Search Climate Insights Directory

The document reports on a June 2018 meeting between the Canadian government, academics, and civil society representatives regarding the reform of international investment law. Participants argued that traditional investment treaties often prioritize investor protection over sustainable development and can hinder the achievement of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Canadian government expressed commitment to a progressive trade and investment agenda incorporating environment, labour, and gender equality standards. Proposed reforms include conducting cost-benefit and impact analyses before negotiations, shifting treaty focus toward sustainable development, balancing investor rights with obligations regarding corruption and human rights, and reforming or eliminating Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms to protect a state's right to legislate in the public interest, particularly regarding climate change.

The guidance outlines a four-step process for creating local content policies: aligning with national objectives, taking stock of domestic capabilities, crafting specific policy instruments, and establishing monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. It details five types of local content objectives: local procurement, direct employment, horizontal linkages for diversification, downstream beneficiation, and the fostering of national mining firms. The document warns that policies must be context-specific and cautions against 'one-size-fits-all' solutions, noting that automation and international trade laws (such as WTO rules) present significant challenges to traditional local content strategies.

The document outlines a four-step framework for governments to implement local content policies in mining: aligning with national development goals, conducting a situational inventory, selecting appropriate policy instruments, and establishing monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. It categorizes local content policies into five types: local procurement, direct local employment, horizontal linkages (diversification beyond mining), downstream linkages (processing minerals), and the development of domestic mining companies. The guide warns that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions and highlights risks such as technological automation reducing employment and potential conflicts with international trade and investment laws, specifically WTO regulations.

The guide outlines a four-step process for governments to integrate mining investments into national development plans through local content policies. It details five types of policies: local procurement, direct local employment, horizontal links to non-mining sectors, downstream value addition, and the strengthening of national mining companies. The document emphasizes that there is no universal model, as success depends on a country's specific socioeconomic context, infrastructure, and capacity. It also warns of challenges such as technological automation reducing employment and potential conflicts with international trade and investment laws, specifically WTO rules regarding performance requirements.

The workshop, organized by the IGF in partnership with the UNDP and OECD, focused on the 'IGF Guide for Governments: Managing Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining'. It combined technical training on strategy development—covering startup, elaboration, and implementation phases—with field visits to mining sites in Eséka and Pouma, Cameroon. Participants identified common regional challenges, including formalization, child labor, environmental degradation, and lack of institutional coordination, while sharing case studies from Cameroon, Guinea, Mauritania, and Morocco.

The annex details updates to India's energy subsidy landscape, noting the discontinuation of several renewable energy schemes and tax holidays for power generation and mineral oil production. It introduces new subsidies linked to the 2017 Goods and Services Tax (GST) for coal, LPG, and renewable energy equipment, alongside the Saubhagya electrification scheme and various national and state-level (Maharashtra) incentives for electric vehicles.

The document examines how multinational enterprises (MNEs) in the mining sector use debt financing to reduce taxable income in host countries. It details common profit-shifting techniques, such as 'debt push down' and the use of hybrid instruments, and evaluates various regulatory responses. The primary recommendation is the adoption of OECD BEPS Action 4, which limits net interest deductions based on a fixed ratio of EBITDA, complemented by withholding taxes and transfer pricing rules.

The document examines how multinational mining companies use debt financing to shift profits out of host countries and proposes a combination of the OECD BEPS Action 4 framework and other fiscal measures to protect the tax base in developing nations.

The policy brief highlights Manitoba's potential to utilize over 5 million tonnes of available annual biomass from agriculture, forestry, and ecological sources like cattails to replace fossil fuels. It notes that current demand for biomass fuel exceeds the capacity of existing processing facilities and calls for government investment in infrastructure, research, and water management to enable a high-value bioeconomy.

The report details discussions among 30 experts on integrating mandatory investor obligations into international investment agreements. It evaluates proposed draft texts covering compliance with domestic law, anti-corruption, information disclosure, human rights, labour and environmental standards, contract transparency, impact assessments, and tax base erosion. The experts discussed enforcement mechanisms, including the use of counterclaims in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and the possibility of civil liability in an investor's home state to improve access to justice for affected communities.

The report details discussions between Canadian government officials, academics, and civil society on reforming international investment law. It argues that traditional investment treaties, focused on investor protection, often conflict with sustainable development goals and human rights. Key proposals include shifting the focus of treaties toward sustainable development, conducting broad impact assessments, and reforming or eliminating investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms to protect the state's right to regulate in the public interest, particularly for climate change objectives.

