Rich Wilson is CEO of the Iswe Foundation and co-founder of the Global Citizens’ Assembly.

The numbers are stark. According to the 2026 Global Report on Food Crises, 266 million people across 47 countries experienced high levels of acute food insecurity last year, nearly double the figure recorded a decade ago.

Meanwhile, disruptions to oil, gas and fertiliser flows through the Strait of Hormuz drove a 46% month-on-month spike in urea prices early this year, sending agricultural price indices up 8% and raising the spectre of a global affordability crisis.

This is not a blip. It is a new baseline. The EAT-Lancet Commission concluded that food systems now account for roughly 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions and are the largest single contributor to the climate crisis. The science has been clear for years.

Now some of the solutions to the problem are becoming socially acceptable too.

Earlier this year, people from more than 60 countries and territories, selected not by vested interest, but by lottery, spent seven weeks examining the evidence on food and climate for the latest Global Citizens’ Assembly. They heard from scientists, farmers and industry. They worked through 42 hours of structured deliberation, engaging with some difficult trade-offs. 

They were not asked to endorse a predetermined conclusion. They were asked an open question: what changes, if any, should we make to how we grow, share and eat food, so that everyone has enough to nourish themselves while tackling the causes and impacts of climate change?

Phase down industrial animal farming

Their answer was unambiguous. They voted to protect forests. They voted to phase down industrial animal food production. They voted for supply chain reform and corporate accountability, explicitly rejecting the idea that the burden of change should fall on individual consumers. All 22 of their Calls to Action passed with over 85% support, a super-majority of randomly selected people from every region of the world, in agreement.

Consider what the assembly was actually being asked to decide. Industrial animal food production is the primary driver of tropical deforestation. Protecting more land as forest and ecosystem means less land available for the expansion of industrial production. That is a real trade-off, with real consequences for real livelihoods. Politicians have spent years avoiding it.

Food systems are the missing ingredient from the COP30 menu

These randomly selected people looked at the evidence, deliberated across time zones and cultures, and chose the forests, with 64% in strong support and a further 20% in favour. People from livestock farming communities voted for change. Not because they were told to. Because deliberation led them there.

We estimate there have now been more than 7,000 citizen participation initiatives worldwide in the last decade. They have been organised because, as our 2025 report: People in the Lead demonstrated, people are now consistently and significantly ahead of politicians on issues ranging from climate to AI governance.

The people know best

What the research consistently shows is that ordinary people, given proper evidence and time, produce recommendations that are more effective and more aligned with public values than what emerges from elected legislatures. The gap in global governance is no longer primarily between science and the public. It is between citizens and their political leaders.

That gap matters for more than procedural reasons. When policy treats people as passive recipients rather than active participants, it leaves out the very actors whose behaviour, trust and consent the transition depends on. Institutions that speak only to other institutions, and negotiate only with state actors and industry lobbies, are missing out on the trust and energy of the people they are supposed to serve.

Governments, left to their own devices, are not moving fast enough to prove that argument wrong. At COP30 in Belém last November, countries failed to agree on a fossil fuel phaseout roadmap, and even full implementation of every submitted national climate plan still leaves the world on course for 2.3 to 2.8C of warming.

Citizens’ track at COP

But the Brazilian presidency grasped something important. Among the conference’s more significant outcomes was the formal launch of a Citizens’ Track within the UNFCCC process, a mechanism for connecting the global participation field to intergovernmental climate negotiations. Türkiye and Australia, who together hold the COP31 presidency in Antalya this November, now have the opportunity to strengthen and institutionalise what Brazil began.

In Guatemala, Indigenous women build climate resilience with old and new farming methods

The question before us is no longer whether citizens can contribute to solving these problems. Across the world, in local food networks, in community assemblies and in participatory planning processes, they already are, quietly generating more ambitious and more legitimate solutions than those emerging from formal diplomatic channels.

What is required now is the political courage to connect people to power. Not to consult citizens and file the results. Not to invite them to observe while the real decisions are made elsewhere. But to recognise the public as partners in perhaps the most consequential governance challenge of our time.

The post As food shocks spread, citizens are showing more leadership than governments  appeared first on Climate Home News.

As food shocks spread, citizens are showing more leadership than governments 

Woodside’s Toxic Legacy is still haunting the oceans

For the last 10 years Woodside and the Australian government have been embroiled in a long-running saga that led to the Northern Endeavour–a giant oil processing vessel–being shipped halfway across the planet to dismantle and deal with the toxic waste onboard.

