Open Forum #19 Strengthening Information Integrity on Climate Change

Summary

This discussion focused on information integrity and climate change, examining how disinformation undermines climate action and democratic processes. The panel was organized by the Forum on Information and Democracy in Oslo, bringing together representatives from Brazil, the UN, UNESCO, and civil society organizations to address the intersection of climate science, information ecosystems, and internet governance.

Brazil’s leadership was highlighted through their Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change, launched during their G20 presidency with UN and UNESCO partnership. The initiative includes a one million dollar pledge to a global fund and plans for a “call to action” leading up to COP30 in Belém. The UN’s Charlotte Scaddan presented the Global Principles for Information Integrity, emphasizing how climate disinformation serves dual purposes: undermining climate action and destabilizing democratic processes through polarization.

UNESCO’s Guilherme Canela stressed the need for a comprehensive ecosystem approach, moving beyond just training journalists to supporting all information producers including scientists, influencers, and advertisers while ensuring their economic sustainability and safety. Research findings from the International Panel on the Information Environment revealed that fossil fuel companies, politicians, and governments are primary sources of climate disinformation, with strategic skepticism replacing outright climate denialism.

A significant focus was placed on the role of advertising in funding disinformation through the attention economy. Harriet Kingaby from the Conscious Advertising Network explained how the opaque digital advertising ecosystem inadvertently funds climate disinformation while blocking legitimate climate content from monetization. The discussion emphasized that most research on climate disinformation comes from the Global North, creating a critical knowledge gap about information integrity challenges in developing countries.

The panel concluded with calls for multi-stakeholder collaboration, increased funding for research in the Global South, protection of environmental journalists and activists, and meaningful engagement with youth who are most affected by both climate change and information manipulation.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Global Initiative on Information Integrity and Climate Change**: Brazil, UN, and UNESCO launched a collaborative initiative with a dedicated fund (Brazil pledged $1 million) to address climate disinformation globally, leading up to COP30 in Brazil. This includes a “call to action” open to all stakeholders.

– **Economic Drivers of Climate Disinformation**: The advertising industry inadvertently funds climate disinformation through opaque digital advertising systems where brands unknowingly advertise on misleading climate content. The attention economy incentivizes divisive content over quality journalism.

– **Research Gaps and Evidence Base**: There’s a significant lack of research on climate disinformation impacts, particularly in the Global South. A new IPIE report analyzing 300 studies found that fossil fuel companies, politicians, and “scientists for hire” are key sources of strategic climate skepticism replacing outright denialism.

– **Multi-stakeholder Approach**: The discussion emphasized that no single actor can solve information integrity issues alone – it requires collaboration between governments, civil society, media, tech platforms, advertisers, and international organizations, with particular attention to protecting vulnerable communities and engaging youth.

– **Systemic Solutions Beyond Content Moderation**: Rather than focusing on individual pieces of misinformation, the panelists advocated for addressing underlying systems – improving media literacy, supporting environmental journalists’ safety and sustainability, increasing platform transparency, and reforming advertising incentives.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to present a comprehensive framework for addressing climate disinformation as both a climate action issue and a democratic governance challenge. The panelists sought to build momentum for coordinated global action leading up to COP30, emphasizing that information integrity is essential for effective climate response.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was professional and collaborative throughout, with a sense of urgency tempered by cautious optimism. Panelists acknowledged the severity and complexity of the challenges while highlighting concrete initiatives and solutions. The discussion maintained a constructive, solution-oriented approach, with speakers building on each other’s points rather than debating. The tone became more interactive and engaged during the Q&A session, with audience questions bringing in diverse global perspectives and practical concerns from the field.

Speakers

– **Camille Grenier**: Moderator from the Forum on Information and Democracy

– **Eugênio Garcia**: Director of the Department for Science, Technology and Intellectual Property at the Brazil Ministry of Foreign Affairs

– **Charlotte Scaddan**: Senior Advisor on Information Integrity at the United Nations Department of Global Communication

– **Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi**: Director of the Division for Digital Inclusion and Policies and Digital Transformation at UNESCO

– **Harriet Kingaby**: Co-chair of the Conscious Advertising Network, representing Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAD)

– **Fredrick Ogenga**: Member of the International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) and member of the Scientific Panel on Information Integrity about climate sciences

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members who asked questions during the Q&A session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Pavel Antonov**: Blue Link Action Network in Bulgaria and APC board member

– **Lee Cobb-Ottoman**: Ministry of Basic Education, South Africa

– **Agenunga Robert**: Democratic Republic of Congo, works at DRC-Uganda border, member of DRC National Assembly

– **Mbadi**: UNHCR, based in Pretoria

– **Larry Maggett**: CEO of Connect Safely, former journalist with CBS News, New York Times, LA Times, and BBC

– **Mikko Salo**: Finnish NGO Faktabar representative

– **Jasmine Ku**: From Hong Kong, former national youth representative of ALCOI

# Information Integrity and Climate Change: A Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Introduction and Context

The Forum on Information and Democracy convened a critical panel discussion in Oslo examining the intersection of information integrity and climate change. The session was moderated by Camille Grenier, who opened by highlighting the Forum’s dedicated work stream on this topic, co-led by Brazil and Armenia. The panel brought together representatives from international organisations, governments, and civil society to address how disinformation undermines both climate action and democratic processes.

Grenier emphasised the urgency of the topic, noting that environmental journalists are being murdered and that the Forum has documented systematic attacks on those investigating climate and environmental issues. The discussion featured speakers from Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the United Nations, UNESCO, and various advocacy organisations, alongside active participation from a diverse global audience.

The panel emerged against the backdrop of Brazil’s G20 presidency and the launch of an unprecedented Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change, marking the first time information integrity has been prioritised at the G20 level. The timing proved particularly significant as the world prepares for COP30 in Belém, Brazil, and COP17 on biodiversity that Armenia will host, creating momentum for coordinated international action on climate disinformation.

## The Global Initiative: A New Framework for International Cooperation

### Brazil’s Leadership and G20 Integration

Eugênio Garcia, representing Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, outlined his country’s groundbreaking leadership in establishing information integrity as a G20 priority. The Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change represents a trilateral partnership between Brazil, the United Nations, and UNESCO, with Brazil demonstrating concrete commitment through a one million dollar pledge to establish a dedicated global fund.

Garcia emphasised that this initiative marks a historic first in G20 discussions, elevating information integrity from a peripheral concern to a central element of climate governance. He referenced the Maceió declaration from the G20, which formally recognised these concerns. The Brazilian approach recognises that effective climate action requires not only sound policies but also a healthy information environment that enables informed public discourse and democratic decision-making.

Garcia introduced the concept of “mutirão,” a Brazilian cultural practice of collective work where communities come together to accomplish shared goals. He explained how this concept informs Brazil’s approach to the global initiative: “We want to build a mutirão, a collective effort where everyone contributes according to their possibilities and capacities.”

The initiative’s structure includes plans for a comprehensive “call to action” leading up to COP30, which will be open to all stakeholders—governments, civil society, private sector, and international organisations—to submit concrete proposals for addressing climate disinformation. Garcia outlined specific goals for this call to action: creating a repository of best practices, identifying gaps in current approaches, and developing concrete recommendations for policy makers. This inclusive approach reflects recognition that information integrity challenges cannot be solved through governmental action alone.

### UN Global Principles for Information Integrity

Charlotte Scaddan from the UN Department of Global Communication presented the Global Principles for Information Integrity, marking the anniversary of these principles. She explained that the principles provide a comprehensive framework for understanding and addressing information challenges across five key areas: societal trust and resilience, healthy incentives, public empowerment, independent free and pluralistic media, and transparency and research.

Scaddan highlighted a crucial insight from recent research: climate disinformation serves dual purposes, simultaneously undermining climate action and destabilising democratic processes through polarisation and institutional distrust. She noted that “we are in effect guinea pigs in an information experiment in which the resilience of our societies is being put to the test,” capturing the unprecedented nature of current information challenges.

The UN’s approach emphasises that climate disinformation has evolved beyond simple denial to more sophisticated strategies of delay and confusion. Research findings indicate that in countries like the United States, mainstream media continues to be a significant source of climate misinformation, challenging traditional assumptions about information distribution channels.

Scaddan also referenced the Global Digital Compact and the WSIS+20 process, noting how information integrity fits into broader digital governance frameworks. She emphasised that “people are most influenced by trusted local voices like pastors, teachers, and community leaders,” highlighting the need for community-based approaches.

### UNESCO’s Ecosystem Approach

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi from UNESCO provided critical perspective on the systemic nature of information integrity challenges, drawing from lessons learned in previous climate communication initiatives. He shared his personal experience coordinating climate change and journalism initiatives 20 years ago, acknowledging that earlier efforts, whilst successful in their immediate goals, failed to anticipate the ecosystem-wide approach that disinformation actors would employ.

“When we were talking with them, or even with the scientists, the logic is the scientists want to know how to give better interviews for the journalists. The scientists were not even thinking that there was an important field of research on the issue of information integrity,” Canela reflected, highlighting how past approaches focused too narrowly on individual actors rather than understanding the broader information ecosystem.

UNESCO’s current approach recognises information as a public good requiring support for both supply-side actors (journalists, scientists, content creators) and demand-side empowerment (citizen education, media literacy). This comprehensive framework addresses not only content quality but also the economic sustainability of reliable information sources and the safety of those producing climate-related content.

Canela announced that UNESCO’s Global Fund will provide funding for research and investigative journalism, with an open call closing July 6th. He also mentioned plans to develop a global toolkit on data governance under the Broadband Commission with UNDP.

## The Economics of Climate Disinformation

### Advertising Industry’s Role and Opportunities

Harriet Kingaby from the Conscious Advertising Network provided illuminating insights into how the digital advertising ecosystem inadvertently funds climate disinformation whilst simultaneously blocking legitimate climate content from monetisation. She explained that of every advertising dollar spent, only about 41 cents actually reaches publishers, with the rest consumed by the complex advertising supply chain.

Kingaby presented specific examples of major advertisers appearing on climate disinformation content, including Money Supermarket and Get Your Guide, demonstrating how brands inadvertently fund harmful content due to the opacity of the advertising supply chain. She noted that the same platforms that demonetise legitimate climate content allow disinformation to flourish and receive advertising revenue.

