Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that meaningful participation from diverse, affected groups is essential for a just transition to ensure procedural justice, improve policy efficiency, and increase ownership of climate policies. It identifies barriers to engagement, such as time constraints, costs, and low trust, and suggests a people-centered design approach to overcome them. The text highlights the necessity of coordination bodies to manage state and non-state actors across different political levels. Examples include Costa Rica's Just Transition Governance Scheme and South Africa's Presidential Climate Commission, both of which serve as platforms for multi-stakeholder collaboration and policy co-creation.

The document provides a landscape analysis of the global bioeconomy, estimated at US$4-5 trillion with potential growth to US$30 trillion by 2050. It categorizes the bioeconomy into a spectrum—Nature Intensive, Advanced, and High-Tech—and identifies specific financing gaps and risks for each. The report argues that scaling the bioeconomy requires an 'integrated' approach combining national strategies, international cooperation (particularly through the G20), and a mix of sustainable finance instruments such as nature credits, blended finance, and performance-linked sovereign debt.

The report contends that carbon offsets in agriculture fail to reduce absolute emissions due to measurement uncertainties, lack of permanence, and issues with additionality. It highlights how these schemes often benefit agribusinesses while undermining food security, increasing land financialization, and locking in industrial farming models. The authors recommend excluding the land sector from international carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and redirecting finance toward agroecological practices.

The document critiques agricultural carbon offsets, stating they risk harming farmers' autonomy, fail to provide permanent carbon sequestration, and may actually increase overall emissions. It recommends that governments and international bodies exclude land-based offsets from carbon markets and instead fund agroecological transitions.

The report analyzes international public opinion on climate change, finding widespread belief that it is happening and a general desire for increased government action, though levels of worry and perceived personal risk vary significantly by country.

The briefing note advocates for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty to complement the Paris Agreement by addressing fossil fuel production. It proposes a three-pillar approach—non-proliferation, global phase-out, and just transition support—and suggests that a group of 'champion' countries could drive the process. The document outlines a roadmap from building public support and evidence bases to formal negotiations via standalone processes, UN General Assembly resolutions, or other UN bodies, drawing parallels to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Mine Ban Treaty.

The document reports on the third Sustainability School organized by COECOCeiba AT in the community of Juanilama, Costa Rica. It advocates for 'Buen Vivir' (Good Living) as a foundation for sustainability, emphasizing the role of popular education in descolonizing thought and empowering social movements. The text contrasts the community-led agroecological practices and forest management in Juanilama with the destructive impacts of industrial agribusiness, such as pineapple and sugarcane monocultures. It further calls for climate justice, the rejection of carbon offsets and free trade agreements, and the promotion of food sovereignty through peasant mobilization and the recovery of ancestral knowledge.

The briefing examines how bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements facilitate the expansion of monoculture tree plantations. It highlights how the broad definitions of 'services' and 'investment'—often referencing the WTO's GATS—limit the ability of national governments to implement environmental policies and can lead to corporate claims of expropriation when states prevent deforestation for plantation purposes.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) opposes REDD, arguing that carbon markets and financial incentives fail to address the root causes of climate change and instead lead to 'green grabbing' and the erosion of traditional forest management. The document contends that REDD shifts responsibility away from industrialized nations and threatens the land rights and cultural values of forest-dependent populations. FoEI proposes an alternative based on the legal recognition of Indigenous and community land rights, collective forest management, and a structural transition away from fossil fuels based on climate justice.

The report advocates for climate justice, asserting that wealthy nations bear a historical responsibility for emissions and must provide financial and technological support to developing regions. It critiques market-based mechanisms like carbon credits and biofuels, labeling them as 'false solutions' that protect corporate profits while harming local communities and ecosystems. The text provides specific examples of climate impacts in Nigeria, Kiribati, and the Himalayas, and proposes a transition for Europe toward a low-carbon society based on drastic emission reductions and lifestyle changes.

The document argues that community-based forest governance (CFG) is essential for halting unprecedented forest destruction, which it attributes to consumerism, unfair distribution of goods, and colonial legacies. It defines CFG as the collective regulations and practices used by communities for the conservation and sustainable use of forests, contrasting this with 'forest science' models that often facilitate devastation. The report identifies key characteristics of successful CFG, including clear boundary definition, traditional resource knowledge, and participatory regulation. It highlights the critical role of women, who often possess distinct knowledge of non-timber forest products and water protection, and emphasizes that their inclusion is vital for holistic governance. Through various case studies, the document illustrates the struggle for land tenure and the impact of industrial pressures, such as palm oil in Indonesia and pulp production in Brazil. It further critiques the role of International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and environmental services markets, arguing that the commodification of nature often privatizes heritage and marginalizes the poor. Finally, it links forest conservation to food sovereignty, public health, and disaster resilience, proposing a shift toward local production and fair timber markets.

