Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that the IFC's proposed Approach to Responsible Exit fails to establish remedial responsibilities for the IFC or the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), effectively allowing the institutions to exit projects without addressing harms caused by their investments. The authors contend that remedy should be a prerequisite for exit, as divestment removes the financial leverage necessary to drive corrective action. They propose four core principles: ensuring exits do not undermine ongoing Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) processes, conducting pre-divestment due diligence verified by communities, implementing meaningful consultation at least 12 months prior to divestment, and establishing protocols to prevent and manage reprisals against affected populations. The submission includes a table of projects in China, Egypt, Chile, Colombia, Nicaragua, and elsewhere where the IFC allegedly exited without providing remedy for documented harms such as forced labor, environmental damage, and human rights violations.

ClientEarth is an environmental charity that employs legal expertise to enforce environmental laws and shape new policies. Its five-year strategy focuses on accelerating the transition to a net zero carbon economy by pressuring governments and companies to uphold the Paris Agreement, eliminating coal power in Europe by 2030, and reducing illegal air pollution. The organization also targets the protection of oceans, forests, and wildlife, specifically focusing on sustainable fishing quotas in the EU by 2020 and securing community forest rights in Central and West Africa. Additionally, ClientEarth works to expand access to justice and modernize environmental governance in China.

The document examines five international case studies to guide Ghana in operationalizing its Environmental Protection Act, 2025. It highlights the risks of transacting carbon before establishing legal frameworks, as seen in Liberia, and the benefits of statutory community benefit-sharing floors, as implemented in Kenya. The analysis contrasts state-centered models in Zambia and Indonesia with Australia's property-law approach, where carbon rights are registrable interests in land. The briefing concludes with seven specific recommendations for Ghana, including the definition of carbon rights as transactable interests and the mandate of community development agreements to ensure free, prior and informed consent.

The report by ClientEarth and Global Witness advocates for a comprehensive EU-wide mandatory due diligence framework to replace failing voluntary corporate commitments. It highlights the EU's role in driving global deforestation and human rights abuses, particularly in the agricultural sector. The authors propose a system based on OECD Guidelines that covers all EU-based companies and investors, regardless of size, and includes strict transparency requirements, a robust penalty regime, and access to justice for affected parties outside the EU.

The report documents a series of interregional exchanges between youth activists from Africa and Europe, focusing on the intersection of environmental justice, colonialism, and systemic oppression. It provides practical learning tools for analyzing historical inequalities and dismantling patriarchy, while highlighting the challenges of interregional solidarity, such as visa restrictions for African activists. Personal testimonies emphasize the impact of industrial pollution in South Africa and the marginalization of youth in Liberia, arguing that true climate justice requires freedom of movement and a genuine commitment to listening to the Global South.

The document is a zine detailing a cross-regional exchange between youth activists from Africa and Europe. It focuses on dismantling systemic oppressions like patriarchy and colonialism, challenging visa injustices that hinder Global South participation in climate governance, and promoting intergenerational learning within the environmental justice movement.

The document argues that community forest management (CFM) is a more effective strategy for forest conservation and poverty reduction than industrial logging or strict state protection. It identifies seven key rights—state obligations, self-determination, consultation, territorial rights, livelihoods and economic development, women's rights, and cultural/traditional knowledge—and maps these against international legal frameworks to provide a tool for advocates to pressure governments for the legal recognition of community-led forestry.

The document argues that the financialization of nature allows companies to bypass strict environmental regulations through biodiversity offsets and carbon credits. It details the emergence of a 'conservation industry' comprising specialized NGOs, think tanks, and financial institutions that create the standards and accounting methods necessary for this system. The report highlights how extractive industries, aviation, and agribusiness use these mechanisms to access protected areas and 'greenwash' their activities, while noting that actual private investment in conservation remains a small fraction of global financial flows.

The report argues that the financialization of nature—transforming ecological functions into tradable units—serves corporate interests by facilitating greenwashing, easing regulatory compliance, and opening protected areas to extractive industries. It details the emergence of a new conservation industry comprising specialized NGOs, think tanks, and financial instruments like green bonds. The document contends that while these mechanisms are presented as solutions to the biodiversity crisis, they often act as a "mirage" of private investment, primarily benefiting corporations through improved credit ratings and a "social license to operate" while continuing environmental destruction.