“Most of this you know, I think there’s been plenty of cleverer people than me talking about that at this conference but the twist that I want you to take away is that this situation does not work for advertisers either and that actually creates opportunities for us to create powerful alliances,” Kingaby observed, reframing advertisers from adversaries to potential allies in addressing information integrity challenges.

The advertising supply chain’s opacity means that brands frequently have no visibility into where their advertisements appear or what content they inadvertently fund. This creates both a problem—where advertising revenue supports climate disinformation—and an opportunity for reform through increased transparency and accountability measures.

Kingaby emphasised that the same systems spreading climate disinformation also contribute to mental health crises among young people, creating additional urgency for addressing the underlying economic incentives that prioritise engagement over accuracy.

## Research Gaps and Evidence Challenges

### Global South Representation Crisis

Fredrick Ogenga, representing the International Panel on the Information Environment, presented sobering findings about the geographic concentration of climate disinformation research. Analysis of over 300 studies revealed that current research is concentrated in a handful of countries, with minimal representation from the Global South, Latin America, and Southeast Asia.

“Out of 300 studies reviewed, only one was from South Africa,” Ogenga noted, illustrating the massive research gap that hampers evidence-based policy development in regions most vulnerable to climate change impacts. This disparity not only limits understanding of how climate disinformation operates in different contexts but also risks imposing solutions developed in the Global North onto regions with different information ecosystems and cultural contexts.

The research findings also revealed that fossil fuel companies, politicians, and “scientists for hire” remain primary sources of climate disinformation, but their tactics have evolved from outright denial to strategic scepticism designed to delay climate action rather than prevent it entirely.

### Evolution of Disinformation Tactics

Ogenga’s research highlighted a crucial shift in climate disinformation strategies: “Strategic scepticism is actually replacing climate denialism.” This evolution means that disinformation actors no longer need to convince people that climate change is false; instead, they focus on creating confusion about solutions, timelines, and the urgency of action.

This tactical shift requires corresponding evolution in response strategies, moving beyond simply providing accurate information about climate science to addressing more sophisticated forms of delay and confusion. The challenge becomes particularly acute when disinformation is designed to exploit legitimate scientific uncertainties or policy debates.

## Audience Engagement and Key Concerns

### Youth Participation and Mental Health

The discussion emphasised the critical importance of engaging young people as equal partners rather than token participants in climate information integrity efforts. Charlotte Scaddan stressed that “young people are deeply concerned about climate change but need meaningful engagement as equal partners rather than add-ons to processes.”

Audience member Jasmine Ku from Hong Kong highlighted a concerning gap: youth representatives at regional climate conferences are not incorporating information integrity into their statements and agendas, partly because overwhelming corporate greenwashing creates the impression that information problems are already being addressed.

Harriet Kingaby drew important connections between the attention economy, climate disinformation, and mental health crises among young people. She noted that the same systems that spread climate disinformation also promote despair rather than hope about climate action, exacerbating mental health challenges for the generation most affected by climate change.

### Cultural Context and Local Perspectives

A particularly thought-provoking intervention came from Lee Cobb-Ottoman from South Africa’s Ministry of Basic Education, who observed that “in the region where I come from, climate change is viewed as a white man’s problem. It is viewed as a matter of whether it is cold or it is hot. But in actual fact, what we see is that it means loss of life, loss of property, loss of assets, and displacement.”

This observation highlighted how climate communication can sometimes fail to resonate with local contexts and experiences, emphasising the need for culturally sensitive approaches that connect global climate challenges with local realities and concerns.

### Data Security and Indigenous Rights

Audience member Agenunga Robert raised critical concerns about data security for carbon credit projects and forest monitoring systems, particularly regarding information collected from indigenous territories. The discussion highlighted tensions between the need for transparent environmental monitoring and the protection of vulnerable communities whose data might be misused if compromised.

These concerns reflect broader questions about data governance in climate action, particularly regarding who controls environmental data, how it is stored and protected, and how benefits from data-driven initiatives like carbon credits are distributed among affected communities.

### Journalism Standards and Self-Regulation

Pavel Antonov raised questions about journalism standards and self-regulation in addressing climate disinformation. The discussion touched on the challenges of maintaining journalistic independence while ensuring accuracy in climate reporting, and the role of professional standards in combating misinformation.

## Protection of Environmental Information Sources

The panel addressed escalating threats faced by environmental journalists and climate defenders, with speakers noting increasing patterns of harassment, physical attacks, and digital surveillance targeting those investigating climate and environmental issues. These threats create a chilling effect that reduces the quantity and quality of environmental reporting precisely when such information is most needed.

The discussion revealed that threats extend beyond individual journalists to include scientists, environmental activists, and community leaders who document environmental degradation or advocate for climate action. This systematic targeting of information sources represents a direct attack on the information ecosystem’s capacity to provide reliable climate information.

## Multi-Stakeholder Solutions and Systemic Approaches

### Beyond Content Moderation

The panel consistently emphasised that addressing climate disinformation requires moving beyond reactive content moderation to proactive systemic reforms. Speakers advocated for addressing underlying incentive structures, economic models, and governance frameworks that enable disinformation to flourish.

This systemic approach recognises that individual pieces of misinformation are symptoms of broader structural problems in information ecosystems. Effective solutions must therefore address root causes rather than merely treating symptoms.

### Coalition Building and Industry Engagement

The discussion highlighted opportunities for building coalitions with unexpected allies, particularly in the advertising industry where economic interests may align with information integrity goals. Speakers emphasised that sustainable solutions require broad-based coalitions that include not only traditional advocacy groups but also business actors with economic incentives for change.

Kingaby committed to engaging advertisers at industry events like Cannes to promote information integrity principles, recognising the advertising industry’s potential role as both problem and solution in climate disinformation challenges.

### Community-Based Implementation

Speakers consistently emphasised the importance of community-based approaches that work through existing trust networks rather than attempting to impose external solutions. This approach recognises that information travels most effectively through established social relationships and trusted local voices.

## Concrete Action Items and Next Steps

### Immediate Initiatives

The panel outlined several concrete action items emerging from the Global Initiative. These include launching a Call to Action for COP30 that will be open to all stakeholders to submit proposals on information integrity and climate change, with the goal of creating a repository of best practices and developing concrete policy recommendations.

The initiative plans high-level side events at COP30 in Belém to showcase information integrity initiatives and maintain momentum for coordinated international action.

### Research and Capacity Building

The initiative includes plans to expand research efforts particularly in the Global South to fill critical evidence gaps identified by Ogenga’s research. UNESCO’s funding call represents one concrete mechanism for supporting this expanded research capacity.

### Timeline and Participation

The call to action process will run through the lead-up to COP30, with multiple opportunities for stakeholder engagement. The inclusive approach invites participation from governments, civil society, private sector, and international organisations, reflecting the multi-stakeholder approach that all speakers emphasised as essential.

## Conclusion

The discussion represented a sophisticated analysis of climate disinformation as both a technical challenge and a fundamental threat to democratic governance and climate action. The panel’s emphasis on systemic solutions, multi-stakeholder approaches, and community-based implementation reflects mature understanding of information integrity challenges that goes beyond simple content moderation to address underlying structural problems.

The Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change, with its concrete funding commitments and inclusive approach to stakeholder engagement, provides a promising framework for coordinated international action. The Brazilian concept of “mutirão” – collective effort where everyone contributes according to their capacities – captures the collaborative spirit needed to address these complex challenges.

However, the discussion also highlighted significant challenges ahead, particularly regarding research gaps in the Global South, protection of environmental information sources, and the need for culturally sensitive approaches that connect global climate concerns with local realities and experiences.

The panel’s recognition of unexpected allies, particularly in the advertising industry, and its emphasis on youth engagement as equal partners rather than token participants, suggests strategic thinking that may prove crucial for building sustainable coalitions for change. As the world prepares for COP30 in Belém, the initiative provides both a framework for action and a recognition that effective climate response requires not only sound policies but also healthy information ecosystems that enable informed democratic participation in climate governance.

The call to action leading up to COP30 represents a concrete opportunity for stakeholders worldwide to contribute to this collective effort, embodying the mutirão approach that Brazil has championed in bringing information integrity to the forefront of international climate governance.

Camille Grenier: Hello everyone, thanks so much for joining us for this very important discussion on information integrity on climate change, a discussion that is at somehow the crossroads of different issues, information integrity of course, climate change of course, but also, and this is why we’re here today in Oslo, internet governance and how the internet has reshaped our information ecosystems and what we can do about it to preserve access to reliable information on an issue, a crucial issue, that is climate change. Information integrity and climate disinformation, you will see this through the presentation of our panelists today, is a very important topic and it really, and we’ll have some evidence from researchers and colleagues, it really delays our ability to tackle climate change and to us at the Forum on Information and Democracy, it is also a democratic issue. It is a democratic issue when climate disinformation is weaponized for political purposes and political gains. It is a democratic issue when journalists who are investigating climate change, environmental issues, are targeted, are threatened, and in the worst case are murdered. And it is a democratic issue when access to information, to facts, to knowledge is undermined and we can clearly see today that all and a lot of knowledge institutions are being targeted for doing their work. And this is why at the Forum on Information and Democracy we launched a dedicated work stream with the signatory states of the Partnership for Information and Democracy on ensuring information integrity on climate change and other environmental issues. This work stream is co-led by Brazil and Armenia as Brazil will host, as a lot of you may know, COP 30 in November and as Armenia will host COP17 on biodiversity next year. The reason we launched this work stream is because we want to ensure that the answers that will be brought to this specific challenge also respect democratic principles. Democratic principles including transparency of powers, plurality of information, access to reliable information, and something that is really dear to our heart, the political and ideological neutrality of the information and communication space and the entities that structure this information space. Because I have the privilege of being the first one to talk, I will just stress on one specific point that is related to information integrity, the fact that to have information integrity we need people and institutions that provide reliable, independent, trustworthy information. And I would like to stress the importance of environmental journalists and the media that are doing this work of investigating climate change and environmental issues. And to us, we need to ensure that they can do their job freely and safely, that we have access to their facts and to their findings through social networks and throughout the information ecosystems, and that their work is also sustainable and we’re doing a lot of work on media sustainability these days. So thanks a lot. I would like to thank again all our panellists today, we’ll have a very important presentation on different efforts that are being done notably the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change that is led by actually three first panellists, Brazil, the UN, and UNESCO. And I would just like to start with you, Eugenio Garcia, the Director of the Department for Science, Technology and Intellectual Property at the Brazil Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If you could start by presenting Brazil’s leadership in this area. the Global Initiative and how the idea emerged and what are the challenges that the initiative aims to address and what is such a priority for Brazil. Thank you.