The document introduces a four-step framework for estimating the total cost of mining tax incentives by combining direct revenue losses with behavioural costs. It presents the IGF Mining Tax Incentives Financial Model, a tool pre-configured for a medium-sized surface gold mine in sub-Saharan Africa, which allows users to simulate how investors might change operations or financing to maximise incentives. The guide details specific behavioural risks, such as high-grading in response to tax holidays and excessive interest deductions following withholding tax exemptions, and provides methodologies for testing these estimates through scenario modelling and sensitivity analysis.

The document introduces a financial modeling framework designed to calculate the total loss of public revenue resulting from mining tax incentives. It distinguishes between 'direct costs' (the immediate loss of tax revenue) and 'behavioral costs' (revenue losses caused by investors adjusting their operations to maximize the benefit of incentives). The guide accompanies a beta financial model pre-configured for a medium-sized open-pit gold mine representative of Sub-Saharan Africa, following the FAST standard for transparency and adaptability. It details specific behavioral risks such as 'high-grading' in response to income tax exemptions, excessive interest deductions following withholding tax exemptions, and the under-invoicing of minerals under progressive royalty schemes. Additionally, it provides methodologies for testing cost estimates through scenario modeling and sensitivity analysis to determine if incentives are 'well-oriented'—meaning they provide more value when project viability is lowest.

The document introduces a financial model developed by the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Metals (IGF) to help governments quantify the impact of tax incentives on public revenues. It emphasizes that conventional cost estimates often overlook 'behavioral responses'—actions taken by investors to maximize financial gains from incentives—which can significantly increase revenue losses. The guide outlines a four-step framework: estimating reference revenues, calculating direct costs, estimating behavioral costs, and determining the total revenue loss. It provides specific examples of behavioral risks, such as 'high-grading' (écrémage) in response to tax holidays, excessive interest deductions following withholding tax exemptions, and under-invoicing of ore sales under progressive royalty schemes. The document also advocates for the use of scenario modeling and sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of these estimates and determine if incentives are effectively targeted to support marginal investments.

The document describes the ALivE tool, a qualitative assessment method designed to support project managers and stakeholders in designing EbA strategies. It outlines a three-stage planning process: collecting information through secondary research and participatory methods, using the ALivE tool for step-by-step analysis of risks and options, and integrating these findings into broader policy and planning frameworks. The tool specifically helps users identify vulnerable social groups, prioritize EbA options based on effectiveness and feasibility, and establish monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks using SMART indicators.

The ALivE tool guides users through a three-phase process: collecting data on livelihoods and ecosystems, analyzing risks and prioritizing EbA options, and integrating these options into policy and planning. It emphasizes a participatory approach, gender sensitivity, and adaptive management to ensure sustainable climate resilience.

The ALivE tool is a decision-support system that guides users through a three-phase process to build climate resilience. Phase 1 involves gathering data via secondary research and participatory methods. Phase 2 uses the tool to analyse risks, identify and prioritise EbA options based on effectiveness and feasibility, and design project activities. Phase 3 focuses on integrating these options into broader policies and planning processes to ensure sustainability and scale.

The guide introduces the ALivE tool, which uses a step-by-step process to analyze the relationship between ecosystems, livelihoods, and climate change. It defines Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) as the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an adaptation strategy to help people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. The tool guides users through five modules: understanding the context, analyzing vulnerabilities, identifying EbA options, planning implementation, and establishing monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks. It emphasizes participatory approaches, gender sensitivity, and the integration of EbA into national policies and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs).

The ALivE (Adaptation, Livelihoods, and Ecosystems) tool is a qualitative decision-support system that guides users through a three-stage process to integrate ecosystem-based adaptation into climate resilience planning. The process involves collecting data on livelihoods and ecosystems, analyzing climate and non-climate risks, prioritizing EbA options based on effectiveness and feasibility, and developing monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks. The tool emphasizes gender sensitivity, adaptive management, and the integration of EbA into national and subnational policies, such as National Adaptation Plans (NAPs).

The document is a user manual for ALivE (Adaptation, Livelihoods, and Ecosystems), a qualitative assessment tool used within a broader ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) planning process. It guides users through three phases: collecting information via secondary research and participatory methods, analyzing that data through a five-step computerized process to prioritize viable EbA options, and integrating these options into formal policies and planning. The tool emphasizes the links between ecosystem health, human livelihoods, and climate risks, specifically targeting the needs of vulnerable social groups and promoting gender-sensitive implementation.