Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that financial institutions can either sustain or mitigate conflict through their investment decisions and resource flows. It identifies tangible risks for the financial sector, including litigation, regulatory costs, and asset defaults, while highlighting 'win-win' opportunities such as 'conflict-free' investment funds and first-mover advantages in post-conflict economies. The text outlines specific levers for peacebuilding—core business, policy dialogue, and social investment—and provides a framework for action across the conflict cycle (conflict-prone, during conflict, and post-conflict).

The document analyzes how transnational corporations, multilateral financial institutions, and national governments drive deforestation and biodiversity loss through industrial monocultures and extractive industries. It presents case studies from Costa Rica, Argentina, Colombia, Indonesia, Paraguay, Cameroon, South Africa, and Ecuador to illustrate the displacement of indigenous peoples and the destruction of ecosystems. The report concludes by recommending a legally binding international framework for corporate regulation and the recognition of indigenous land rights to protect forest biodiversity.

The document examines resource-backed loans (RBLs) as a tool for financing infrastructure in resource-rich developing nations, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. While RBLs can unlock funding and reduce corruption by bypassing government control of funds through special purpose vehicles, they often lead to unsustainable debt, lack of transparency, and unfair terms that favour lenders. The brief recommends integrating RBLs into public procurement systems, increasing transparency, and utilizing expert negotiators to protect national interests.

The document asserts that plastics are fundamentally incompatible with a true circular economy because they rely on non-renewable fossil feedstocks and leach toxic chemicals. It warns that the term 'circular economy' is often used as greenwashing by the plastics industry to relabel waste management and burning as circular. The author recommends capping plastics manufacture and use by 2025, eliminating toxic chemicals in a new global plastics agreement, and prioritizing reuse and refill over waste management.

The report documents a global pattern of violence and legal harassment against land and environmental rights defenders in 2013. It argues that these individuals, often representing vulnerable indigenous or rural communities, are targeted by governments and corporations during conflicts over natural resources and large-scale development projects. The document provides specific case studies from Europe, the Americas, Africa, and Asia, detailing arrests, assassinations, and forced displacements linked to opposition to mining, hydroelectric dams, agribusiness, and oil exploration.

The CERD increased its climate-related outputs in 2023, focusing on the disproportionate impacts of climate change on Indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities in several countries. The Committee emphasized the need for adaptation measures to consider specific ethnic needs and the importance of free, prior, and informed consent for extractive projects. Additionally, the Committee's draft General Recommendation No. 37 highlighted the negative health outcomes of climate change, including heat-related illness and mental health impacts, which disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities.

The report outlines how the CEDAW Committee interprets States' obligations to ensure gender-responsive climate action, emphasizing the particular vulnerabilities of rural and older women and the necessity of women's participation in decision-making.

The report examines 38 cases of international arbitration brought by mining companies against Latin American states, highlighting a pattern where corporate legal protections are used to bypass national courts and penalize governments for implementing public health, environmental, or indigenous rights policies. It identifies Canada as a primary source of mining investment and litigation in the region and argues that the current ISDS framework creates a 'chilling effect' on democratic regulation. The document details specific cases in countries such as El Salvador, Colombia, and Venezuela, and proposes a shift toward a legal framework that prioritizes human rights and environmental protection over investor profits.

The author contends that the 'No' campaign against the Australian Indigenous Voice to Parliament is not a grassroots movement but a strategic operation by the Atlas Network, a global infrastructure of neoliberal think-tanks. The paper links this effort to a long-term pattern of climate disinformation and opposition to environmental policy, suggesting that the Voice is opposed because it could empower Indigenous communities to challenge fossil-fuel projects. The author details the interlocking memberships between the Atlas Network, the Mont Pelerin Society, and Australian political figures, arguing that these networks use 'astroturfing' and disinformation to shift public opinion in favor of corporate interests.

The Latin American Network of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative has issued a statement condemning threats against Olivia Bisa, a defender of the Chapra territory and recipient of the 2025 Global Environmental and Climate Justice Award. The network demands effective protection measures for Bisa and her family, a diligent investigation into the threats, and guaranteed safety for those defending the Amazon. The document emphasizes the role of Indigenous Peoples as the 'first line of defense' against fossil fuel expansion and advocates for a post-extractive world.

The document asserts that the 'Just Transition' framework has failed to address patriarchal oppression and systemic injustices linked to the fossil energy system. Based on 2020 webinars with 100 activists from the Friends of the Earth federation and allied organisations, it argues that women—particularly black, indigenous, women of colour, LBTQ, peasant, and working-class women—are central to creating lasting solutions and that a transition cannot occur without a feminist approach to system change.