Eugênio Garcia: Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. Glad to be here. I think for Brazil it’s clear that the climate crisis is real, it’s urgent and not something for tomorrow. And in Brazil we have been severely affected by extreme weather events. For example, in 2023 the drought in the Amazon rainforest was possibly the worst in history. And also the flooding in the south of Brazil last year, 2024, of course was a tragedy with many people displaced. But this is to show that these extreme weather events, they are affecting the life of people in a very direct way, because it’s not something that we think of global warming as something that’s not felt by people on the ground. And we have last year the G20, the Brazilian presidency of the G20, and we thought that would be, in terms of testing the waters, to see if we could include information integrity in the program, in the agenda for the, specifically the digital economy working group. And we had four priorities for this working group. One was universal and meaningful connectivity. The second, infrastructure, digital public infrastructure. Then the third, artificial intelligence. and the governance of AI, and the fourth priority that we presented to the G20 members was precisely information integrity. We didn’t know exactly the reaction or the feedback we would get from this discussion, but in the end we reached a consensus, and it was positive because it was the first time that the G20 addressed the information integrity. And we had a ministerial meeting in the city of Maceió, it’s in the north-east of Brazil, where you find these four priorities including information integrity. For those interested, you can download the Maceió declaration, just go make a search and it’s available in English for you to read later and how this topic was addressed by G20. Then, in the meantime, we have been discussing with the United Nations Secretariat in New York, in particular the Department of Global Communications, and UNESCO in terms of joining forces, and also other stakeholders. But the idea was to launch the global initiative on information integrity and climate change during the summit of the G20 in November 2024 in Rio de Janeiro. And that’s what we did in partnership with the UN and UNESCO, and I think for not only the Brazilian government, but this is a top priority. We pledged for the global fund, I think Guilherme will explain later the details of how the global fund is structured for this global initiative, but we pledged one million dollars that is, let’s say, adding to the G20. to what we say that’s important, but also showing that our commitment is really something that we mean, something extremely important. So I think in terms of coordinating efforts and talking to other stakeholders in different international organizations or different forums, for example G77, now we have COP30 coming in Belém do Pará, it’s next November as we know, and it’s a huge responsibility. So we want to create this global movement so that we have information like there’s a growing awareness of the importance of addressing this issue in terms of how we address climate change. And in terms of bringing this topic everywhere, let’s say the Global Digital Compact also mentioned information integrity. It’s interesting to highlight this because it was adopted by the UN in 2024 and UN member states committed to work together to promote information integrity, tolerance and respect in the digital space. And strengthen international cooperation to address the challenge of mis-slash-disinformation hate speech online. And by the way, also in the elements paper of the co-facilitators for the WSIS plus 20 process, they also mentioned information integrity, highlighting that stakeholders should promote information integrity, tolerance and respect in the digital space. This is dialogue with the GDC and protecting the integrity of democratic processes, strengthening international cooperation, and also trying to mitigate the risks of information manipulation in a manner consistent with international law. with International Law. So I think this is part of a global effort with our partners and in terms of engaging with COP30, I think that’s now we are trying to focus our action to, in terms of reaching November with some concrete initiatives. So you know that the president of COP30, Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago, in his first letter he mentioned the idea of a call to action, that we, it’s a mutirão. Mutirão is a Portuguese word from the indigenous communities in Brazil. The idea of having a collective endeavor, because in the village everybody would help each other to, in the spirit of coming together to deliver results. So the village would, each one would bring something, sometimes bring tools or materials or even skills to reach this collective endeavor, that’s the idea for mutirão. So we are now planning for the global initiative on information integrity on climate change, call to action. Of course other, I think my colleagues will also address some of the initiatives that are ongoing, for example we have a meeting in Bonn, I think Charlotte will talk about this, trying to integrate the global initiative and the action for climate empowerment. But this call to action that we will be launching soon is trying to integrate this agenda. with the COP30 and the goals, I think it would be useful to highlight some of them because these are joint efforts to contribute to this, what we hope this is a global movement with very concrete actions to promote information integrity, such as gathering and sharing data, rigorous research and evidence and knowledge on risks to climate information integrity including disinformation and impacts on climate action in line with the GDC. Also sharing practical tools, methods and materials to strengthen resilience against disinformation and promote information integrity on climate change. Developing communications campaigns, strategies and efforts designed to raise public awareness and foster a global culture of information integrity, including through trusted voices and influencers. These are the goals of this call to action. Fostering media sustainability, including its economic viability to cover environmental and climate change related issues. Supporting the protection of environmental journalists, activists, communicators and scientists. Protecting scientific data and data sets related to climate change. Promoting transparency and accountability in digital advertising to help address financial incentives for climate disinformation and foster climate information integrity. Fostering target media information in digital literacy related to climate change. And also donating financial resources to UNESCO’s Global Fund to help gather evidence and strategic communications including in professional journalism. To conclude, I think this call to action, that is the next step in the global initiative related to COP30, will contribute to including information integrity on climate change in the COP30 process by uniting efforts across borders and sectors and representing a pivotal step towards a global movement, as I said, for promoting information integrity on climate change.

Camille Grenier: So I will stop here, but I think that’s the idea, not what we are trying to achieve. And this call to action will be open to all stakeholders? Open to all stakeholders, so we will soon launch this and have the details and we will have a period where we will be assessing the contributions that we expect to receive and we are optimistic that we have received many proposals. So that’s the first call to action on the road to COP30. And I think that one thing that I find really remarkable with the work that Brazil is doing is bridging communities together, different communities. And the community working in journalism, on internet governance, and now on climate change. And I think bringing this community to our topics of information integrity is also very, very valuable. And I’m sure that the UN is also quite well-placed to do this kind of work. So Charlotte Skadden is Senior Advisor. If you could put on the slides, please, for Charlotte, who is a Senior Advisor on Information Integrity at the United Nations Department of Global Communication. And before you start, happy birthday, Charlotte. Because today is… It’s not my birthday. I mean, it’s not Charlotte’s birthday, sorry. It’s the first anniversary of the Global Principles on Information Integrity that were published exactly one year ago. I thought you were going to tell her age. No, I would not. Sorry. So, Charlotte, can you tell us a little bit more about the UN role in strengthening climate information integrity globally with a focus on policy, public diplomacy and communications, of course, in court in the UN Global Principles for Information Integrity?

Charlotte Scaddan: I will. And thank you, Camille, for mentioning the anniversary, which of course I’m going to touch on. And frankly, to me, it’s actually more important than my own birthday with the amount of effort that we put into developing the global principles. So I’ll just start by giving some context. As you all know, the UN has, I’m sure you’re very familiar with our work on climate change. And it’s a huge priority for us, climate action. But more recently, information integrity has also become a major priority. And of course, there’s a range of initiatives going on around the UN related to information integrity. But I wanted to touch on two today. And one, of course, is the Global Principles for Information Integrity that, as you mentioned, were launched a year ago today by the Secretary General, Antonio Guterres. And the principles, for those of you who aren’t familiar with them, are, I think, a groundbreaking framework for action for a safer, more inclusive information ecosystem. And they put forward, we put forward five of these principles, recommendations for different stakeholders around five principles. And you see them on the screen here. They are societal trust and resilience, healthy incentives, public empowerment, independent, free and pluralistic media, and last but not least, transparency and research. So the principles frame information integrity as an information ecosystem where freedom of expression is fully enjoyed and where accurate, reliable information, free from discrimination and hate, is available to all in an open, inclusive, safe, secure information environment. And this entails a pluralistic information ecosystem. , the global information space that fosters trust, knowledge, and individual choice for all. So, actually, in the past year since we launched, the response has been really overwhelming. We’ve seen government, civil society, media, businesses, and other really harness these principles through activities and efforts around the world. So we go into work on information integrity and to implement the global principles with our eyes wide open. Because the challenge before us is formidable. And the threat landscape is vast. Risks include mis and disinformation. I think everyone is generally familiar with those. As well as hate speech and harassment. But we also see other risks that are more structural or political. So suppression of independent news media. And suppression of academic and civil society work and voices. Denying of access to information. The defunding or removal of public sources of information. And, of course, top of mind now. The threat landscape is vast. And the threat landscape is vast. And the threat landscape is vast. And, of course, top of mind now are risks related to emerging tech. Emerging technologies. Including Gen AI. Because we see tech companies continue to integrate AI into our everyday applications at breakneck speed. They are not slowing down, as we know. People are now increasingly reliant on this tech to shape their understanding of the world and everything that’s happening in it. But while Gen AI tools are proliferating in the public domain, they can’t uniformly be used in the public domain. And that’s a challenge. Because while Gen AI tools are proliferating in the public domain, they can’t uniformly be relied on for accurate information. And we see ongoing tests and studies that show that, you know, these tools frequently do not distinguish between rigorous science on the one hand and dirty data or outright nonsense on the other. And yet, people are accessing this flawed data, but they’re not equipped to assess its veracity or reliability, which can contribute to one of the most devastating consequences of AI. And that’s a challenge. So, this is a major leadership leap in AI and the value that we see from it. But people are now increasingly relying on Gen AI tools and testing them. And yet, we see ongoing tests and studies that show that, you know, these tools frequently do not distinguish between rigorous science on the one hand and dirty data or outright nonsense on the other. And yet, people are accessing this flawed data, but they’re not equipped to assess its veracity or reliability, which can contribute to what we see as a deeply concerning trend, that is, the lack of trust in any information source and in the information ecosystem more broadly. People just don’t know what they’re doing. what’s real, what to believe. We are in effect guinea pigs in an information experiment in which the resilience of our societies is being put to the test. So in short, the spectrum of risks is broad and it goes way beyond just the false information itself. The issues impacted are also wide ranging and it really touches on all areas of the UN’s work and what we need for a sustainable future and functioning democracies. When it comes to climate, the motivations and impacts are twofold. Purveyors of climate disinformation and hate obviously seek to undermine climate action, right? And we’ve seen the fossil fuel industry and others including state actors pour billions into this over decades. But we also see climate change used as a wedge issue to polarize, to disrupt, to destabilize democratic processes, particularly around elections and we always will see a spike around pivotal societal moments. We know enough to be able to make these conclusions but the evidence base ranges and while there’s some strong research from major academic institutions and civil society organizations, including IPIE as we’ll hear shortly, much of this research is concentrated in a handful of countries where the support and funding have been focused up to now. And as many of us here know really well, this support has been under attack and politicized, especially in recent months with researchers, civil society and others targeted. So that’s why our focus on research is really key. From our own limited research efforts, we’ve identified a range of tactics used in attempts to undermine climate-related information. The narratives used as part of these tactics, which you see a list here of a sample of them and I’ll just mention a few. They range from there being no scientific consensus around climate to climate change is a manufactured political tool and a scapegoat for domestic policy issues and failures to globalist elites. using climate issues as a means of justifying totalitarian policies and even to control the weather. And, you know, sometimes when I say that last one about controlling the weather, I get kind of sniggers, but in fact, you know, this is actually coming from leading political figures. And these claims are used to kind of steadily erode trust in academic scientific institutions, in the UN, in COP and the COP process, and also to isolate people to certain information sources, which are often very localized. And what we’ve seen is that underlying a lot of these tactics is what we call the us versus them, the constructed enemy, adversarial stance. It’s painting those who support climate action as elites serving only their own interests. And these behaviors are not in the fringe. They’re in the mainstream of information spaces, and they’re being used by influential figures, both state and non-state actors. So what can we do? Well, as laid out in the global principles, first and foremost, we need multi-stakeholder action. It’s a very UN term, I think, but it’s really a valid one. Obviously, and this brings me to the next example, you know, a really leading example of this is our global initiative that we just heard about, and it’s really a major priority for us at the UN as we approach COP. Our response has to be multifaceted and include prevention and mitigation measures across the information ecosystem. This includes strategic communications and advocacy, of course, political engagement, human rights-based policy, and community engagement. We need to recalibrate our previous thinking about the information ecosystem and the information landscape so that we better understand people’s relationship to information sources today, which is often playing out in very niche spaces and at the community level. What many institutions have long thought, and I include the UN in that, have long thought as mainstream media is no longer mainstream. The mainstream has shifted, and that’s true across many geographies. we need to immediately identify and fill information voids because if we don’t fill them, the disinformation actors will, and they’ll do it quickly and without hesitation. And we need to think longer-term about building trust and how we can keep attention by carefully considering our tone and language around climate issues and going about gauging communities with humility and respect so that we avoid reinforcing that us-versus-them trap. When it comes to structural obstacles, what has become really crystal clear to us is that we need to expand and engage our circle of stakeholders. And that includes the advertisers who fund the digital ecosystem and as such have unique power. They can act quickly and effectively to mitigate harms and influence digital platforms in ways that we cannot. And that’s why just a few days ago, I was with colleagues from organizations represented here on stage at CanLion, which is the biggest and most important annual gathering of the ad industry. And we took our message of information integrity to that key audience. And I’m really happy that Harriet is here to explain the advertising angle in more detail. It’s somewhere where it’s an angle that we’re really going to be focusing on a lot in coming months. So I’ll just end by saying, you know, we don’t have time to spare. I mean, the urgency and the scale of this challenge require active coalitions and collaborations so that we can increase global resilience. And we need to find those entry points for action before it’s too late. So I’ll leave you with that. Thanks.

