Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that large corporations and their lobbying groups have systematically co-opted the CBD and the GBF process. It details strategies such as 'revolving doors', privileged access to the CBD Secretariat, and the promotion of ambiguous terms like 'nature positive' and 'nature-based solutions' to replace binding regulations with voluntary reporting and self-certification. The document highlights the role of groups like Business for Nature and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in steering the GBF away from addressing structural drivers of biodiversity loss.

The report argues that large corporations, despite being primary drivers of biodiversity loss, have infiltrated UN processes and the CBD to promote 'green' coalitions and non-binding solutions. It details lobbying tactics such as the use of 'revolving doors', the co-optation of NGOs, and the infiltration of national delegations. The document highlights the contradiction of organizations like the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) representing companies with severe environmental records. It concludes that corporate capture of the CBD prevents the 'transformative change' needed to halt biodiversity loss and recommends strict limits on corporate influence, including banning corporate representatives from national delegations and ending UN partnerships with business associations.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) that prioritizes absolute biodiversity loss reversal, the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and strict government regulation of corporations. The organization rejects 'false solutions' such as biodiversity offsets, nature-based solutions used for carbon capture, and corporate self-regulation, while advocating for a transition to agroecology and the provision of new, additional public financial resources for developing countries.

The report investigates the management of urban flooding in selected cities in Ghana, specifically focusing on the Greater Accra and Greater Kumasi areas. It examines the extent to which Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs) prioritize green infrastructure and engage residents in flood-prone communities to enhance city resilience. While local authorities generally recognize the importance of green spaces for flood control, the study finds that many residents do not prioritize green spaces on their own properties due to concerns about waste dumping, crime, and economic pressure to build shops. However, there is a strong overall willingness among residents to participate in decision-making processes if they trust the governance system and see their input implemented.

The guide outlines five principles for corporate climate leadership: reducing emissions in own business, cutting land-based emissions in value chains, investing in nature-based solutions beyond value chains, ensuring responsible policy engagement, and reporting transparently. It emphasizes that investments in nature-based solutions, such as high-quality carbon credits, must complement rather than replace deep decarbonization efforts. The document argues that scaling these investments is essential to meet Paris Agreement goals, noting that nature-based solutions currently receive only 3% of climate finance despite representing about 30% of the climate solution.

Earthjustice evaluates COP27 as having 'lackluster outcomes' regarding fossil fuel phase-outs but notes a 'breakthrough agreement' to create a loss and damage fund. The author emphasizes the significance of the Climate Justice Pavilion in fostering connections between youth activists and foundational environmental justice leaders, and notes the positive momentum from U.S. climate legislation and Brazil's recommitment to the Amazon.

The report evaluates a 2,868-hectare assisted natural regeneration (ANR) project in Sodo Woreda, Ethiopia, finding that it provides direct economic benefits to farmers and delivers climate adaptation and mitigation services. The analysis demonstrates that ANR is an investment-worthy strategy for combating land degradation and enhancing rural resilience, particularly when located upland of cropland to reduce erosion.

The briefing highlights the economic and environmental value of urban nature—such as forests, street trees, and wetlands—as a tool for climate mitigation and adaptation. It asserts that the global value of urban nature's benefits is nine times its costs and provides specific examples from Sacramento, Ahmedabad, and Curitiba to demonstrate how nature-based solutions can reduce building energy demand, lower the carbon footprint of stormwater management, and decrease transportation emissions. The document concludes by calling for an increase in annual investment in urban nature projects from $32 billion to $135 billion by 2030 to realize an estimated $2 trillion in annual net benefits.

Mighty Earth argues that the agribusiness soy roadmap fails to address the climate and nature crisis because it allows companies to set their own deforestation cut-off dates by 2025 rather than enforcing immediate action. The organization claims this approach undermines Brazil's environmental agenda and ignores demands from supermarkets for a 2020 cut-off date, warning that the Amazon is approaching a tipping point after losing over 2 billion trees in four years.

The E4N partnership, a collaboration between the Green Economy Coalition, Capitals Coalition, Green Growth Knowledge Partnership, and WWF France, worked to make 'natural capital-based green economies' a global best practice. The partnership focused on creating tools for measuring nature's value, convening multistakeholder networks, and advocating for the inclusion of nature in economic decision-making. Key achievements include the development of the Green Economy Tracker, the establishment of Business for Nature, and the integration of natural capital into the EU Green Deal and African development finance. While the report notes a shift toward 'nature-positive economies,' it highlights persistent challenges in data quality and capacity, as well as a gap between government rhetoric and actual policy implementation during COVID-19 green recovery efforts.

