Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines strategies for Indonesia to reform its regressive LPG subsidies, which currently allow high-income households to capture a disproportionate share of benefits. It identifies four international pricing mechanisms—deregulated, automatic adjustment, pre-determined increases, and stabilization mechanisms—and argues that the ideal goal is market pricing achieved through gradual transitions. The report emphasizes that reforms must be paired with targeted social protections to ensure low-income households maintain access to clean cooking fuels. It details various international targeting models, including El Salvador's mobile-phone based vendor payments, India's Direct Benefits Transfer (DBTL) and voluntary 'Give it Up!' campaign, Peru's FISE voucher system, and Thailand's electricity-consumption based eligibility. Finally, it highlights the critical role of communication and the demonstrable effectiveness of alternative subsidy delivery systems in securing public approval for reform.

The report analyzes global LPG pricing mechanisms and subsidy reform strategies, highlighting the need for targeted assistance to protect vulnerable populations. It details specific case studies from El Salvador, India, Mexico, Peru, and Thailand, emphasizing that successful reform requires a combination of gradual price adjustments, effective targeting technologies, and comprehensive communication strategies to maintain public support.

The report analyzes the regressive nature of universal LPG subsidies in Indonesia and examines reform strategies from El Salvador, India, Mexico, Peru, and Thailand. It argues that successful reform requires depoliticizing pricing mechanisms, implementing targeted social mitigation measures to protect vulnerable groups, and utilizing strategic communication to build public support. Key findings highlight the effectiveness of direct benefit transfers, voucher systems, and gradual price increases, while warning against overly complex registration processes and differential pricing structures.

The fact sheet advocates for a binding international treaty to regulate transnational corporations (TNCs), highlighting the inadequacy of voluntary corporate policies. It presents evidence of corporate-linked harms, including deforestation and forest fires in Indonesia caused by palm oil and paper companies, hazardous shipbreaking practices in Bangladesh, water rights violations by Mekorot in Palestine, and a chemical disaster in South Korea involving Reckitt Benckiser's humidifier sterilisers. The document emphasizes that TNCs often operate across jurisdictions to escape accountability, necessitating a legal framework supported by the UN Human Rights Council and various global governments.

This document is an official contribution from Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) to the second session of the UN open-ended intergovernmental working group (IGWG) in October 2016. It advocates for a legally binding international treaty to hold transnational corporations (TNCs) and their executives accountable for human rights violations and environmental crimes, proposing the creation of a World Court on TNCs and Human Rights and a Public Centre for control. FoEI argues that the treaty must prioritize human rights over trade and investment agreements, specifically calling for the restriction of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms that undermine public health and environmental protections.

Friends of the Earth International's 2016 submission to the UN Intergovernmental Working Group advocates for a legally binding treaty to hold transnational corporations and their financiers civilly and criminally liable for human rights and environmental violations. The document proposes the creation of an international court, the primacy of human rights over investment treaties (including ISDS), and the establishment of a public monitoring center to prevent corporate capture of the regulatory process.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) argues for a legally binding UN Treaty that establishes civil and criminal liability for transnational corporations (TNCs) and their executives. The submission emphasizes the need for a World Court on TNCs and Human Rights to overcome national judicial weaknesses and the 'pattern of impunity' enjoyed by corporations. FoEI specifically calls for the primacy of human rights over investment treaties, the elimination of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms that undermine public health and environmental policies, and the protection of the treaty negotiation process from corporate lobbying. The document supports these claims with case studies of corporate abuses in Nigeria, Brazil, Indonesia, and other regions.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) advocates for a legally binding UN treaty to end the systemic impunity of transnational corporations (TNCs). The submission argues that the treaty must establish civil and criminal liability for TNCs, their executives, and financiers across global supply chains. FoEI proposes the creation of an independent international court to judge environmental crimes and human rights abuses, emphasizing the need for a hierarchy where human rights obligations prevail over trade and investment agreements, specifically targeting the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism. The document highlights cases of corporate abuse in Nigeria, Brazil, Mozambique, and elsewhere to illustrate the failure of current voluntary standards and national judicial systems.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) advocates for a binding UN Treaty to end corporate impunity. The proposal emphasizes the need for direct legal obligations for transnational corporations (TNCs) and their executives, the creation of a World Court on TNCs and Human Rights, and the primacy of human rights over investment treaties. FoEI highlights systemic failures in national courts and the harmful impact of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, calling for a process free from corporate lobbying that prioritizes the rights of affected communities and environmental defenders.