Camille Grenier: Thank you. Thank you so much Charlotte. I think one thing I take from the presentation is really to have this sort of broad approach gathering all the stakeholders, including advertisers. I’m sure we’ll get back to that in a moment. Guilherme from UNESCO. Guilherme Canela is the Director of the Division for Digital Inclusion and Policies and Digital Transformation. You’ve been also a leader in that space and also working on… who has done a lot on freedom and safety of journalists. We’re really glad to have you on stage and to have you talk a little bit complementing what has already been said on the Global Initiative, maybe more specifically around UNESCO’s approach on this and about the fund that has been mentioned already, and also the work that UNESCO is doing with interconnected issues, notably on safety of journalists, for example.

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: Thank you, Camille. It’s a pleasure to be here with all these fantastic colleagues in the panel. Let me start by telling you a story. Twenty years ago, when I was not an international bureaucrat and I was doing intelligent things in my life, I coordinated an initiative about climate change and journalism in the media. And it’s interesting to look 20 years back, this was for Latin America, on what were our mistakes on that time. Because we didn’t notice, and this was a huge mistake, that we couldn’t face the issue looking into just one of the actors. So we lose what the bad actors already knew at that time, the ecosystem logic of this. So the initiative, that one that I did 20 years ago, was very successful in its goals. Our initiative was to train journalists to speak, to cover better climate change. But when we were talking with them, or even with the scientists, the logic is the scientists want to know how to give better interviews for the journalists. The scientists were not even thinking that there was an important field of research on the issue of information integrity, to use an anachronistic word, because we didn’t have that expression at that time. So what we were betting our horses is that if we train the information producers at the time, the journalists, we will solve the problem. And this was a huge mistake of our part because we were not prepared enough to think the rest of the ecosystem. So the initiative here and what Charlotte was describing in terms of the information integrity concept is very much related to this broader idea that information is a public good. And then in UNESCO we simplified that with three pillars, right? If we consider information as a public good we need to empower the citizens to interact with the ecosystem, right? It’s education, it’s media and information literacy, so on and so forth. But this is a necessary condition but it’s not a necessary and sufficient condition because it’s unfair to say to my uncle or to my grandmother, well don’t circulate this thing you received in the whatsapp or whatever, knowing that on the other side of the fence you have trillion dollar companies, either fossil fuel companies or companies that are relying a lot on this attention economy. So it’s unfair to put only on the shoulders of the society to solve the problem, but it’s necessary. So this is qualifying the demand. The other pillar is that we need to qualify the supply. So 20 years ago when I was doing those intelligent things we thought that qualifying of the supply was to support the journalists, but that was wrong. We need to support the scientists, we need to support the influencers, we need to support the advertisers, all those that are sending inputs to the system and to guarantee that this support is enough for to do this in a reliable and accurate manner, but also they need to survive. Advertisers are doing quite well but the journalists are not, or the scientists. So we need also to deal with the economic issue, but also with the safety issue. 20 years ago the journalists were telling us, well there is an issue. and the other groups, we have a lot of people who are saying we have an issue here and there, but no one was saying I’m being attacked because I’m covering climate change. Now we hear that all the time. And it’s not only attacked online, which is already a big issue. They are being attacked physically. They are being attacked with massive slaps everywhere. So there is also a complexity here in protecting the supply side of the story. So we have to look at the other side of the story. And the other side of the story is what Charlotte was explaining. How we deal with the transmission chain, right? With the ecosystem that includes the social media companies, the governance, now the AI and whatever. So it’s not one thing or the other. It’s one thing and the other. And that’s why it’s so complex. So the initiative wants to look into this, recognizing this complexity, but telling, look, there is one particular element that is missing, right? And that is the lack of governance mechanisms. And particularly in the global south, as I guess you are going to speak about your recent findings, that’s, yes, we have anecdotical evidence that there is disinformation out there. Lots of people are debunking this disinformation. But we don’t really know what’s going on behind the scenes, right? Who is funding this disinformation? What are the systems of distribution? What are the conflicts of interest that are there? And the fund that we launched, there is an open call for those interests, Global Initiative on Information Integrity, open call, you will find it, you can apply until July the 6th, closing the propaganda element. The idea is precisely how we can collect more evidence to support our work, our work in the strategic communications in the U.N. and UNESCO and others, the work of foreign information and democracy and non-devocacy, and the work of governments, on governance, and so on and so forth. So that’s the idea. And basically, we are going to fund research and investigative journalism in these areas. So, to conclude a bit and coming back to my initial story of 20 years ago, when I was training those many journalists in Latin America and discussing climate change, for not a second in any of those hundreds of trainings I did with my team, we were including in the conversation of the journalists the need for them, and today for others, to understand information integrity as part of the problem. They were only looking into the climate change component. And this, it’s not working. We need to look into this connection between those two words. And for me, this is a bit of the beauty of this, and also it’s already a positive message. Because not only us, when I say Brazil, UN and UNESCO, there is, and as Eugênio mentioned, the elements paper of the WSIS is including information integrity, the Global Digital Compact did. So, in that sense, I think there is room for optimism, because there is a concern, and this concern is raising different elements across the board. Thank you.

Camille Grenier: Thank you so much, Guilherme. So, supply, demand and distribution. And as we’ve seen on and on, more access, better access to data, to have a better understanding of what’s actually happening out there, and in these really opaque information ecosystems. Let me now turn to Harriet, and I think we have some slides again, if we can have them. Harriet King-Gabi, co-chair of the Conscious Advertising Network, and also representing today CAD, which is the Climate Action Against Disinformation. And as already mentioned, with you will, and it’s a very interesting presentation, take a deep dive into ad-funded risks to climate information integrity.

