Search Climate Insights Directory

The report maps 103 multistakeholder initiatives (MSIs) to demonstrate how transnational corporations and mega-philanthropies are displacing traditional state-led multilateralism. It identifies a pattern where the World Economic Forum (WEF) and large foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation drive a 'stakeholder capitalism' agenda, often using the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as legitimacy. The analysis reveals a significant democratic deficit, with affected communities and Global South governments largely excluded from decision-making, while the UN system often acts as a strategic partner that legitimises these corporate-led mechanisms.

The Lao PDR Green Climate Fund Country Programme 2021-2023 identifies five priority areas for climate action: resilient farming, forest cover maintenance, energy sector emission reductions, low-carbon urban development and transport, and public health resilience. The document aligns these priorities with the country's revised 2020 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and the 9th National Socio-economic Development Plan (2021-2025). It details a pipeline of investment and readiness projects, the institutional role of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment as the National Designated Authority, and the goal of accrediting the Environment Protection Fund as a direct access entity.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation pledge as a rebranding of failed initiatives like REDD+, asserting that it facilitates corporate greenwashing through carbon credits and offsets. The statement highlights the hypocrisy of signatory nations, citing the EU-Mercosur agreement's impact on the Amazon and the lack of binding regulations to protect Indigenous Peoples' rights and stop industrial agriculture and extractive industries.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation pledge as a 'greenwashing' effort similar to failed REDD+ initiatives. The organization contends that the reliance on carbon offsets and private financing—exemplified by the UK's funding of the LEAF coalition—enables corporations like Amazon and Unilever to continue emitting while risking land grabs in the Global South. The statement highlights contradictions, such as the EU-MERCOSUR trade agreement's impact on the Amazon and Brazil's treatment of indigenous peoples, and calls for binding human rights instruments and immediate emission cuts over market-based sinks.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation promise as a 'relooking' of failed initiatives like REDD+, claiming it facilitates corporate carbon offsetting rather than actual emission reductions. The statement highlights the hypocrisy of signatory nations, citing the EU-Mercosur trade agreement and Brazil's treatment of indigenous peoples, and calls for binding regulations and direct climate finance instead of market-based mechanisms.

The document critiques the current global energy system as a product of patriarchal extractivism and capitalism that disproportionately harms women, particularly in the Global South. It warns against 'greenwashing' (maquillaje verde) and 'purplewashing' (maquillaje violeta), where corporations use environmental and gender-equality narratives to mask continued exploitation. The authors advocate for a 'just and feminist energy transition' centered on the sustainability of life, public ownership, and the recognition of care work, rather than market-driven technological fixes.

The document outlines the Project Finance for Permanence (PFP) model, a holistic approach designed to secure policy changes and full funding for large-scale conservation goals over a long-term timeframe. It details a five-phase development process—identification, assessment, readiness, design, and implementation—and emphasizes the necessity of a shared vision, a robust financial model, and independent fund administration. The guide provides specific case studies from Brazil (ARPA for Life), Colombia (Heritage Colombia), and Peru (Peru’s Natural Legacy), illustrating how transition funds and sustainable financing mechanisms are used to move from donor dependency to national financial sustainability.

The document outlines the Project Finance for Permanence (PFP) model, a holistic approach to securing long-term ecological, social, political, organizational, and financial sustainability for conservation areas. It details a five-phase process—identification, evaluation, preparation, design, and implementation—and emphasizes the need for a shared vision, a robust financial model, and independent fund management. The guide provides specific case studies from the Amazon Sustainable Landscapes Program, including ARPA for Life in Brazil, Herencia Colombia, and Patrimonio Natural del Perú, illustrating how these frameworks are applied to protect millions of hectares of biodiversity.

WWF International outlines a framework for high-impact nature-based solutions (NbS) for climate mitigation, emphasizing that interventions must simultaneously benefit human well-being, biodiversity, and the climate. The report argues against narrowly designing projects for carbon credits, instead advocating for landscape-scale or jurisdictional approaches that align with national strategies and the Paris Agreement. It provides a hierarchy for forest-related interventions—prioritizing REDD, then improved forest management, and finally afforestation, reforestation, and restoration—and details essential safeguards, including free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) for Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs). To ensure integrity, the blueprint recommends rigorous due diligence to mitigate risks such as inflated baselines, leakage, and non-permanence.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) rejects Nature-based Solutions (NbS), characterizing the term as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing.' The organization contends that NbS is too vague, allowing harmful practices like industrial monoculture plantations to be labeled as 'natural.' FoEI argues that NbS serves as a greenwashing tool for fossil fuel and agro-industrial companies to justify 'net zero' claims through carbon offsetting rather than actual emission reductions. The document warns that the scale of land required for these projects leads to land grabbing and violates the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly in the Global South. Instead of NbS, FoEI advocates for systemic change through agroecology, community forest management, and a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels.

Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) rejects Nature Based Solutions (NBS), characterizing it as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' that instrumentalizes nature to serve corporate profits and 'net-zero' offsetting schemes. The document contends that NBS promotes monoculture plantations, enables the financialization of nature, and threatens the sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. FOEI argues that NBS distracts from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels and instead advocates for systemic changes such as agroecology and Community Forest Management (CFM).

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) rejects Nature-based Solutions (NbS), characterizing the term as a "wolf in sheep's clothing" that masks neocolonialism and corporate greenwashing. The document contends that NbS promotes industrial monoculture plantations and the financialization of nature, which threatens the land rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly in the Global South. FoEI argues that NbS serves as a distraction from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels and instead advocates for systemic changes through agroecology and community forest management.

The report evaluates progress toward the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF) and the Paris Agreement, concluding that current efforts are insufficient to end forest loss and greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. It argues that forest mitigation goals are fundamentally conflicted with an economic system based on unlimited production and consumption. To address this, the document outlines six key strategies for governments: strengthening land governance, securing indigenous and local community rights, aligning financial incentives, supporting multi-stakeholder collaboration, improving forest monitoring, and implementing demand-side measures in importing countries.

The report finds that while the Paris Agreement has confirmed the role of forests in the international climate agenda, global efforts to end forest loss and greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 remain insufficient. It argues that current economic systems incentivize forest exploitation and that existing government initiatives—such as REDD+ programs and monitoring systems—have not been enough to counter these drivers. To realize forests' mitigation potential, the authors recommend that governments increase ambition in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), massively scale up domestic and international finance, and implement six specific strategies: strengthening land governance, securing Indigenous Peoples and local communities' (IPLCs) rights, aligning fiscal incentives, promoting multistakeholder collaboration, ensuring robust monitoring, and expanding demand-side measures in importing countries.

The report concludes that while the Paris Agreement has confirmed the role of forests in the international climate agenda, global efforts remain insufficient to stop deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. It argues that current economic systems, driven by infinite production and consumption, contradict climate goals. To address this, the report proposes six core strategies: strengthening land governance, securing indigenous and local community rights, aligning fiscal incentives with mitigation, promoting multi-stakeholder collaboration, ensuring reliable forest monitoring, and implementing demand-side measures in importing countries.

The report finds that while Goal 7 of the NYDF—integrating forests into the international climate agenda via the Paris Agreement—has been achieved, overall progress in ending forest loss and associated greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 remains insufficient. It argues that current mitigation efforts are undermined by an economic system driven by infinite production and consumption of forest-risk commodities. To address this, the document proposes six core strategies for governments: strengthening land-use governance, securing Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) rights, aligning financial incentives with mitigation goals, promoting multi-stakeholder jurisdictional collaboration, ensuring robust forest monitoring, and expanding demand-side measures in importing countries.

The report finds that while the Paris Agreement has integrated forests into the international climate agenda, current national actions are insufficient to stop forest loss and greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. It argues that governments must increase the ambition of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), align financial flows with climate goals, and implement six core strategies: strengthening governance, protecting indigenous land rights, aligning incentives, promoting multi-stakeholder collaboration, ensuring robust monitoring, and implementing demand-side measures in importing countries.

The report finds that while the Paris Agreement has integrated forests into the international climate agenda, national ambitions in NDCs remain insufficient and often lack quantitative targets. Public finance for forest climate goals is a small fraction of the required amount, with 'grey' finance for deforestation-driving sectors vastly outweighing 'green' investments. While many countries have established REDD+ programs and robust monitoring systems, implementation is hindered by weak governance, widespread illegality, and a lack of secure land tenure for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs). The report recommends scaling up domestic and international finance, strengthening land rights, and expanding demand-side regulations in consumer countries to curb illegal deforestation.

The report argues that community lands, managed by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), are critical for climate mitigation due to their ability to sequester carbon and maintain biodiversity. Despite managing approximately half of the world's land, only 10% is legally recognized. The document provides evidence that secure land tenure leads to lower deforestation rates compared to state-managed lands and is a cost-effective mitigation strategy. However, these lands face increasing threats from illegal mining, drug trafficking, and land grabbing, while land defenders face rising violence. The report concludes that international climate finance significantly underserves IPLCs and calls for governments to prioritize legal land titling and the protection of environmental defenders.

The document argues that community lands, which cover approximately half of the world's land, are critical for carbon sequestration and biodiversity. It highlights that secure land tenure for IPLCs leads to lower deforestation rates and more effective climate mitigation than state-managed areas, often at a lower cost. However, the report notes that most community land lacks legal recognition, IPLCs receive less than 1% of official development assistance for climate change, and land defenders face increasing violence. It recommends securing land rights, improving law enforcement, and directing international climate funds toward IPLC-led management.