The document provides a structured review of literature concerning the gendered aspects of DDR. It highlights a systemic tendency to view women primarily as victims or 'camp followers' rather than active combatants, which leads to their exclusion from DDR benefits. It also examines how hegemonic masculinity drives violence and how the lack of gender-sensitive planning in post-conflict settings—such as in Aceh or Sierra Leone—marginalizes female ex-fighters. Conversely, it notes more inclusive patterns in Latin American peace processes, such as those in Colombia and El Salvador.

The document is a declaration calling for the end of fossil fuel exploration and extraction to address the climate crisis and mass extinction. It demands a just transition to a democratized, 100% renewable energy system, the removal of fossil fuel industry influence from policymaking, and the recognition of the rights of Indigenous and frontline communities.

The document critiques industrial agriculture as a primary driver of climate change and social inequality, while presenting agroecology as a viable, small-scale alternative. It specifically attacks 'Climate Smart Agriculture' (CSA) as a corporate-led 'false solution' designed to greenwash industrial practices. The text advocates for a transition toward food sovereignty and the relocalisation of food systems, highlighting the role of women and traditional knowledge in building climate resilience.

The document contrasts industrial agribusiness with agroecology, asserting that the former is a primary driver of climate change and social inequality. It dismisses 'climate-smart agriculture' as a marketing tool for corporations to maintain power structures without addressing the root causes of the climate crisis. Instead, it advocates for a transition to agroecology, which supports small-scale producers, protects biodiversity, and enhances climate resilience. The text highlights the role of women and traditional knowledge in this transition and calls for public policies that shift resources away from industrial meat and crop production toward food sovereignty.

The briefing advocates for Community Forest Management (CFM) as a superior model for protecting biodiversity and mitigating climate change compared to industrial forestry and absolute protection regimes. It highlights that CFM can reduce deforestation rates and enhance carbon storage while securing the rights and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The document warns against 'false solutions' like REDD+ and the 'financialization of nature,' which it claims risk land grabbing and the erosion of traditional governance. It recommends that governments recognize collective land tenure and that international frameworks, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, prioritize CFM over traditional Protected Areas to meet conservation goals.

The document advocates for community forest management (CFM) as a superior alternative to industrial logging and strict protection regimes. It asserts that CFM effectively reduces deforestation, protects biodiversity, and supports climate mitigation and adaptation by empowering indigenous peoples and local communities. The text identifies key success factors such as land tenure security and warns against 'false solutions' like REDD+ and the financialization of nature, which it claims risk land grabbing and the erosion of community control.

The briefing advocates for Community Forest Management (CFM) as a superior model for forest conservation and climate action compared to industrial logging and state-led protected areas. It highlights CFM's role in carbon storage and biodiversity protection, while warning against market-based mechanisms like REDD+ that may lead to land grabbing. The document recommends that governments recognize communal land tenure and prioritize CFM to meet international biodiversity targets.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) reports progress on its Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme, which aims to assist developing countries in accessing Fund resources. Between 28 April and 18 June 2015, the total number of nominated national designated authorities (NDAs) or focal points rose to 127, and the total number of readiness requests reached 74. The Secretariat finalized grant agreements totaling US$ 1.9 million for seven countries: Comoros, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Rwanda, Thailand, and Togo. The programme operates across five activity areas, including NDA strengthening, strategic framework development, accreditation support, project pipeline creation, and information sharing. Capacity-building efforts include regional workshops in El Salvador and South Korea, with future events planned for Fiji and Egypt, as well as headquarters visits for delegations from Mongolia and Fiji. The GCF is also coordinating with partners such as UNDP, UNEP, and the African Development Bank to ensure complementarity in readiness support.

The document examines how La Mesa, a Salvadoran coalition, used amicus curiae submissions in the Pac Rim arbitration to bring community concerns regarding metals mining and sustainable development to an international tribunal. It highlights the importance of alliance building between local groups and international legal experts to navigate technical arbitration processes and argues that such interventions provide essential public interest context that disputing parties may omit.

The report examines how the Mesa Nacional Frente a la Minería Metálica de El Salvador (MNFM), supported by CIEL and FESPAD, used amicus curiae submissions in the Pac Rim investor-state arbitration to highlight environmental and human rights concerns. It details the legal requirements for such interventions, the strategic importance of technical legal expertise combined with community grounding, and the outcomes of the jurisdictional phase of the arbitration. The document concludes with lessons for other civil society organizations on navigating the technical nature of international investment law to protect public interest and democratic decision-making.

The report examines Energy Savings Insurance (ESI), an instrument developed by the Inter-American Development Bank and BASE to unlock energy efficiency investments for SMEs by insuring against the risk that projected energy savings are not met. ESI can absorb up to 80% of underperformance risk and is being piloted or replicated across several countries, including Mexico, Colombia, and El Salvador. If scaled globally, the instrument is estimated to drive USD 10-100 billion in investment and reduce annual emissions by 27-234 MtCO2 by 2030.