Harriet Kingaby: Thank you so much and thank you for the warm welcome today. So for those of you that don’t know, the Conscious Advertising Network is a broad coalition of over 190 brands, advertising agencies and civil society groups. We exist to essentially ensure effective advertising works for everybody. And happily I can say that we are a very practical application of the multi-stakeholder approach that I’ve heard a lot about at this conference. What we essentially do is we know that advertising is causing human rights issues and we know that civil society has the deep knowledge there. We know that advertisers understand the advertising ecosystem extremely well and so we bring those groups together to try and look for solutions. Essentially, as Charlotte said, we’ve just come back from the Cannes Festival of Advertising and although the language that is used is very different, although the way the issues are presented is very different, I can assure you that the issues of information integrity were discussed there incredibly passionately and almost as passionately as I’ve seen them discussed here. I have to say, business is framing them in terms of the business case and I want to unpack that a little bit for you today. But I want to just start out by addressing the elephant in the room, which is that obviously advertisers are on one side of things part of the problem. This is a quote from the IPCC report, Climate Change Impacts Adaption and Vulnerability, that talks about the vested political, organised and financed misinformation and contrarian climate change communication, which is undermining information integrity around climate change. Yes, the advertising industry itself is producing some of that disinformation. Yes, it’s working with clients such as fossil fuel clients that are part of the problem. However, I want to just tell you that this is only a part. of the way that advertising interacts with information integrity and I hope that I can convince you that advertisers can also be a part of the solution today. So this is a hideous graphic but I think it illustrates the attention economy quite well. Advertising is essentially the funding model behind the attention economy and therefore the reason that addiction is designed into the system. Advertising funds the media, it funds the platforms, it funds our more traditional media ecosystem and online the longer we can be kept scrolling, the longer our attention can be kept, the more ads can be served to us and therefore the more profit the platforms can make. And what this has done is this has completely changed the incentive structures behind the production and distribution of content. So quality used to be pretty high up on the agenda, informing citizens, entertaining citizens but in fact now the emphasis on content production is about keeping us hooked, sucking us in and keeping us hooked essentially. And this is creating unhealthy incentives for the production of content that has devastating consequences for information integrity around really important issues such as climate change. Most of this you know, I think there’s been plenty of cleverer people than me talking about that at this conference but the twist that I want you to take away is that this situation does not work for advertisers either and that actually creates opportunities for us to create powerful alliances that can really, really take on some of this system. So let me explain if I can get the clicker to work. Essentially this is too small for you to read maybe but what you need to know is that the global advertising market is enormous. We’re talking one trillion. and Gigi Hadid, thank you so much for joining us. Advertising has grown by over $1 billion as of this year. And it’s growing. And in particular, the digital component of this system is growing. Now, what this means is the problems that we’re talking about today are being amplified. And accelerated. And therefore, they are becoming really business critical for advertisers to understand and to tackle. Much as democracy relies on a sense of shared reality, on trust, advertising also relies on trust. So, where you have a fall in trust in our information ecosystems, advertising also starts to become less effective. So, what this means is businesses are paying more for less return on their advertising spend. And falling trust in information, essentially, is a shared problem that we’re both looking at. Now, at the heart of this problem is the fact that the advertisers are paying more. And they’re paying less. And they’re paying less. And they’re paying less. And they’re paying less. And they’re paying less. And the other part of this problem is the fact that the advertising ecosystem is so incredibly opaque. If you think about how we consume media now, you know, my journey through the media ecosystem will be completely different to Guillermo’s today. It will be different to Charlotte’s. It will be different to all of yours. And the technology required to track me around my personalized media journey and to serve me ads is enormous. There are many actors in this system, many technology companies that do things like this. And they’re all doing it. And they’re all doing it. And they’re all doing it. And there are many actors in this system, many technology companies that do things like collect my data, process that data, work out what ads to serve me, kind of do online auctions to make sure I see the ads that I’m supposed to see. And unlike other corporate supply chains, unlike the supply chain to make this shirt, for example, advertisers have no idea where their advertising is going and what it is funding. There’s no know your customer law. There’s no mapping of those supply chains. And so, what happens is people take advantage. And so, what happens is people take advantage. And so, what happens is people take advantage. And so, what happens is people take advantage. And so, what happens is people take advantage. And so, what happens is people take advantage. And so, what happens is people take advantage. And so, what happens is people take advantage. And so, what happens is people take advantage. And so, what happens is people take advantage. the platforms are taking large amounts of money. And this is coming at the cost of publishers. So we’ve heard about the fall in advertising revenue to publishers, and the impact that’s having on the news system. We heard about news deserts this morning. And there was a report that found that out of every dollar that an advertiser spends and puts into this system, only $0.41 of it actually reaches the publishers. And that used to be much, much more. So the rest of it is swallowed up by organizations like Google, and frankly, organizations we’ve never heard of. And all of this compounds the problem. If you’ve got less reporting on important topics, you’re degrading information integrity, you’ve got less trust. So this is fueling the production and distribution of climate disinformation. And it’s tempting to think that businesses can be opposed to climate action. And sometimes this is true. But there are vast categories of businesses that need us to solve the climate crisis in order to survive. Think about the businesses that make coffee and chocolate or wine. Think about the insurance industry, for example. And essentially, advertisers alone don’t have the tools to solve this problem. They need to work with us, everyone here, in order to make that happen. So I want to show you what I mean, the issues that this system is causing. So writing on this is small for those of you who can’t see it. The advertiser, it’s a screen grab from YouTube. So the advertiser here is called Money Supermarket. They help UK consumers to get quotes from their insurance companies. So they work a lot with insurance companies. And they are advertising on disinformation that suggests that Hurricane Hélène, which went through the US, is somehow linked to the US government controlling the weather. Now, as Charlotte mentioned. This kind of disinformation creates distrust in the institutions that are supposed to help us when extreme weather events happen. It’s also pretty bad for the insurance industry because it slows efforts to sort out the problem. Here is YouTube advertising on its own channels against content spreading disinformation about the clean-up efforts from the Valencian floods that killed hundreds of people. And again, the clean-up efforts were undermined by climate disinformation. This is white percentage points of the Spanish GDP. This situation is not good for business, it is not good for us, but it is not good for them either. And here is Get Your Guide on Oeste, a Brazilian channel with nearly 3 million followers, promoting a narrative which was used during the 2023 Rio Grande disaster as a way to discredit government clean-up efforts. Again, this slowed efforts to help. And, you know, this is still earning money two years later. The reason that I draw your attention to this is this is not content that is organic, this is content that is earning money for its creators. So I’ve singled out YouTube here, but I can find you examples on TikTok and other channels of this, and I can find you examples of creators earning money from this. Nobody wants this system to continue. Not us, not you, not advertisers. Because essentially, not only are they wasting their money, but they’re also putting their brands at reputational risk. So, together, we need to address this. Not one single actor has the power to sort this out. But we do need to start moving conversations on with the platforms away from content, away from individual pieces of content and whack-a-mole, to talking about systems change and the business model. So, UN Global Principles and Information Integrity are a fantastic way of doing that, of looking at that through this systemic lens. So, I’m going to wrap up, I promise. Final slide. The things I want to talk about today are about essentially taking on the information economy. In order to engage advertisers in this situation, we need to be talking about the system which is drawing people in in order to serve them more ads, and therefore prioritizing content which is divisive or untrue. Next, we need to drive transparency through this incredibly opaque system at scale. And I’ll talk more later on about a case study we have of how that can lead to great business outcomes as well as outcomes for society. And also, once they get a handle on their supply chain, they can start to think about investing in pluralistic media and news. So, to summarize, this is good for business and it’s good for us. So, working together in these multi-stakeholder approaches can only bring us better solutions.

Camille Grenier: Thank you so much for this deep dive into the economics of disinformation, much to do indeed with all the different related stakeholders. You mentioned that democracy, we need a sense shared of reality. And that makes a nice transition to our next guest, Frederic Oguenga. Frederic, you are a member of the IPIE, the International Panel on the Information Environment. And you were a member of the Scientific Panel on Information Integrity about climate sciences. You worked for several months, I think nine months, to get to the report that was published last week. And we would like to have this deep dive on what does research tell us about climate disinformation? Because I think that we also need this. This is a global assessment, if we are to come up with appropriate answers. Frederic, the floor is yours. And I think we have to say it again. There you are. Yeah, so, interesting. Thank you so much for the organizers to, first of all, welcome us in Oslo. The IPIE is an entity that looks at the integrity of information environment across the board.

Fredrick Ogenga: So, climate information environment is also one of those things that we look at. And so, what I’m going to talk about today is a report that we compiled over a period of 12 months, looking at about 300 articles and using qualitative and computational methods, as well as quantitative methods to arrive at, which includes also data visualization. But I won’t really go dive into that for the case of time. I want to tell you about really what we found out. We used the linear model of communication by Harold Laswell, which really talks about, because what I’m gathering here in the panel today is there is a crisis in the information environment on climate change. There is clearly a crisis, and that crisis is what made us wonder. And as panelists, which was led by Jensen, Klaus Jensen from the University of Copenhagen, we realized that if you use the communication model, then you realize that there are people who produce those messages, the source, you know, senders of the message, the initiators of the message, and then the channel and the messaging, and then the consequences of their messaging, and then, of course, after that, what then can we do about that kind of messaging? So if you look at that… We are talking about who the actors were, the messages and the channels that they used, their key audiences, and what the consequences of their messaging was, and what solutions we ought to have in that process. So 300 articles were looked at, and then after looking at those articles, we basically inspected the gaps and came up with recommendations. So the first culprits in terms of sources or actors in the datafication of the information environment on climate change is actually fossil fuel companies, corporations, we have politicians, we do have governments, and also some states. We also have legacy and social media, and scientific hands for hire, these are people who are hired to write something about climate change in favor of a particular position. And for example, if I just take a quick example, in countries like the US and North America, we found out that the mainstream media is still led in terms of spreading false information about climate, and this kind of information varied based on the type of media. If it was a conservative media or right-leaning media, you’d see the kind of messaging that come about in those kinds of platforms, and their messages were actually those that disputed the science about climate change, and this is where we find people like the US president, which we saw in the previous slide. So there we also realize that not much is known about the impact of what social media does. in terms of the messaging in social media and how social media therefore impacts on audiences in ways that can be measured and analysed to come up with countermeasures. And so that is one of the gaps that we saw. So this also has been touched around here because we do have a level where there’s no transparency in digital platforms, especially on those who, the people who are owners, the owners of the platforms and those who produce data in those platforms. And so eventually, the messaging, overall messaging that emerged is that strategic scepticism is actually replacing climate denialism. So people are strategically frustrating or obscuring climate science in order to delay the climate response, to cut into the chains of those in the policy line of coming up with measures that are supposed to address climate change and effectively derailing climate interventions. And again, we saw that classic media, of course, is leading in that arena. And I talked about how really it’s still not clear on how social media is impacting directly on audiences. So if this is the scenario, then the kind of messages that we see, the message of obscurity, contrarianism and the climatist cataclysm is something that we see impacting on the information environment on climate change. And these are things that we need to address and deal with. So the key audiences that are supposed to be in the leading front, in the front lines. of climate interventions, who are usually actually policy makers, are derailed and they are targeted. They are targeted by misinformation, and this misinformation also feeds into the policy chain and eventually affects climate intervention. So something needs to be done there. And therefore, effectively, generally, what this does, and panelists have mentioned this, is that it erodes public trust on climate science and also trust in institutions that are responsible for addressing climate change. So it has a double, a dual effect, and if that happens then it becomes challenging to address climate change going forward. So the IPIE in our report, we came up with a few recommendations and about measures that we can take to address the crisis of information integrity on climate science. And one of those measures, some of them have been mentioned, is we need to educate people, we need some level of education, whether it’s on the science of climate change or even the medium that transmits climate change. Because from the model that I began talking about, the linear communication model, we saw that media and channel go hand in hand. So if you educate audiences, our stakeholders, about the media that transmits climate change information and the science of climate change, then we might really go towards getting some level of success in climate intervention. We also have to look at the regulatory and policy environment. and many other stakeholders and government and civil societies coming out and pointing out those people who are responsible for doing what is called greenwashing and to what extent can you litigate on those issues. It’s a grey area, it’s a contentious area and the data is still minimal. So that’s one area that I think it’s an opportunity to explore further in terms of research. And then, I think I’ve touched them all, yes, there’s one that I didn’t talk about which is called counterpublics. Counterpublics are simply, I think, I heard about it from my Brazilian colleague and from my UNESCO colleague here, about how we bring different voices from different spaces to form a coalition of counterpublics who are responsible to counter false discourses and misinformation from these powerful forces that are driving misinformation about climate change. So it’s a coalition of collaboration about defending truth about climate science and also scientists that are responsible for defending climate science and the integrity of information about climate science. I think I’ll leave it there and explore more in the Q&A. Thank you so much.