The document analyzes the momentum behind the 30x30 goal to protect 30% of the world's land and marine areas by 2030, noting the roles of the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People and the Global Ocean Alliance. It highlights the influence of the UN Ocean Conference and the upcoming CBD COP15 on COP27, suggesting that while the 30x30 framework will be settled after COP27, the summit may see new country commitments and policies regarding forests and marine resources.

The document defines Nature-based Solutions (NbS) as actions to protect, manage, and restore ecosystems to address societal challenges while providing biodiversity and human well-being benefits. It identifies a lack of specific NbS frameworks in South Asia but notes that existing national laws and policies in India, Bangladesh, and Nepal provide a foundation for their mainstreaming. The report categorizes NbS into five IUCN-based approaches: ecosystem restoration, issue-specific ecosystem-related, infrastructure-related, ecosystem-based management, and ecosystem-protection. It details 15 urban case studies, including the Yamuna Biodiversity Park in New Delhi, the restoration of riverine areas in Rohingya camps in Cox's Bazar, and the Green Lumbini Initiative in Nepal, highlighting the role of multidisciplinary partnerships and community engagement in achieving ecological and socio-economic resilience.

The report provides a comprehensive overview of the climate finance landscape in Bangladesh, India, and Nepal, detailing the mechanisms used to fund climate action. It analyzes the roles of multilateral funds (such as the GCF and GEF), bilateral aid, national budgets, and emerging private sector instruments like green bonds and blended finance. The document highlights significant funding gaps, particularly for adaptation, and recommends strengthening institutional frameworks, adopting climate budget tagging, and improving technical capacity to develop bankable projects.

IDFC members reported a record $224 billion in green finance commitments in 2021, with climate finance accounting for 95% of the total. Mitigation finance reached $186.6 billion, while adaptation finance decreased by 24% to $20.9 billion. Biodiversity finance grew by 31% to $18.4 billion. The majority of climate finance was provided by non-OECD institutions and directed toward the East Asia and Pacific region.

The report examines how climate change acts as a risk multiplier in Mainland Southeast Asia, specifically Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam. It identifies state governance capacity and social and economic inequality as the primary drivers of regional insecurity. Through four scenarios—ranging from 'Paralyzed States, Vulnerable Populations' to 'Building Resilience, Strengthening Communities'—the analysis explores how these drivers influence outcomes like food insecurity, forced migration, and the proliferation of criminal networks. The document recommends that external stakeholders support policies to reduce inequality, engage regional security services for cooperation, and utilize ASEAN as a platform for climate risk mitigation to navigate the geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China.

The document argues that 'net zero' targets are a 'smoke screen' allowing corporations to maintain fossil fuel and industrial agriculture business models. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' (NbS) and carbon offsets as mechanisms that lead to land grabbing, the displacement of Indigenous and peasant communities, and the co-optation of agroecology. The report highlights the technical failures of carbon offsets, the volatility of biological carbon storage compared to fossil carbon, and the risks of 'digital soil carbon' platforms that allow agribusinesses to control farmer data and land use.

The document argues that 'net zero' strategies serve as a 'smoke screen' for large corporations to continue fossil fuel extraction and industrial agriculture. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, data appropriation, and the co-optation of agroecology, ultimately benefiting agribusiness and tech firms while undermining the rights of small-scale producers and Indigenous peoples.

The document argues that 'net zero' targets are deceptive tools used by fossil fuel and agribusiness giants to avoid radical emission cuts. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' (NBS) and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, marginalize small-scale farmers, and prioritize corporate profit over genuine agroecology and food sovereignty.

The document argues that 'net zero' promises act as a 'smoke screen' for multinational corporations to maintain fossil fuel and industrial agriculture growth. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, data extraction from small farmers, and the marginalization of agroecology. The report contends that these market-based approaches prioritize carbon metrics over food sovereignty and ecological justice, calling instead for a transition to agroecological systems and the abandonment of industrial food models.

The document critiques the reliance on 'net zero' frameworks, carbon offsets, and technological fixes, asserting that these mechanisms allow polluters to continue emissions while risking land grabbing and violating indigenous rights. It specifically analyzes the implications of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and the promotion of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) and geoengineering, calling instead for a systemic shift toward energy sovereignty and the phased elimination of fossil fuels.