Search Climate Insights Directory

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) analyses the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), a hybrid investment fund led by Brazil to be launched at COP30. FoEI argues that the TFFF's 'blended finance' model, which offers US $4 per hectare for forest preservation, commodifies nature and prioritises private investor returns over the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs). The paper warns that the facility may create a 'vicious cycle of debt' for Global South countries and calls for direct financial reparations and land reform instead of profit-driven conservation schemes.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) argues that the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) promotes the 'financierization of nature' by treating forests as financial assets. FoEI criticizes the TFFF's structure for prioritizing private investor returns over conservation, creating a potential debt cycle for Global South countries, and maintaining colonial power asymmetries through the involvement of the World Bank and other international financial institutions. While acknowledging the TFFF's commitment to allocate 20% of payments to Indigenous Peoples and local communities (PICL), FoEI deems this insufficient and calls for a systemic shift toward community-led forest management, debt cancellation, and historical reparations.

Friends of the Earth International opposes the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), a Brazilian-led initiative designed to mobilize private finance for tropical forest conservation. The organization argues that the TFFF's 'blended finance' model—which prioritizes private investor returns over conservation payments—treats nature as a commodity and risks creating a cycle of debt for tropical forest countries. The paper criticizes the central role of the World Bank and the limited influence of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), calling instead for debt cancellation, historical reparations, and community-led forest management based on the intrinsic value of ecosystems.

The 2025 Forest Declaration Assessment finds that the world is significantly off track to achieve zero deforestation by 2030, with 8.1 million hectares lost in 2024. The report highlights a systemic failure where harmful agricultural subsidies (USD 409 billion annually) dwarf positive forest finance, and where corporate commitments remain largely voluntary and insufficient. While some countries like Brazil and Indonesia have shown that political will can reduce deforestation, these gains are threatened by geopolitical instability and regulatory rollbacks. The assessment emphasizes that forests are better managed when Indigenous Peoples and local communities have secure tenure rights, yet only 13 percent of customary lands in tropical forests are formally recognized. It calls for a shift from voluntary pledges to mandatory regulations and inclusive governance to prevent ecosystem collapse.

The document analyzes the South African Climate Change Act as a framework for transforming the food system, which contributes approximately 20% of national emissions and is highly vulnerable to climate shocks. It identifies specific legal avenues—such as the National Adaptation Strategy and Plan (NASP), municipal climate response plans, and the Presidential Climate Commission—where farmers, workers, and civil society can intervene to promote agroecology, land rights, and food price stability. The author emphasizes that while the Act provides the legal framework, it does not guarantee funding or specific ground-level obligations, making active public participation essential to ensure a 'just transition' that protects vulnerable groups including women, youth, and smallholder farmers.

The report examines eight innovative financial instruments—including the Adaptation Benefit Mechanism, biodiversity credits, carbon taxes, carbon trading, credit guarantees, debt-for-nature/climate resilience swaps, pooled investment funds, and sovereign green/sustainability-linked bonds—to bridge the climate finance gap in developing countries. It identifies common barriers such as limited institutional capacity, lack of robust project pipelines, and underdeveloped local capital markets. The document emphasizes that while these instruments can signal a government's commitment to climate action, their success depends on a supportive enabling environment characterized by effective leadership, clear taxonomies, and robust climate data. For least developed countries (LDCs), the report suggests a phased approach, first strengthening basic financial and legal prerequisites before focusing on 'climate investability'. It concludes with specific recommendations for donors and development partners to provide technical assistance, anchor investments, and pilot projects to scale up private sector mobilization.

The report analyzes 32 Air Service Agreements (ASAs) among COFFIS member states to identify legal obstacles to taxing aviation fuel. It finds that while the Chicago Convention does not prohibit such taxes, many bilateral ASAs contain prohibitions or non-discrimination clauses that require reform. The authors propose a 'Joint Agreement' as a multilateral mechanism to bulk-amend these treaties. For EU states, the Energy Taxation Directive (ETD) remains a primary structural barrier, though international agreements can override it. The report also estimates that taxing three specific UK flight routes could generate up to USD 3.1 billion in revenue.

The report examines the 'renaissance' of green industrial policy, defining it as government intervention to achieve environmental goals alongside economic growth. Through case studies of China, the US, the EU, Canada, Brazil, and South Korea, it highlights a shift toward interventionism driven by climate urgency and geopolitical rivalry. The authors argue that while these policies can accelerate decarbonization and lower technology costs globally, they risk increasing international inequality, creating market distortions, and triggering trade conflicts, particularly for developing nations with limited fiscal capacity.

The report argues that tax incentives for critical mineral value addition are secondary to primary non-tax enablers such as infrastructure, regulatory stability, and clear national strategies. It analyzes the value chains of copper, lithium, and nickel, noting that while production-based, cost-based, and profit-based tax incentives can attract investment, they risk revenue loss if projects are not commercially viable. The document highlights varied national approaches, such as Indonesia's nickel export bans and Australia's production tax credits, and recommends rigorous financial modelling to ensure that downstream incentives do not result in a net loss of government revenue compared to raw ore exports.