Camille Grenier: Thank you so much, Frederic. please do take a look at the report. It’s a rather longish report, 127 pages, I think, but there is a very streamlined executive summary that also brings the main conclusion and policy recommendations which are very, very useful in this specific field. We still have a little bit more than half an hour, and we wanted to make sure that we also have an interactive section. We’ve been talking a lot about multi-stakeholderism, so if there are some questions in the room, I think there is already one person and then one there. So maybe we can take the two, and the first two questions, and have…

Audience: Yes, can you please introduce yourself? Thank you very much. My name is Pavel Antonov with Blue Link Action Network in Bulgaria and the APC board. This is seriously becoming my favorite panel since the morning when I heard the one on integrity of journalism. My network supports climate defenders in the Climate Coalition, and as a journalist, it’s extremely interesting to listen to all the solutions you presented. What we have come across is that the climate defenders, as well as other activists around there, seem to… we seem to automatically sort of say they’re the good guys, and we expect always automatically that the problems lie from the industry and from elsewhere, which is true in most cases. But what we realize is that there is a certain lack of norms, lack of standards, that even the climate activists are coming to complain about at some point. They say the information environment has become so volatile, so fractured, we can’t even operate healthily in it. So we thought, what if we come back to the norms of journalism as they used to be 20 years ago? The ones that were saying you need to double-check your sources and offer the opposite point of view to your opponent, even if you disagree, and so on. And we offer this to the broader public, but to the climate defenders, to the civil society as a start, and see how they could abide with that same norms. Will they stop seeking for clicks? Will they stop communicated ungrounded information, would they be willing to take this responsibility? I wanted to hear what do you think about this? Do you think that might actually work as a self-regulatory approach? Thank you. Thank you so much. Hello, my name is Lee Cobb-Ottoman. I come from South Africa. I work for the Ministry of Basic Education. In the parts of the world where I come from, climate change is viewed as a white man’s problem. It is viewed as a matter of whether it is cold or it is hot. But in actual fact, what we see is that it means loss of life, loss of property, loss of assets, and displacement. Now, what are the ethics in information sharing and information dissemination when it comes to climate change and climate action and education for sustainable development? Given that, we don’t want to incite fear, but we’re working with a society that will not do anything unless it responds to a problem. And so you want to then create that picture that this is the problem that you are facing as the African continent and as the world. This is the problem. You’re not inciting fear. Yet, when you find people who are really doing great work about teaching Africans like myself about the impact of climate change in our lives, you’re always going to be seen as somebody who’s inciting fear and anxiety on people. So what are the ethics? What do we need to do? And how far can we go really to ensure that there is that balance of teaching people about this thing as being an issue of sustainability, but also an issue of safety? Thank you so much. Thank you. My name is Agenunga Robert. I come from Democratic Republic of Congo. I work at the border with DRC and Uganda. My submission or question is so much concerned with the information I have noted from different panelists. In the region where I come from, there is massive data collection going on for carbon credit project. Data being collected from indigenous territories, data from community forest. My concern is not about who collect this data, but my worry is where are they keeping this data? What protocols are in place for them to store this data without harming indigenous people or forest dependent community? Because in case this data get leaked or is compromised, it will have a very dangerous consequences on indigenous people and forest dependent community. Because I have seen it in Congo where land is being stolen and forest given away to foreign investors to mine critical minerals needed to power AI and other things. So, that is very painful. But also, when you look at the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on situation of environmental defenders under ARUS Convention, Mr. Michel Faust, he noted recently that environmental activists and human rights defenders who work on issues of climate justice are not only targeted physically, but also emotionally. and the other one is that they have no legal intimidation but also their surveillance and their data is spied by government. In Brazil, in the Democratic Republic of Congo and also in Indonesia, these are three major forest places where activists are at risk. And I don’t know at UNESCO level, a colleague from UNESCO, what international mechanisms are in place to ensure that members’ countries abide by so that data concerning forest, indigenous territories or even security of defenders working on forest and climate justice is protected. Myself, I worked for 12 years as a digital security trainer helping indigenous people in the Congo Basin to communicate and work safely. But beginning from January 2024, I became a member of parliament in the DRC National Assembly but I see myself more as an activist who took himself to the parliament because in government there is a lot of bureaucracy and I continue with the activism helping human rights defenders, environmental activists and indigenous people to protect their land. But now we have the big threat is the project by Brazil which is called, it is called the Tropical Forest Forever Facility. My colleague from Brazil should be aware of this. This is a multi-billion project scheduled to be launched in Brazil at the COP, the next COP. This project, if developed, it means indigenous people or forest-dependent community can receive 4% of contribution being made from the sale of carbon credit generated from their forest. And for this to be quantified, data need to be collected on the carbon potential of forestry. And last month we had a meeting of three forest world basin in Brazzaville in Congo, people from Indonesia, Brazil, and Congo basin and also Rwanda gathered in Brazzaville for a week. And the question here was data integrity, who is using this data, how will a local chief know that his forest is the one providing global environmental benefit, yet he doesn’t have the data. And what make Brazzaville and other partner government to only remit 4% of the total benefit arriving from, you know, carbon credit of arriving from climate benefit being provided by forest countries providing benefit of climate mitigation.

Camille Grenier: Thank you. Thank you so much for your question. I like how we touched upon the vast majority, the vast topics, all the different topics that we can include in the concept of information integrity ranging from journalism and the ethics of journalism to data governance. So, before turning and giving the floor to other questions, I don’t know if some of you would like to react and answer some of the questions, would you like to go first?

Charlotte Scaddan: Sure. Perhaps I could speak to the second question about fear, which I think is, I can’t actually see the gentleman who asked, yeah, there you go. Thank you for asking that question. It’s an excellent one. And I can tell you it’s one that as communicators on climate we have been grappling with for a very long time. And what we have learned over a period of many years is that, you know, yes, fear can be a motivator, but fear is not going to inspire people. And I think there are ways that one can communicate the urgency and gravity of the climate crisis without necessarily resorting to fear. and the other is the real world. People need to understand the real, the situation that we’re facing. There’s no getting around it. But what they also need to know is what they can do about it or what the government can do about it. What actions they can actually take. They need to see specific examples of especially community-led actions. I think that’s what people can really relate to. In terms of the impacts, I think that’s what we need to look at. I think that when we talk about climate change, it becomes this overwhelming topic, right? You just want to shut down. Because you feel that you can’t, you feel that you can’t do anything about it on an individual level. And that’s true, right? We need to look to the fossil fuel industry and governments and others to take action. But I think that there are steps that we can all take, including if we live in democracies, we can vote, right, for candidates who support climate action. But we also need to look at the impact of climate change on people’s lives, right? And we need to look at what are some of the individual impacts, the economic impacts, but also the economic benefits of climate action, right? How does it affect people’s wallet? How does it affect people’s daily lives? And their quality of life. So, I think that, yes, it’s important to stress the reality

Camille Grenier: of the situation. And that might be scary. But equally, it’s important at the same time to offer really solid solutions and the way forward. So, I think that’s the way forward. Thank you very much.

Fredrick Ogenga: So, I would want to combine two questions. One that was asked about journalism and going back to the tenets of journalism to address the climate change problematic. And also with that aspect of use of data and how sure are you that you are using the right data. So, my question, first of all, in this report, we asked ourselves in the report what is the relationship with This is really the measure, the threshold of information integrity about climate science. And we came up with a few issues that are familiar. You know, things like accuracy, you know, transparency, reliability of data. Transparency, accuracy, and reliability of data, and how consistent that data is. Because climate science data has also been inconsistent. If you say global warming is bringing about climate change, then tomorrow you are saying something else. You’re becoming inconsistent. And that’s the standard we see in climate misinformation. So for that, I think we also observed in the study that minimal studies have been done in the global south. In fact, we came about, out of 300 studies, we only uncovered one study from South Africa that touches on the metrics that we are measuring. So global south minimal data, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. Very minimal data. Most of the data was coming from North America, Europe, China, and Russia. So that tells us something about also our interest in wanting to venture into research, to produce homegrown data that can inform us. And to that extent also comes the question of infrastructure. Because when you want to solve climate, when you want climate solutions out of data, then you also need to make that data secure. And therefore the question of infrastructure comes in where we lack data centers that are reliable. And if you have to have magnitude of data on data sets in climate science, then you need to host them elsewhere.