The report argues that while state and private ownership still dominate global forests, community forest management (CFM) is a more effective strategy for forest conservation, poverty reduction, and climate mitigation. It identifies a set of key rights—including territorial, consultation, and cultural rights—that underpin successful CFM and maps these against 17 international agreements, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and UNDRIP. The document concludes that while no single agreement mandates the creation of community forests, the collective weight of these international norms provides a strong legal and moral basis for states to devolve forest authority to local communities.

The report argues that ArcelorMittal's operations in Liberia have failed to deliver promised development benefits due to systemic corruption and mismanagement of the County Social Development Fund (CSDF). It highlights how funds intended for affected communities were diverted to political projects in Gbarnga and criticises the company for complicity in this mismanagement. The document also details environmental risks to the Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve and reports poor labour conditions and health services. Finally, it concludes that ArcelorMittal violated OECD guidelines by donating 100 pick-up trucks that were used by legislators rather than for agricultural purposes.

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 the 'financialization of nature'—the process of turning ecological functions into tradeable monetary units—primarily serves corporate interests rather than conservation. It details how companies in extractive industries, aviation, and construction use biodiversity offsets to bypass environmental regulations and greenwash destructive activities. The document also highlights the emergence of a 'new conservation industry' comprising NGOs, think tanks, and financial institutions that promote these market-based approaches. Finally, it contends that private sector investment in conservation is significantly over-hyped, serving as a facade to secure public subsidies and avoid stringent environmental laws.

The document argues that community forest management (CFM) is a highly effective strategy for forest conservation and poverty reduction, yet it remains under-supported by governments. It identifies seven key rights—state obligations, self-determination, consultation, territorial rights, livelihoods/economic development, women's rights, and cultural/traditional knowledge—and maps these against international legal frameworks to provide advocates with tools to pressure governments for the legal recognition of community-led forestry.

The document provides the technical annexes for the Forest Declaration Assessment, detailing the definitions and methodologies used to measure deforestation, forest degradation, and restoration potential. It establishes a 'gross zero' deforestation benchmark for 2030, requiring a linear 10 percent annual reduction in loss relative to a 2018-2020 baseline. The methodology incorporates satellite data and econometric models to estimate GHG emissions from forest loss and identifies 'cost-effective' restoration potential based on a carbon price threshold of USD 100/tCO2eq. A provided table lists the 30 countries with the highest absolute levels of deforestation in 2021, showing varied trends such as a 3% increase in Brazil and a 25% decrease in Indonesia compared to the baseline.

The GCF approved USD 3.7 billion for 76 projects across 79 developing countries, targeting a reduction of 1.3 billion metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Key operational developments include the launch of the Simplified Approval Process (SAP) Pilot Scheme, the adoption of an Indigenous Peoples Policy, and the establishment of an Environmental and Social Policy. The fund is also preparing for its first formal replenishment process and expanding its private sector engagement through dedicated pilot programmes for MSMEs and resource mobilization at scale.

The document highlights how EU-based financial institutions, including banks and pension funds, invest in projects that cause land grabs and environmental damage, often in violation of their own policies. It argues that voluntary measures are insufficient and that the EU is falling behind countries like Brazil and China in implementing social and environmental risk management. The text asserts that a lack of robust regulation increases financial risks for investors, noting that community opposition can increase operating costs by 29 times. It calls for mandatory due diligence, a broader sustainability taxonomy beyond climate risks, and harmonised public reporting requirements.

The report details how armed groups in the Central African Republic, specifically the Seleka and anti-balaka, have systematically exploited diamond resources to fund violence. It highlights the failure of the Kimberley Process suspension to stop the flow of diamonds, which are 'naturalised' in neighbouring countries like Cameroon to enter international markets. The document warns that the introduction of 'compliant zones' for legal exports risks legitimising conflict diamonds, particularly those amassed in stockpiles by buying houses like Sodiam and Badica during the export ban.