ability to forecast violence and scale civic inclusion while warning against risks like digital surveillance, algorithmic bias, and the erosion of human-led diplomacy. It argues for a hybrid approach that combines AI tools with local expertise and strict ethical governance to ensure technology supports stability rather than deepening conflict.

The report analyzes 215 recorded GenAI incidents across 50 countries during 2024 elections, finding that 80% of these countries experienced such incidents. GenAI was primarily used for synthetic content production, with 69% of cases deemed harmful to electoral integrity. Attribution is a significant challenge, as 46% of sources remained unknown, while political candidates and foreign actors accounted for 25% and 20% of incidents, respectively.

The report identifies a crisis of information integrity about climate science, characterized by a shift from outright denial to more nuanced skepticism and 'response skepticism' regarding climate solutions. It documents how powerful economic interests, particularly the fossil fuel industry, and political actors use strategies like greenwashing, delay, and obstruction to undermine scientific consensus. The review highlights the role of social media algorithms, bots, and 'source media' (such as corporate reports) in amplifying misleading narratives. It concludes that while individual-level interventions like inoculation and education are valuable, systemic governance through public regulation, standardized corporate reporting, and litigation is essential to restore information integrity.

The IPIE analyzed GenAI usage across 50 countries with competitive national elections in 2024. Findings show that GenAI was reported in 80% of these countries, primarily for content creation (90% of cases). While 69% of instances served malicious ends, 16% were benevolent. The study highlights a significant challenge in actor identification, with 46% of cases remaining unclear, and notes that foreign actors were involved in 20% of reported incidents, all for nefarious purposes.

The report presents findings from the 2025 IPIE Expert Survey, highlighting a growing pessimism about the future of the information environment. It identifies the availability of accurate information and diverse voices as essential for a healthy environment, while citing lack of platform accountability as a primary threat. The document also examines the mixed impact of social media, the negative perceptions of generative AI, and the increasing barriers faced by researchers, particularly regarding funding and academic freedom.

The report examines the dual-use nature of AI in peacebuilding, highlighting its potential to enhance conflict forecasting, real-time mapping, and inclusive dialogue while warning against risks such as algorithmic bias, surveillance, and the erosion of human facilitation skills. It emphasizes that AI's effectiveness depends on a healthy information environment and a rights-based approach to design and governance.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors intentionally spread misleading narratives to obstruct climate action. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which is disseminated through corporate sustainability reports, lobby groups, and social media. The document argues that this environment erodes public trust in science and creates a feedback loop of political inaction. To counter this, the report recommends standardized carbon emission reporting, legal recourse against greenwashing, the creation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and enhanced science and media literacy education.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—undermine climate action by questioning the viability and cost of solutions. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which is disseminated through social media, traditional media, and corporate sustainability reports. This erosion of information integrity leads to a loss of public trust in climate science and a feedback loop of political inaction. The document recommends four key interventions: legislation for standardized carbon reporting and content labeling, judicial action against greenwashing, the formation of cross-sector coalitions, and enhanced scientific and media education for the public and policymakers.