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: And so how sure are you? very briefly a few things. On the question on standards of journalism and ethics, etc., of course this is very important. I don’t know if you were here when I was speaking. It’s not about one thing or the other. It’s one thing and the other. So these standards, these self-regulatory elements are important and necessary, but they won’t solve parts of the problem that are crucial to address the issue. For example, the transparency of the social media companies or the AI companies, or demanding them to have human rights-based content moderation and content curation mechanism. So we just need to be careful to say that let’s invest in this thing and forget the other, because it’s not going to work. It’s a complex puzzle and unfortunately we need all the pieces of this puzzle. But on the standards, we also need to be careful that when we are talking about the standardized criteria for journalism of getting the other side, this is all fantastic. The best that can happen to climate discussion, it’s not activism journalism, it’s independent journalism. But independent journalism also means that you can’t compare reports of the IPCC that shows with 99% of reliability that we have a problem and put this as if it was equal to the other 1% of people saying that we don’t have an issue, right? I’m in favor that the journalists speak with… the others, but also underlining to the reader or to the listener that there is an unbalance here that is not the same, right? So this is super important. On what you, the question from the gentleman from South Africa, when you said this is perceived as a white man problem, this is precisely what we want with this initiative in stimulating more research and more investigative journalism from the Global South. Why this narrative is like that and where this is coming from, what is the impact? Because what you are saying here is something I didn’t knew. It shows that is different the problem in terms of information integrity in where you are, probably is different in Brazil, is different in Indonesia and so on. So this is super important in what we are trying to stimulate. And finally on the data story, we are launching under the Broadband Commission with UNDP and others, a global toolkit on data governance, precisely addressing these kind of issues. And then on your last question in terms of violence and others against the journalists, etc. Last year we dedicated the World Press Freedom Day entirely to this discussion, and then we can talk later, but we produced a roadmap talking with the journalists, the scientists, and how to address also these issues of attacks against those voices, those critical voices that are speaking about climate change or climate disinformation and other environmental issues. Thank you.

Camille Grenier: Thank you Guilherme. Maybe a quick remark from Harriet Kingaby Eugenio or could we go back, no?

Harriet Kingaby: I wanted to make the link back as well to, I think mainly around the first question, but I wanted to give an example of the unhealthy incentives that are linked to some of these issues. So I wanted to take the idea of quality of journalistic standards and how these are being impacted by the incentives we talked about. We did a piece of research about five years ago, and we looked at safe climate content online. So, you know, the most the most robust, entertaining, shared climate content online. And we found that actually something like 70 percent of that content couldn’t monetize through advertising. So that means that there’s no economic incentive for news organizations to produce that content. And it’s why it’s so important that we get advertisers around the table, because what they’re doing is they’re blocking climate content because they think it’s too political or too risky for their brand to appear next to. So what this does is it completely disincentivizes the really great quality journalism around one of the most important issues of our time. We need to get them around the table and reinforce the idea. And we’ve got people that can make the business case that actually their advertising performs well. We also need to reinforce the idea that it’s of the utmost importance that they actually go and advertise there because we need better standards. It’s also really important because then the third thing is that the platforms aren’t incentivizing this content because it’s not, you know, because it doesn’t keep necessarily keep people on the kind of platforms in the way that they want, because, you know, they’re after eyeballs and attention and addiction, right? So it’s really important that we then get the advertisers around the table with the platforms to go, actually, this is incredibly important for us.

Camille Grenier: It’s incredibly important for everyone in this room. And you need to do something about it. And we’ve seen that can create change. So Google introduced their first climate disinformation monetization policy because of that dynamic. So, yeah. Thank you so much. I’m not trying to answer all the questions. I would be happy to discuss some of the specific points that were raised, but talk to the African colleagues in the audience.

Fredrick Ogenga: I think we need more countries from the global south to join this effort because we have the global initiative on information integrity. and Climate Change. Some countries have joined. I remember Chile, Denmark, France, Morocco, Sweden, United Kingdom. Several others also expressed interest in joining, but we need more developing countries as well. And everything that we need is political commitment. We don’t ask anything else, but political commitment to join forces to address climate change and information integrity as a package, as something that we should see this both ways, and how we can move forward in this regard. Absolutely, thanks for raising the point. And to come back to the question, if you could make them short so that we can have some time to respond. Thank you so much. Sure. Good afternoon. My name is Mbadi. I’m from UNHCR,

Audience: based in Pretoria. And as you know, UNHCR, we deal a lot with refugees and asylum seekers. And these are oftentimes groups of people that have very limited, reliable information, especially with climate risks. So in a country like Botswana, for example, where we have the encampment policy, how then do you think we can practically ensure that these groups of people are exposed to reliable information? Because in an encampment space, that I think is a place where misinformation can spread widely. So what are some of the practical ways that we can counter that? Thank you. Thank you so much for the question. Hi, my name is Larry Maggett. I’m CEO of Connect Safely, which is a Silicon Valley-based NGO that educates parents and young people about various aspects of internet online safety. And we partner very closely with Meta, Google, Apple, Amazon, and many of the technology companies that we work with. in and around Silicon Valley. I’m also a former journalist with CBS News, New York Times, LA Times, and BBC and still write a syndicated column and do a national radio show for CBS. And I, we work very closely with young people and the one thing that seems to be at least anecdotally evident is that young people are very concerned about climate change. I will probably pass on before the world is in serious decay, but the young people are going to have to live with it and potentially die with it, which is tragic. And I’m trying to figure out in our work, working on internet safety and working with our youth advisory council, how we can energize those young people and take advantage of their energy and their concern to channel some of their activities in ways that will actually have an impact on decision makers, policy makers, industry, and government. Thank you so much. Thank you. My name is Mikko Salo. I’m representing a Finnish NGO, Faktabar, who has been working on the fact-checking and mostly on the digital information literacy and especially in AI literacy. But very much on a follow-up of the previous person, one of the most promising thing that we did was we were fact-checking Greta Thunberg at the time. And as we know, she was more, I mean, she has had both of the issues very closely, and she was mostly right on everything, but of course became a huge campaigns, very polarizing and all that. But I was wondering what have you learned about the Greta Thunberg case, because she was really empowering the youngsters and perhaps the COVID killed the movement in the moment because people were really, young people were really doing something because now they are becoming vegetables with the technology, addicted to that one. But that was something. There is something very promising, but I wonder what could be done differently, because there is something right. Thank you. Thank you so much. One last question very quickly, please. Hi, this is Jasmine Ku from Hong Kong. So last year I was the national youth representative of ALCOI, the Regional Conference of Youth, endorsed by Yuan Yangguo on climate change. So one thing that I found, it’s a reflection for me in the conference, when we are drafting youth statements for the region, we have not considered and thought about information integrity as a problem on climate change when we are drafting the agenda and things. So for me, my reflection and also a question is, how could we possibly bring this topic into youth statements? Because the thing is, our region, the thing that they did not consider problematic enough is because there are a lot of corporate greenwashing and solutions provided. And the thing is, this kind of information has been overflowing, and then people believe that the problem has been tackled very well. That’s why it’s never on the agenda in a youth statement. So it’s just my question. Thank you very much.

Camille Grenier: Thank you so much for these brilliant questions on the place of young people in these debates, and on how to make sure that reliable information is accessible to all the different communities. There is very quickly one question online that is addressed directly to Professor Genga, and I will try to sum it up. But basically, it argues that if we have such a lack of data, how can we build actual policies? And probably in the global majority world, how can we make sure that with the lack of data, we can build factual and actual policies? We still have eight minutes and five speakers, so maybe we can do a quick round-up. And if you’d like to address, I really like the question related to the youth, access to reliable information and policy development. Who wants to go first?

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: I can start very quickly. Yeah, Guilherme. So, I mean, on the question of refugees and migration, etc., I think the colleagues, but you can add, I guess, Charlotte, in the UNHCR in Geneva, they are doing lots of interesting things on that. But there are interesting lessons learned from the past, using radio in refugee camps to debunk these and to stimulate information sharing, etc. But the essential issue here that I think is very important with this question is that we need to put a lot of focus on groups that are in a situation of vulnerability and marginalization, whoever they are. So, the issues of multilingualism, of the special protections that are needed, are super important in this conversation. Regarding the several questions on youth and Greta, for those who don’t know, I would strongly recommend for you to look into the Guardian project that’s called the 89% project, which basically is very solid research saying that 89% of the people in this planet do believe that we have a climate problem. The question is why they are not taking action. And some of our hypotheses are related to how the disinformation is shifting. It’s not any longer about saying there is not a problem. It’s much more sophisticated than that. But we do need to understand the characteristics of this disinformation to then sophisticate our own actions on that. And then it comes to the last point I wanted to comment, stealing a bit of the thunder. I would like to ask you a question regarding what the panel has produced on the data issue, the lack of evidence to produce evidence-based policy. So I do this call for action to you, apply to the global initiative, because this is precisely what we want to see. We want to see more data being produced, more information being produced, so that we can circulate more information to produce evidence-based policy. And of course, for the donors in the Rumo Online, contribute to the fund, because then we can fund more research and data production.

Camille Grenier: And I think we can thank Brazil for putting the first million in the fund, which is very, very crucial, specifically in the funding landscape that we all operate in.

Charlotte Scaddan: So we still have five minutes. Yeah, just because I want to speak to the excellent question about offline engagement. And I think just to build on what Guilherme was saying about vulnerable and marginalized groups, when we started out on the process of coming up with the global principles, we initially were just going to focus on the digital space, but quickly realized through the course of our global consultations that actually we needed to take a much broader approach because, of course, as we all know, there are many people who have inadequate connectivity or no connectivity at all, who aren’t in a position to engage digitally, who are still impacted by the disinformation and hate that’s spread online. But I think one of the things I touched on in my remarks was what we term community engagement. And this also is really valid, not just in terms of the UN’s work on refugees, but our work in peacekeeping environments and all over the world, that we have to be in communities listening to people. That has to happen face to face. And one thing that’s important for us all to remember is that we talk about news, we talk about major influences, we talk about digital. But most people are most influenced by the people they know. They’re influenced by their pastor or priest, by their teacher, by their local community leader, by their uncle, by their cousin. And that is how we can effectively reach people, by identifying those local community voices who are trusted, local community leaders, and sharing reliable information with them so that they can then amplify in a way that’s going to be engaging. So I would say that’s a really important point about offline. And then just on youth, I would say, and I’m not a youth anymore, sadly, but we need to engage with youth in a meaningful way by actually listening to them on an equal footing. Bring them to the table. Not being an add-on to a process, but having them integrated from the start. Because there’s a lot we can learn from them, they’re digital natives and we’re not.