The report argues that fiscal incentives are secondary to 'primary' non-fiscal conditions—such as stable regulatory frameworks, reliable energy and transport infrastructure, and clear national strategies—which are essential for the commercial viability of mineral processing. Using case studies from countries like Indonesia, Australia, and Zambia, it examines tools such as variable royalty rates, investment tax credits, and export restrictions. It warns that without rigorous economic modelling, policies like export bans or tax holidays can lead to significant revenue losses, deterred investment, or the support of commercially unviable projects.

The report argues that non-metallic minerals—such as sand, gravel, and potash—differ from metallic minerals due to lower revenue potential, stronger domestic economic linkages, and a lack of benchmark prices for many varieties. It proposes a typology for royalties and transfer pricing based on a mineral's export propensity, price volatility, and the availability of benchmark prices. Key recommendations include using unit-based royalties for low-value construction materials to minimize administration costs, and ad-valorem royalties for high-value exports like graphite and potash to maximize revenue. The document also addresses cross-cutting issues such as environmental taxation, the formalization of artisanal mining through lower tax burdens, and the risks associated with tax incentives and export restrictions.

The document argues that while WTO rules provide policy space for LDCs to build climate-resilient agriculture, these countries often lack the financial and technical capacity to utilize them. It recommends targeted assistance through Aid for Trade to design compliant subsidies, mapping of climate technologies to facilitate TRIPS-compliant transfers, and the establishment of exemptions for LDCs from food and fertilizer export bans to ensure food security amid climate shocks.

The report analyzes three case studies to demonstrate how purposeful, collective learning can improve climate adaptation planning. In Côte d’Ivoire, a national platform fostered a community of practice on the gender-climate nexus. Peru established a platform to integrate Indigenous Peoples' ancestral knowledge into its NAP. Rwanda implemented a monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) system to refine adaptation priorities. The report identifies key enabling factors such as inclusive leadership, legal institutionalization, and a culture of public accountability, while noting that sustained financial support remains a primary challenge for maintaining learning momentum.

The report examines how private equity (PE) firms consolidate the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) market through leveraged buyouts and 'roll-up' strategies, often increasing prices by nearly 50% within five years. It details a 'second wave' of consolidation where corporate giants like UnitedHealth and non-profit systems like Ascension acquire these PE-built networks, potentially bypassing antitrust scrutiny. Case studies on AmSurg, Regent Surgical Health, and Surgery Partners illustrate risks including high debt burdens, operational opacity, and pressures on clinical staffing and revenue.

The report finds that rents for the lowest-cost unsubsidized market-rate housing (workforce housing) increased by 20.2% nationally between 2021 and 2025, more than double the 9.2% increase for luxury (discretionary) housing. This trend is most pronounced in the Sunbelt region, where corporate landlords, including private equity firms, target workforce housing as a low-risk, high-cash-flow investment. The document highlights a crisis of evictions and 'self-evictions' driven by these price hikes and argues that government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac facilitate this corporate takeover by providing easy financing with few tenant protections. It recommends policy interventions such as rent control, just cause eviction laws, and the adoption of investment standards for public pension funds.

The report argues that conflict-related sexual violence is not inevitable and varies significantly across armed actors. It highlights a shift toward analyzing 'patterns of violence'—distinguishing between military strategy, organizational policy, and tolerated social practice—while advocating for a more intersectional approach that includes men, boys, and LGBTQIA+ survivors. The authors identify critical gaps in the study of structural root causes and perpetrator motivations, and they caution that traditional policy tools like international prosecutions and state-level sanctions have limited or even counterproductive effects on prevention.

The paper analyzes the evolution of the UN Security Council's approach to conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV), arguing that while the 'weapon of war' frame successfully moved the issue onto the security agenda, it created significant gaps in protection and accountability. This framing prioritizes strategic, systematic violence over opportunistic abuse and often ignores non-traditional survivors, such as men, boys, and LGBTQ+ individuals. The author notes that geopolitical interests continue to dictate which atrocities are condemned and which are tolerated, leading to inconsistent implementation of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda.

The author critiques the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda for its failure to move beyond rhetorical commitments to substantive protection and inclusion. While acknowledging its role in elevating conflict-related sexual violence, the paper argues that the agenda's focus on penetrative rape has occluded other gender-based harms, such as obstetric and structural violence. It further highlights the marginalization of women in formal peace negotiations and the failure to account for colonial causality. The author proposes a shift toward 'everyday peace'—focusing on the long-term, grassroots conditions of survival and tolerance—to ensure a more inclusive and sustainable peace that addresses the needs of all women, particularly those from marginalized ethnic and racial backgrounds.

The report analyzes climate disinformation in French and Brazilian mainstream media, finding that in France, disinformation is systemic and often linked to political and economic interests, while in Brazil, it manifests as a strategic 'invisibilization' of environmental issues driven by the agribusiness sector. It recommends strengthening media regulation, improving journalist training, and integrating disinformation detection into emergency response systems for extreme weather events.

The report analyzes climate disinformation in French and Brazilian mainstream media, finding that while France sees a high volume of structured disinformation narratives—particularly regarding energy and mobility—Brazil experiences a 'media invisibility' of environmental issues driven by agribusiness and political influence. It highlights the role of public broadcasting as a bulwark in France and warns that disinformation during extreme weather events can undermine emergency responses. The authors recommend strengthening media regulation, improving journalist training, and institutionalizing semi-automated disinformation detection systems.