Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that TNCs like Chevron, Total, and Shell maintain a 'system of impunity' by leveraging powerful lobbying organizations, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), to shape international law. It documents severe human rights and environmental abuses linked to these companies in Ecuador, Mozambique, Uganda, Nigeria, and Palestine. The document specifically critiques the current UN negotiation process for the Binding Treaty, claiming that the inclusion of corporate lobbyists as 'stakeholders' creates a conflict of interest that dilutes accountability mechanisms and prioritizes corporate profit over human rights and planetary health.

The report argues that multinational corporations use lobbying networks like the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) to undermine the creation of a legally binding UN treaty on business and human rights. It documents environmental and human rights abuses by Chevron in Ecuador, Total in Uganda and Mozambique, and Shell in Nigeria, illustrating a systemic 'architecture of impunity'. The authors call for the exclusion of corporate lobbyists from UN negotiations to ensure the treaty prioritizes human rights over corporate profit.

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 reports that global forests remain in crisis, with 8.07 million hectares of deforestation in 2024, leaving the world 63% off track for 2030 goals. While some natural recovery and national reforms in countries like Brazil and Indonesia show promise, the report finds that corporate commitments are largely unimplemented and public finance for forests is dwarfed by environmentally harmful agricultural subsidies. It calls for a shift from voluntary pledges to mandatory regulations and inclusive governance that secures land rights for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

The 2025 Forest Declaration Assessment reports that global forests remain in crisis, with 8.1 million hectares lost in 2024 and degradation increasing. Despite some success in natural regeneration and specific national policy reforms in Brazil, Colombia, and Indonesia, the report finds that corporate commitments are largely insufficient and financial flows remain misaligned with conservation goals. It calls for a shift from voluntary corporate pledges to mandatory regulations and inclusive governance that secures land tenure for indigenous peoples and local communities.

The 2025 Forest Declaration Assessment reports that global forests remain in crisis, with 8.07 million hectares lost in 2024 and a 63% gap relative to the 2030 zero-deforestation goal. While some national reforms in Brazil, Colombia, and Indonesia show promise, corporate action remains largely insufficient, and public finance for forests is dwarfed by harmful agricultural subsidies. The report emphasizes that current voluntary corporate commitments are inadequate and calls for mandatory regulations, inclusive governance for indigenous peoples, and a fundamental shift in the global financial system to prioritize forest stability over extractive production.

The 2025 Forest Declaration Assessment reports that global forests remain in crisis, with deforestation and degradation continuing at high rates. Despite some progress in natural regeneration and specific national reforms in Brazil, Colombia, and Indonesia, the report finds that corporate commitments are largely insufficient and public and private financing remains drastically misaligned with forest protection goals. It calls for systemic changes, including mandatory regulations and inclusive governance, to reverse these trends by 2030.

The 2025 Forest Declaration Assessment finds that global forests remain in crisis, with 8.1 million hectares lost in 2024 and the world 63% off track for zero deforestation by 2030. Deforestation is primarily driven by permanent agriculture (86%), while forest degradation is escalating rapidly, particularly in the Amazon Basin. Private sector action remains largely insufficient, with only 3% of Forest 500 companies meeting expectations for strong commitments. Public finance for forests (USD 5.7 billion) is dwarfed by environmentally harmful agricultural subsidies (USD 409 billion). Governance is hindered by power imbalances and insecure land rights, though protected areas now cover 17.5% of global land. The report calls for mandatory regulations, integrated landscape approaches, and inclusive decision-making involving Indigenous Peoples and local communities to meet 2030 goals.

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 report details a workshop series organized by the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI), the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering (DSG), and The Degrees Initiative. The program focused on solar radiation modification (SRM) as a case study for emerging climate intervention techniques. Through expert presentations and a multilateral negotiation simulation in Bogotá, Colombia, the initiative aimed to bridge the gap between science and policy for officials from Latin America and the Caribbean. Key outcomes include a consensus on the need for regional research to ensure equitable participation in global forums, concerns over 'moral hazard' regarding climate mitigation, and the importance of including Indigenous Peoples and local communities in research governance.

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 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 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.

The G20 has transitioned from a narrow focus on financial stability (2005–2008) to an integrated governance model where energy security, climate action, and sustainable development are central. Key milestones include the 2009 Pittsburgh Summit's first mention of clean energy, the 2015 first Energy Ministers' Meeting, and the recent sequence of Global South presidencies (Indonesia, India, Brazil, South Africa) that have shifted the narrative toward equity, just transitions, and the reform of the international financial architecture. South Africa's 2025 Presidency specifically champions African interconnectivity, critical minerals sovereignty, and debt sustainability to enable a just energy transition.

The report analyzes the global trend toward 'green industrial policies'—characterized by state intervention through subsidies, procurement, and local content requirements—and warns that these measures often prioritize domestic benefits over global equity. While EMDEs can benefit from lower technology costs and new trade opportunities in critical minerals, they face risks of 'extractive lock-in' and market distortions. The authors propose pathways for a more inclusive transition, including preferential technology licensing, scaled-up climate finance, and the recycling of carbon border adjustment revenues to support industrial upgrading in developing nations.

The policy brief addresses the lack of a shared vision for implementing Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement, which calls for making financial flows consistent with climate goals. It argues that current efforts are fragmented and risks of greenwashing are high. The authors propose a Theory of Change (ToC) to link high-level goals to specific activities across regulators, financial entities, the real economy, and civil society. The document emphasizes that while Article 9 focuses on the provision of public climate finance from developed to developing nations, Article 2.1(c) requires systemic reforms—such as climate-related financial disclosures, taxonomies, and fiscal policy changes—to redirect the broader global financial system. It concludes with recommendations for the COP30 (CMA7) to adopt a structured work program based on this ToC to avoid circular discussions and ensure a just transition.

The document assesses the UN climate regime's transition to the 'implementation era' following the completion of the Paris Agreement rulebook. It identifies systemic inefficiencies, including a predominance of procedural decisions (87%) over substantive ones, overlapping mandates among 17 constituted bodies, and significant funding gaps for adaptation. The authors argue that the regime is hindered by a de facto veto system based on consensus and the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists. Key recommendations include adopting formal voting rules, closing the Kyoto Protocol's remaining structures to save an estimated €62 million over five years, and operationalizing new governance platforms like a UN Climate Council. The brief also emphasizes the need to address structural drivers of the crisis, such as overconsumption and corporate impunity, while leveraging the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion to strengthen legal accountability for both states and non-state actors.