Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines the current state of compensation under investment treaties, highlighting a trend toward increasingly large awards driven by the use of forward-looking valuation methods like Discounted Cash Flow (DCF). It identifies systemic issues, including discrepancies between invested amounts and awarded compensation, the complexity of valuation processes, and the disregard for contextual factors such as public interest or a state's ability to pay. The document reviews emerging treaty practices from Africa, India, and the EU and proposes four reform options: balancing rules, capping compensation at the amount invested, integrating gain-based considerations, or applying the host state's domestic law.

The document examines the current state of compensation in investment treaty disputes, highlighting a trend toward massive awards driven by the 'discounted cash flow' (DCF) method. It argues that current practices often diverge from international law and national legal standards, creating significant financial burdens for host states. The guide analyzes three main valuation categories—market-based, income-based, and asset-based—and evaluates emerging treaty practices from Africa, India, and the Netherlands. It concludes by proposing four reform options: balancing rules, limiting compensation to actual investment amounts, integrating host-state benefit analysis, and applying national laws.

G20 governments provided an annual average of $584 billion in support for fossil fuels from 2017 to 2019, with oil and gas production receiving the largest share. While overall support dropped by 9% compared to 2014–2016, this decline was inconsistent across countries and partly driven by lower oil prices. The report finds that state-owned enterprise (SOE) investment is the only support mechanism that increased overall, and that COVID-19 recovery packages have introduced at least $170 billion in new commitments to fossil fuel-intensive sectors, threatening to undo previous progress.

The document analyzes the fragmented, polycentric nature of global sustainable energy governance. It highlights the central role of SDG 7 in integrating energy access, renewable energy, and energy efficiency, while detailing the contributions of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and the Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL) initiative. Despite progress in multi-stakeholder cooperation, the text notes a significant funding gap and the lack of a single, legally binding international treaty to coordinate the energy transition holistically.

Reclaim Finance argues that the Trucost list used by the Fédération bancaire française (FBF) fails to capture the full coal value chain and omits major global coal actors, including large Chinese and Russian firms. The analysis highlights significant discrepancies in revenue estimations for companies like Glencore and Adani Enterprises compared to the Global Coal Exit List (GCEL), suggesting that Trucost's methodology may lead financial institutions to underestimate their exposure to coal and carbon-intensive activities.

Reclaim Finance compares the Trucost list used by the French Banking Federation with the Global Coal Exit List (GCEL), arguing that Trucost significantly underrepresents coal exposure. The analysis finds that Trucost misses critical coal infrastructure projects, major global coal companies, and hundreds of firms planning new coal capacity. Furthermore, the report highlights discrepancies in revenue estimations for companies like Glencore, Adani Enterprises, and Sasol, suggesting that Trucost's methodology may allow financial institutions to continue supporting high-emission entities despite their exclusion policies.

The document highlights a significant misalignment between government energy production plans and Paris Agreement goals, noting that governments planned to extract 60% more oil, 70% more gas, and 280% more coal by 2030 than is consistent with a 1.5°C pathway. It suggests that NDCs and LT-LEDS can be used to communicate pathways, targets, and policy measures to manage the transition away from fossil fuels while ensuring a just transition for affected workers and communities.

The report examines Indigenous community broadcasting in 19 countries across Africa, Asia, North America, Central America, South America, and Oceania. It finds that while community radio is generally recognized, specific legal status for Indigenous-led stations is rare, with only four of fifteen countries that recognize community radio also recognizing Indigenous community radio. The study identifies 609 Indigenous community radio stations globally, with Canada and Australia accounting for 42% of the total. Key findings highlight the role of these stations in language revitalization, land defense, and the transfer of traditional knowledge, while also noting significant threats including government repression, criminalization of unlicensed broadcasters, and financial instability.

The document outlines a readiness project implemented by the Agence Française de Développement (AFD) to support 13 accredited and applicant Direct Access Entities (DAEs) within the International Development Finance Club (IDFC). The project aims to remove barriers to GCF accreditation and funding by providing technical assistance for fiduciary, environmental, social, and gender policies, and by developing climate finance tools for risk and impact assessment. Key deliverables include an IDFC-GCF Toolkit, a joint DAE-IDFC Work Program, and the development of multi-country concept notes focusing on climate-resilient recovery post-COVID-19, specifically targeting MSMEs and vulnerable populations in sectors like renewable energy and sustainable land use.