Our colleagues at Greenpeace Denmark were particularly concerned to learn that Australia had sent this toxic waste, including mercury, asbestos and low-level radioactive material, to their shores.

Now it turns out that the Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORMs) onboard will have to be sent all the way back to Australia for disposal. It’s the latest twist in this saga, full of dodgy corporate manoeuvres, environmental risks, and bureaucratic bungles that make up the story of the Northern Endeavour.

What is the Northern Endeavour?

The Northern Endeavour is a giant 274 metre-long, 43,000 tonne-long Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessel that operated off the northern coast of WA for 26 years, producing more than 200 million barrels over its lifetime. By the end of its life, the Northern Endeavour was a corroding rust-bucket, harbouring toxic and hazardous materials, slated for decommissioning. 

ICYMI: decommissioning refers to the removal of offshore oil and gas infrastructure, including plugging and abandonment of the well. In layman terms, it’s what’s required of the oil and gas industry to clean up their mess, and ensure no waste is left in the environment.

How legal loopholes allowed for a dodgy sale of a degrading asset

By 2015 the Endeavour’s production was on the decline, so Woodside scaled back maintenance and let the vessel rot and degrade in the Timor Sea…until, out of the deep blue sea, they found a buyer. 

Woodside took advantage of a legal loophole of that allowed them to transfer titles and sell off the Endeavour and the associated oilfield production licenses to the Northern Oil & Gas Australia Pty Ltd (NOGA)–a newly created, undercapitalised, one-person company with zero experience operating a complex offshore production facility like the Endeavour. The legal loophole enabled Woodside to bypass the regulator, who would normally rigorously scrutinize the new titleholders’ capacity to safely operate and decommission an oil rig. Woodside even paid NOGA (whose name was now TSOGA…confusing right?) USD$16.5 million (m) in cash and $5.4m in services. Nothing like a little bonus for taking a giant rust-bucket off a giant oil and gas company’s hands so they don’t have to pay to decommission it… 

So what happened next? Spoiler alert: Not good!

TSOGA contracted out the operation and safety management of the Endeavour to UPS, but it was to no avail. In its first inspection of the vessel, the federal regulator, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA), found “extensive corrosion was present throughout the facility”. NOPSEMA issued 16 recommendations, with the need for a corrosion management plan being most urgent. That was on top of the 21 outstanding recommendations they had put to Woodside. Things didn’t get better from there as TSOGA failed to comply with the recommendations, and the regulator issued a series of escalatory breach notices. Then in 2019, after almost 3 years, NOPSEMA finally ordered TSOGA to cease all production on the Endeavour. In February 2020, NOGA and all its companies, including TSOGA, conveniently went bankrupt, passing the buck–the Endeavour and its decommissioning liability–to the federal government. 

From ‘Lighthouse Mode’ to industry levies and regulatory overhaul

After landing Australia’s largest decommissioning liability in its history, the federal government forked out more than $200m to keep the Endeavour in ‘lighthouse mode’ while they worked out what to do–and in fact what they did was make some sweepingly positive moves.

In the face of staunch opposition and criticism, the government introduced trailing liability provisions as a backstop against another Northern Endeavour scenario, and the OP Levy, which taxes the oil and gas industry to cover the cost of the Endeavour’s decommissioning. 

The upshot is for every dollar Woodside saved offloading the Endeavour, the industry is paying it back (and lots more!) to cover the cost of cleaning up their mess–tipped at $1 billion dollars. These were bold moves and a strong signal from the government that they wouldn’t be held captive by the industry’s dodgy corporate maneuvers. In response, Shell is suing Woodside for costs incurred by the levy–seems like nobody likes Woodside, not even within their own industry!

A green and golden missed opportunity

With a levy in place to recoup the cost of the clean-up from the industry, the government was presented with a golden opportunity to test-run a decommissioning pilot case. Australia has 5.7 million tonnes of offshore oil and gas infrastructure to recycle — the steel equivalent of 110 Sydney Harbour Bridges and 11 more FPSOs like the Northern Endeavour. Of this, the vast majority of the industry lies off the coast of WA, making the state ground zero for what may be the largest industrial and environmental clean-up in Australian history.