Friends of the Earth International argues that the COVID-19 pandemic is a result of a neoliberal economic system prioritizing profit over people and the environment. To achieve a 'just recovery,' the organization proposes four principles: abandoning neoliberalism and austerity in favor of ecological limits and wealth redistribution; fostering multilateral cooperation and international solidarity, including the cancellation of Global South debt; strengthening democracy and human rights; and addressing systemic crises—including climate, biodiversity, and food—through a total system change. Key demands include transitioning to 100% renewable energy under state or community control, implementing food sovereignty via agroecology, and ensuring public services like health and energy are guaranteed rights funded by fair fiscal policies.

The document critiques the current global energy system as a tool of corporate and elite power that drives climate change, energy poverty, and human rights abuses. It identifies 'destructive energy sources'—including fossil fuels, nuclear power, industrial agrofuels, and mega dams—as causes of severe environmental and social harm. The author warns of a 'climate trap' where the transition to renewables could be co-opted by corporations to continue land grabbing and privatization. To counter this, the document advocates for a decentralized, democratically controlled energy system that treats energy access as a basic human right and ensures the free, prior, and informed consent of affected communities.

Friends of the Earth International argues that the COVID-19 pandemic shares root causes with climate and biodiversity crises, stemming from a capitalist and neoliberal system. The organization proposes a recovery based on four principles: abandoning neoliberalism and austerity in favor of state-guaranteed rights; enhancing multilateral cooperation and international solidarity, including Global South debt cancellation; strengthening democracy and human rights; and pursuing a transformative system change that shifts from industrial agriculture and fossil fuel dependency toward food sovereignty and community-owned renewable energy.

The document argues that the financialization of nature allows companies to bypass strict environmental regulations through biodiversity offsets and carbon credits. It details the emergence of a 'conservation industry' comprising specialized NGOs, think tanks, and financial institutions that create the standards and accounting methods necessary for this system. The report highlights how extractive industries, aviation, and agribusiness use these mechanisms to access protected areas and 'greenwash' their activities, while noting that actual private investment in conservation remains a small fraction of global financial flows.

The report argues that the financialization of nature—transforming ecological functions into tradable units—serves corporate interests by facilitating greenwashing, easing regulatory compliance, and opening protected areas to extractive industries. It details the emergence of a new conservation industry comprising specialized NGOs, think tanks, and financial instruments like green bonds. The document contends that while these mechanisms are presented as solutions to the biodiversity crisis, they often act as a "mirage" of private investment, primarily benefiting corporations through improved credit ratings and a "social license to operate" while continuing environmental destruction.

The report examines the EIB's operations in the Global South, specifically in Zambia, Chad, Cameroon, Laos, Philippines, Indonesia, Mexico, and Brazil. It contends that the EIB functions as a demand-driven institution that finances high-yield projects for European firms rather than prioritizing social or environmental goals. Key criticisms include a lack of transparency, failure to adhere to EU environmental and social standards, and the promotion of harmful projects such as large dams and extractive industries. The document concludes with recommendations for a fundamental review of the EIB's project selection, accountability, and monitoring processes.

The report argues that ArcelorMittal's operations in Liberia have failed to deliver promised development benefits due to systemic corruption and mismanagement of the County Social Development Fund (CSDF). It highlights how funds intended for affected communities were diverted to political projects in Gbarnga and criticises the company for complicity in this mismanagement. The document also details environmental risks to the Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve and reports poor labour conditions and health services. Finally, it concludes that ArcelorMittal violated OECD guidelines by donating 100 pick-up trucks that were used by legislators rather than for agricultural purposes.

The report argues that the 'financialization of nature'—the process of turning ecological functions into tradeable monetary units—primarily serves corporate interests rather than conservation. It details how companies in extractive industries, aviation, and construction use biodiversity offsets to bypass environmental regulations and greenwash destructive activities. The document also highlights the emergence of a 'new conservation industry' comprising NGOs, think tanks, and financial institutions that promote these market-based approaches. Finally, it contends that private sector investment in conservation is significantly over-hyped, serving as a facade to secure public subsidies and avoid stringent environmental laws.

The document examines the contradiction between the EU's reluctance to support a binding international mechanism for corporate accountability and its promotion of the Investment Court System (ICS) and a proposed Multilateral Investment Court (MIC). It details how the EU has hindered UN Treaty negotiations through procedural complaints and budget challenges while entrenching investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in agreements with countries such as Canada, Mexico, and Chile.