The document argues that while a 'grand theory' of migration does not exist, researchers can use 'theoretical triangulation' to formulate testable propositions. It presents ten such propositions covering the roles of pre-existing connections, social networks, involuntary immobility, resource constraints, environmental stress, violent conflict, economic development, development aid, and the effectiveness and unintended consequences of migration policies.

The Changing Markets Foundation accuses Coca-Cola of having a 'worrying track-record of broken promises' regarding plastic and of undermining deposit return legislation in Kenya, China, and Georgia (USA). The letter demands that Coca-Cola publicly support deposit return systems globally, increase transparency regarding its 2.9 million tonnes of annual plastic use, and adopt ambitious reuse targets.

The Changing Markets Foundation's investigation into the ten most plastic-polluting companies reveals a global trend of corporations undermining legislative solutions to the plastic crisis. Specifically, the foundation criticizes Colgate-Palmolive for a lack of leadership, inconsistent reporting on recycled content, and an unambitious focus on light-weighting rather than absolute virgin plastic reduction. The letter demands that the company publicly support progressive legislation, such as global deposit return systems, and provide transparent, independently verified data on its full plastic footprint.

The Changing Markets Foundation's letter to Danone highlights a global trend of corporations undermining plastic legislation and critiques Danone's lack of transparency regarding reuse systems and sustainability criteria for bio-plastics, while acknowledging its support for mandatory collection systems.

The Changing Markets Foundation writes to Mars Incorporated, identifying it as one of the worst plastic polluters and criticizing its failure to meet packaging targets and its reliance on 'climate-unfriendly' chemical recycling. The letter demands that Mars publicly support global deposit return systems, increase transparency regarding its plastic footprint, and commit to meaningful reductions in single-use plastics.

The Changing Markets Foundation identifies Mondelēz International as one of the worst plastic polluters and criticizes its reliance on chemical recycling and low recycled content targets. The letter demands greater transparency regarding the company's plastic footprint and calls for public support of global deposit return systems and a reduction in single-use plastics.

The Changing Markets Foundation writes to Nestlé's CEO, Ulf Mark Schneider, regarding the company's role as a major plastic polluter and its failure to meet recycling and recycled content targets. The letter argues that Nestlé's voluntary commitments often lack specificity and accountability, and urges the company to support mandatory legislative solutions, such as global Deposit Return Systems (DRS), and to be transparent about its full plastic footprint.

The Changing Markets Foundation criticizes PepsiCo for its lack of support for mandatory plastic legislation, its failure to meet recycled content targets, and its reliance on 'climate-unfriendly' chemical recycling. The letter demands that PepsiCo publicly support deposit return systems, increase transparency regarding its plastic footprint, and commit to meaningful reductions in single-use plastics.

The Changing Markets Foundation's investigation into ten of the world's most plastic-polluting companies revealed a global trend of corporations undermining legislative solutions to the plastic crisis. The foundation specifically identifies Perfetti van Melle as one of the least ambitious and transparent companies, noting its failure to disclose its annual plastic footprint or support legislative measures. The letter urges Perfetti van Melle to adopt specific recommendations, including supporting global deposit return systems, disclosing its full plastic footprint, and committing to measurable reductions in single-use plastics.

The Changing Markets Foundation criticizes Procter & Gamble (P&G) for its inadequate response to the plastic pollution crisis, citing low recycled content targets and the use of 'greenwash' projects like marine-derived plastic. The letter demands that P&G support mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility and deposit return systems, increase transparency regarding its plastic footprint, and set measurable targets for the reduction of single-use plastics.

The Changing Markets Foundation writes to Unilever regarding its 'Talking Trash' report, which found a global trend of corporations undermining legislative solutions to plastic pollution. While acknowledging Unilever's progress in disclosing its plastic footprint and trialling refill pilots, the foundation criticises the company's low recycled content (1% of total purchased resin in 2018) and its reliance on chemical recycling. The letter demands that Unilever publicly support mandatory deposit return systems globally, increase transparency on its full plastic footprint, and commit to measurable reductions in single-use plastics.