The report argues that community forest management (GCB) is a vital tool for environmental conservation and social justice, contrasting it with industrial logging and monoculture plantations. It provides a framework for successful GCB, including the need for clear boundaries, participatory regulation, and legal recognition. The document details case studies from India, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, Indonesia, France, Greece, Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, El Salvador, and Haiti, illustrating both successful community-led conservation and the violent resistance against corporate land grabs. It further critiques the role of International Financial Institutions (IFIs), the impact of global consumerism on forest destruction, and the risks associated with 'environmental services' markets, while advocating for food sovereignty and the restoration of native forests.

The report 'Regulated Destruction' by Friends of the Earth International critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism that enables corporate pollution and habitat destruction. It argues that by framing nature as 'natural capital' or 'ecosystem services', these instruments allow companies to circumvent environmental protections through promises of restoration or protection elsewhere. The document examines national implementations in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, and highlights the role of the World Bank's IFC Performance Standard 6 in driving these practices. It further contends that offsetting leads to 'double land grabs' and is used by the aviation and agro-industry to maintain a social license to operate despite ongoing deforestation and emissions.

The document critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism of 'regulated destruction' that allows companies to destroy nature in one location by promising to protect or restore it elsewhere. It argues that this approach redefines nature as 'natural capital' or 'ecosystem services,' reducing complex ecological systems to tradable units. The report examines national implementations in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, highlighting how these schemes often lead to 'double land grabbing,' the displacement of local communities, and the failure to provide long-term protection. It specifically criticizes the World Bank's IFC Performance Standard 6 for enabling the financing of destruction in 'critical habitats.' Furthermore, it analyzes how the aviation and agribusiness sectors use carbon offsets and REDD+ to greenwash their operations while continuing destructive activities.

The report critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism of 'regulated destruction' that replaces strict environmental limits with flexible, market-based compensation. It contends that these systems—including biodiversity banks and carbon credits—often lead to a net increase in environmental damage, facilitate land grabbing from indigenous and local communities, and provide a veneer of sustainability for destructive industries such as mining, agribusiness, and aviation. Through case studies in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, the document demonstrates how the promise of future restoration is used to justify immediate, irreversible ecological loss.

The report argues that community forest management, based on traditional knowledge and collective rights, is essential for biodiversity conservation and social justice. It contrasts this with industrial logging and monoculture plantations, which it links to neoliberal globalization, international financial institution funding, and the marginalization of indigenous peoples. Through case studies from Asia, Africa, and the Americas, it demonstrates how local control of resources can ensure food sovereignty, climate resilience, and poverty alleviation.

The report form classifies the Global Subnational Climate Fund (SnCF Global), managed by Pegasus Capital Advisors (PCA), as a Category I-2 programme. It confirms that an Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) has been established and disclosed in multiple languages to accommodate target countries across Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Mediterranean.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) promotes climate-resilient infrastructure to prevent cascading failures caused by extreme weather and to reduce emissions from cement and steel production. GCF employs six core principles, including the use of nature-based solutions and systemic risk assessments, to unlock public and private capital. Current initiatives include developing valuation methodologies for nature-based solutions in Jamaica, strengthening infrastructure pipelines in Ghana, hurricane-proofing buildings in Antigua and Barbuda, and financing an electric Light Rail Transit system in Costa Rica.

GEEREF NeXt adopts the EIB Group’s Gender Strategy to address the gendered nature of energy poverty in developing countries. The fund focuses on the upstream renewable energy value chain, aiming to avoid aggravating existing inequalities while promoting female entrepreneurship and representation in the energy workforce. It identifies specific risks associated with on-grid projects, such as discriminatory land-use norms and limited female employment, and plans to require Investee Funds to conduct project-specific gender assessments supported by the GEEREF NeXt Technical Assistance Facility.

The document argues that a successful green economy transition requires a fundamental overhaul of the global financial architecture to move away from short-termism and 'brown' investments. It advocates for the mainstreaming of natural capital accounting to better value ecosystem services and the adoption of inclusive policy processes that protect marginalised groups and workers. Additionally, it emphasises the critical role of SMEs and informal businesses in driving local innovation, noting that approximately 70% of MSMEs in emerging markets lack access to credit, creating a 'missing middle' financing gap.