Instead, the Australian Government awarded a $35.6m contract to the Modern American Recycling Services, Europe (MARS) to dismantle the vessel, and sent it 17,000 kilometers across the world to Denmark. Freedom of Information (FOI) documents obtained by Greenpeace Denmark revealed that the Endeavour contained toxic waste when it was shipped off, and that it does not appear to have received official sign off by Australia’s Basel Competent Authority prior to departure–potentially in contravention of the international Basel Convention. Sending a corroding rust-bucket, full of flammable liquids, poisonous substances, corrosive substances, toxins, and ecotoxins to a harbour in Denmark was not the ending to the Northern Endeavour saga we were all hoping for. 

Shipping the decommissioning overseas is an enormous missed opportunity across the entire value chain—with the industry valued at more than $60 billion dollars til 2060 and beyond. With more than 50% of infrastructure to be decommissioned before 2030, and nearly 75% by 2040, it’s urgent that Australia establishes a plan that will benefit the environment, economy and workers. If we get the conditions right with proper planning and coordination, it will drive investment, create thousands of jobs, support the circular economy and green steel industries and lay a foundation for clean energy pathways. That means: 

• Build a WA decommissioning hub
• Enforce and strengthen existing laws to ensure full and timely decommissioning
• Invest in ports, recycling facilities, and a local workforce
• Hold operators financially responsible and mandate full industry-funded clean-up
• Introduce strict environmental monitoring
• Consult unions, First Nations, and communities to deliver a just, inclusive transition
• Link recycling to national green steel plans to position WA as a global clean energy leader

One last hurrah: the return of the NORMs!

But wait…there’s more! It turns out that any naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs) found on board the Endeavour won’t be disposed of in Denmark, and instead they’ll make the return trip back to Australia. NORMs are an expected hazard in oil and gas production processes, and given that Danish law on their disposal is very clear–namely that it rests with the operator–the federal government would have known from the outset that the NORMs would be making a round-the-world return trip back to Australia. This latest development means Australia would have to deal with the most toxic legacy of the oil and gas industry, while all the valuable material is gifted away. 

Importation of radioactive material into Australia is not something we understand has happened before and questions remain as to how this complies with the Basel Convention. While there may still be more twists in the tale of the Northern Endeavour, it must serve as a wake-up call to get moving on a homegrown decommissioning industry. With the right planning, coordination and ambition, government and industry can get this right and ensure a prosperous pipeline of work for decades to come that will support the economy, provide jobs, and ensure our oceans are healthy and protected from corroding, toxic rust-buckets like the Endeavour.

The Northern Endeavour Saga: Decommissioning, Legal Loopholes, and Toxic, Hazardous Waste

A new global rainforest fund, unveiled by Brazil at COP30, will likely struggle to meet its initial funding target this year, after the UK failed to announce an expected pledge during London Climate Action Week and other donors have been slow to come on board.

The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) was launched on the sidelines of last November’s UN climate summit as an innovative mechanism to fund rainforest protection. Instead of relying on grants, it seeks to raise public and private money, invest it in financial markets, and then pay rainforest countries a share of the returns.

The facility has so far raised $6.8 billion but needs to mobilise at least $10 billion by the end of 2026, under conditions set by Norway to unlock its pledge. If the fund falls short of this goal, the Norwegian contribution of up to $3 billion in loans over 10 years will not be disbursed.

At a gathering of ministers from rainforest-rich countries at London’s Kew Botanic Gardens last Tuesday in searing heat, UK climate minister Katie White praised the TFFF and said she had held a “robust conversation in government over the last few weeks” about the importance of forests and climate action.

She had argued, she said, that “this is not a nice to have – this is absolutely vital for our security and our prosperity”. She told the small crowd of visiting ministers, officials and forest campaigners at Kew that the TFFF was an “innovative and impactful development”.

But despite climate campaigners’ hopes, the British minister did not follow Norway, Germany, France, Brazil, Indonesia and Luxembourg in pledging to the fund, whose aim is to use returns on the capital it invests in bond markets to financially reward countries who keep their tropical forests standing.

Ed Davey, UK lead for the World Resources Institute who was in the room for White’s speech, told Climate Home News afterwards that as the UK was involved in inventing the idea and the British public care about rainforests, it is “incredibly important” that the government invests in the TFFF “as soon as possible”.

“The TFFF is at a very important stage of its gestation, and if a few other critically important sovereign governments don’t come on board quite soon, there is a risk that the idea will lose momentum,” he said.

