As climate negotiators gathered in Belém for the 30th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP30), the surrounding rainforest was in the spotlight, with COP30 being dubbed a “forest COP”. As one of its key projects, the Brazilian government launched the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF). The fund for the conservation and restoration of standing rainforests aims to serve as a successful and innovative initiative in multilateral cooperation through blended finance. However, there remains a gap between current forest finance and what is needed to reach the Rio Convention targets. Germany and a few other European states have pledged investments into the fund and could shape its implementation. Additional financing mechanisms for forest restoration play a complementary role and should be enhanced. Still, not all success lies in finance. Forest finance mechanisms must reconcile targets of increasing carbon sequestration and storage in forests along with biodiversity and sustainability targets, while upholding the rights of local populations.
Alessandro Ieranò, Project Research Assistant at the South-East Europe Programme (ELIAMEP), explores the interplay between EU enlargement disputes and minority rights in his new article for Contemporary Southeast Europe.
Drawing from the Beleri case and Hungary’s ongoing veto on Ukraine, he observes how, in the context of bilateral disputes between a member (kin) state and a candidate (home) state, enlargement paralysis is a ‘lose-lose’ outcome for all parties involved. Above all, for national minorities, which risk to find themselves caught in the crossfire of politicisation and securitisation.
As he argues, this stems from the of lack of safeguards and alternative-dispute resolution mechanisms in the current enlargement framework, which has turned veto powers from an atomic option into a default practice. This not only enables the politicisation of kin-minorities in candidate countries—adding further straining bilateral relations—but also jeopardises enlargement at the moment when it is most needed. To address this challenge, he proposes a set of policy recommendations aiming at restoring the credibility of the enlargement promise through mutual guarantees to both ‘gatekeeping’ kin-member states and ‘obstructed’ candidate-home states, while preventing the securitisation of national minorities.
You may read the essay here.