Anders Haug Larsen, advocacy director for the Rainforest Foundation Norway, was also disappointed at the lack of a British pledge during London Climate Action Week (LCAW).

The UK government’s money and its power to mobilise private sector investment are crucial to the TFFF’s success, he said, adding that “saving tropical rainforest is a key component in solving climate change and preserving life on this planet”.

Political divisions?

British newspaper The Times later reported that White’s boss – energy and climate minister Ed Miliband – had been poised to announce a £400-million ($528m) investment pledge to the TFFF but had been opposed by UK finance minister Rachel Reeves.

According to The Times, Reeves was concerned an announcement would be unpopular, as the government was being criticised by its former defence minister for not spending enough on the military, and had pushed for the announcement to be shelved.

Climate Home News understands, however, that the UK Treasury had given the climate ministry approval to tell Brazil and Norway it would invest in the TFFF, but the administrative procedures needed to make the pledge had not been completed in time to announce a contribution during LCAW.

The UK has been cutting the amount it spends on foreign aid, including on climate projects, in order to deliver what its foreign minister called “the biggest increase in defence spending since the Cold War”.

Projects affected include rainforest protection schemes like the Congo Basin Forest Action Programme, which has had its budget slashed by nearly 80%.

Despite these moves to shrink overseas assistance, defence secretary John Healey resigned a few weeks ago, calling for even more spending for his department.

Last Monday, the first day of LCAW, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced he would soon resign following bad local election results, with his fellow Labour parliamentarian Andy Burnham highly likely to replace him by the end of July. Reeves is looks set to be replaced as finance minister, with Miliband reportedly a leading candidate to succeed her.

Norwegian test looms

If the UK does not invest in the TFFF by the end of the year, along with other government donors, the initiative’s chances of reversing the destruction of tropical forests will be diminished, experts say.

With the US under Donald Trump unlikely to pledge and the two biggest European Union nations France and Germany already having done so, forest campaigners were hoping that the UK could fill some of the roughly $3.2 billion in new pledges needed to meet the minimum goal set by Norway.

Asked by Climate Home News if France would increase its $0.6 billion pledge, its minister for international partnerships Eleonore Caroit said last week, “I don’t have any specific information of any increase.” She added that France supports the TFFF but is also “focusing on other similar projects to achieve the same results”.

The Brazilian finance ministry has courted investments into the fund from Japan, South Korea and China. Last Friday, Brazilian finance minister Dario Durigan met Chinese finance minister Lan Fo’an and afterwards told Valor Econômico that he had raised the possibility of an investment in the TFFF.

“I think today, for the first time, China gave a stronger, firmer indication that it understands the TFFF model and is comfortable with it,” Durigan was quoted as saying. “There has been a positive signal,” he added. “Now we will work with his team to turn that into concrete commitments.”

Larsen of the Rainforest Foundation Norway said there is also hope that Middle Eastern countries, more European nations and the European Union could contribute. The UAE has expressed interest in the fund, and has provided technical assistance for its development.

Following a recent investor retreat in Rotterdam attended by government officials and private investors, a group of 12 financial institutions – including UK-based Ashmore Group and Dutch firm Robeco – endorsed the fund as an “opportunity to support the protection of up to a billion hectares of tropical forests”.

They added that the fund’s seed capital from governments is “building momentum” and that the TFFF has put in place a “robust institutional governance” that can deliver results in the long term.

Economic value for standing forests

Details of how the TFFF will work are being finalised in an attempt to encourage investment.

Earlier this month, it was announced that its investment arm (the Tropical Forest Investment Fund – TFIF) would be based in Luxembourg. The European financial hub said it will provide €50 million ($57m) to the TFIF through its Climate and Energy Fund between 2026 and 2030, after which it will “maintain a long-term annual contribution”.

The Norwegian government has tasked a veteran of its sovereign wealth fund, Knut N. Kjaer, with reviewing the TFFF’s financial model.

At Kew Gardens last week, the head of the Brazilian forest service Garo Batmanian said the TFFF and other measures are needed so that standing forests are economically valued and therefore protected.

“There is no chainsaw-wielding maniac out there cutting down trees out of pleasure,” he said. “He’s cutting down trees because he thinks he can get more money using the land for something else, so it’s not only about stopping deforestation but also promoting that the standing forest has value.”

The post Tropical forest protection fund at risk after UK stalls on pledge appeared first on Climate Home News.

Tropical forest protection fund at risk after UK stalls on pledge