Camille Grenier: Thank you. Absolutely. So we’ve come to the last point. Eugênio.

Fredrick Ogenga: Real quick, my final remarks. I fully agree with the need to engage young people. And we have this call to action that we expect individuals, organizations to submit concrete proposals on information integrity and climate change. I think we need to build momentum because COP30 is going to be the culmination of these global efforts. And we’re also planning to have high-level side events in Belém to showcase these initiatives. And of course, this is an open invitation to you all, the audience here, also people online to stay tuned because this call to action will be released soon. And we are glad to see that many stakeholders have already expressed interest in sending

Camille Grenier: proposals and will be, of course, available for any follow-up as needed. Thank you so much for opening the doors of COP30 also to this community working on information integrity. It’s really, really important. I just wanted, I felt like if I go without responding to that question from, I think it’s an online audience, yeah, who asked about where there’s lack of data, the global south, then what do we do?

Fredrick Ogenga: Yeah. Well, this I think it’s an online audience, yeah, who asked about where there’s lack of data, the global south, then what do we do? Yeah. This is a challenge that emerges from a trajectory of orality because Africans are oral by nature, but it doesn’t mean that they are not climate experts. And for example, the Ogiek community in Kenya, a community that is known for preserving forests. So the capitalistic way of looking at climate interventions really disregards their local wisdom on how to address the climate challenge using carbon credit programs that are more from global multinationals as opposed to grassroot approaches. So my suggestion would be, what are the grassroot approaches that we can find, you know, through primary research? So as opposed to what we did, because we did a systematic review, that is not going to the field and engaging with the local, the locality, so that you can dive into the local knowledge repository to get data that then can inform a practical, more meaningful practical interventions. And therefore, after you do that, you simply monitor and evaluate, iterate, and develop literature about it so that it can guide your interventions going forward. Luckily, that is what is lacking. So my suggestion would be that we need to look into ways in which we can partner with those who are capable of making us be in a position where we can co-create together and then be able to use locally available resources and infrastructures to come up with data that can bring, for example, greening, you know, just planting trees, it’s not rocket science. But how many are we that are doing tree planting or maybe fruit tree planting at the grassroot level? We take it for granted. So it’s at that level. It’s time we stop taking those things for granted, we document them and we see how those things can help us in finding our own knowledge and data about where we want to move forward with the problem of climate change.

Camille Grenier: Thank you so much. Harriet, one last?

Harriet Kingaby: I will be very quick and I’ll answer the point about young people. So I talk about these issues quite a lot and the last time I talked about these issues I was on stage after a young woman called Adele Zeynep Walton who has just written a book. And she wrote this book because her younger sister unfortunately took her own life after being served content online through exactly the kind of patterns that I’ve described that encouraged her to do so. And there is a crisis in the mental health of young people and that is exacerbated by what is happening to them online. And I got very cross yesterday after a panel, I won’t lie, because someone said we need to wait for regulation around this and we absolutely do, we need regulation of this space. But people are getting hurt in the interim and we need to do everything we can to move very quickly to solve these problems. And that includes helping our young people to feel hopeful about the future, releasing them from the systems that are addicting them and pulling them online and helping them to despair. So I’ll just leave you with that, we solve everything we talked about today and we will also go some way to looking at the mental health crisis in young people today. Thank you so much for these last remarks. There is a word that comes and Eugenio mentioned, mutirao, I hope I’m pronouncing it alright.

Camille Grenier: And really I would like to take this word because information integrity, as you may have understood today, is a big house and everybody is welcome to bring their own contribution to build that. and make sure that we have access to reliable information, that we protect our youth, that we protect access to facts, journalists, activists from around the world. And really, I think that with this global initiative, with the fund, with the call to action, we have a very precious thing that will take forward and that will bring to COP and hopefully beyond COP 30. That will be, of course, crucial. Thank you so much for being with us today. And of course, remain available. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach is essential for addressing climate information integrity

Speakers

– Charlotte Scaddan
– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi
– Harriet Kingaby

Arguments

Solutions must address structural obstacles including platform transparency, advertising accountability, and protection of information sources

The problem requires both qualifying the supply of information and empowering citizens to navigate the information ecosystem

Advertisers can be part of the solution by demanding transparency and investing in pluralistic media coverage of climate issues

Summary

All speakers agree that addressing climate disinformation requires coordinated action across multiple stakeholder groups including governments, platforms, advertisers, civil society, and communities rather than siloed approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Human rights

Current research and data on climate disinformation is insufficient, particularly in the Global South

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi
– Fredrick Ogenga

Arguments

More investigative journalism and research funding is needed to understand the sources, channels, and impacts of climate disinformation

Current research on climate disinformation is concentrated in a handful of countries, with minimal data from the Global South

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the critical need for more comprehensive research and evidence collection, especially in underrepresented regions, to understand and combat climate disinformation effectively

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Environmental journalists and information sources face increasing threats and need protection

Speakers

– Camille Grenier
– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi
– Audience

Arguments

Environmental journalists face increasing threats, harassment, and physical attacks for investigating climate and environmental issues

Vulnerable and marginalized groups, including refugees, need special attention and multilingual approaches to access reliable climate information

Scientists and environmental defenders are being targeted both physically and through surveillance of their data and communications

Summary

There is strong consensus that those producing and disseminating reliable climate information face escalating dangers and require systematic protection measures

Topics

Human rights | Cybersecurity

Youth engagement must be meaningful and treat young people as equal partners

Speakers

– Charlotte Scaddan
– Harriet Kingaby

Arguments

Young people are deeply concerned about climate change but need meaningful engagement as equal partners rather than add-ons to processes

Mental health impacts on young people are exacerbated by online systems that promote despair rather than hope about climate action

Summary

Both speakers agree that youth must be genuinely included as equal stakeholders in climate information integrity efforts, not merely consulted as an afterthought

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers represent the core partnership behind the Global Initiative and share a commitment to institutionalizing information integrity through international frameworks and concrete funding mechanisms

Speakers

– Eugênio Garcia
– Charlotte Scaddan
– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi

Arguments

Brazil launched the Global Initiative during G20 presidency, making information integrity a priority for the first time in G20 history

The UN’s Global Principles for Information Integrity provide a framework for action across five principles including societal trust, healthy incentives, and transparency

UNESCO’s approach recognizes information as a public good requiring support for both supply and demand sides of the information ecosystem

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers recognize that climate disinformation has evolved from outright denial to more sophisticated tactics aimed at undermining trust in institutions and delaying action

Speakers

– Charlotte Scaddan
– Fredrick Ogenga

Arguments

Climate disinformation creates distrust in institutions responsible for climate action and undermines public trust in climate science

Strategic skepticism is replacing climate denialism to delay climate response and derail climate interventions

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasize the importance of community-level engagement and the need to reach vulnerable populations through trusted local channels rather than top-down approaches

Speakers

– Charlotte Scaddan
– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi

Arguments

Community-based approaches are essential, as people are most influenced by trusted local voices like pastors, teachers, and community leaders

Vulnerable and marginalized groups, including refugees, need special attention and multilingual approaches to access reliable climate information

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Unexpected consensus

Advertising industry as both problem and solution

Speakers

– Charlotte Scaddan
– Harriet Kingaby

Arguments

Solutions must address structural obstacles including platform transparency, advertising accountability, and protection of information sources

The attention economy funded by advertising creates unhealthy incentives that prioritize divisive content over quality information

Explanation

It’s unexpected that there’s consensus on engaging the advertising industry as a key stakeholder in solving information integrity issues, given that advertising is also identified as part of the problem. This represents a pragmatic approach to working with economic actors who have power to drive change

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Integration of local and indigenous knowledge systems

Speakers

– Fredrick Ogenga
– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi

Arguments

Local and indigenous knowledge systems need to be documented and integrated into climate information integrity efforts

UNESCO’s approach recognizes information as a public good requiring support for both supply and demand sides of the information ecosystem

Explanation

The consensus on valuing traditional knowledge systems alongside formal research approaches is unexpected in a discussion focused on digital information integrity, showing recognition that solutions must be culturally grounded and inclusive

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

There is strong consensus among speakers on the need for multi-stakeholder approaches, protection of information sources, meaningful youth engagement, and addressing research gaps particularly in the Global South. The speakers also agree on the evolution of climate disinformation tactics and the importance of community-based solutions.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary rather than conflicting perspectives. The speakers represent different sectors but share aligned goals and approaches, suggesting strong potential for collaborative action. The consensus extends beyond problem identification to specific solutions and implementation strategies, indicating readiness for coordinated global action on climate information integrity.

Different viewpoints

Scope of responsibility for addressing climate disinformation

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi
– Audience

Arguments

UNESCO’s approach recognizes information as a public good requiring support for both supply and demand sides of the information ecosystem

Scientists and environmental defenders are being targeted both physically and through surveillance of their data and communications

Summary

While Guilherme emphasizes a balanced approach between citizen education and systemic support, audience members focused more heavily on protecting vulnerable groups and activists, suggesting different priorities in resource allocation and intervention strategies.

Topics

Human rights | Development

Unexpected differences

Approach to journalistic standards in climate reporting

Speakers

– Audience
– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi

Arguments

Youth movements like those inspired by Greta Thunberg show promise but need sustained support and integration into policy processes

UNESCO’s approach recognizes information as a public good requiring support for both supply and demand sides of the information ecosystem

Explanation

An audience member suggested returning to traditional journalism norms of presenting ‘both sides’ equally, while Guilherme cautioned against false balance, arguing that 99% scientific consensus shouldn’t be presented as equal to 1% dissent. This represents a fundamental disagreement about journalistic objectivity versus accuracy in climate reporting.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus on the fundamental problems and need for multi-stakeholder solutions, with disagreements mainly centered on emphasis and approach rather than core objectives. The main areas of difference involved the balance between individual versus systemic interventions, the role of different stakeholders, and approaches to research and evidence-gathering.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers largely agreed on problem identification and general solution directions, but differed on priorities, implementation strategies, and stakeholder emphasis. This suggests a mature field where practitioners agree on fundamentals but are still working out optimal approaches, which is actually positive for collaborative action and policy development.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers represent the core partnership behind the Global Initiative and share a commitment to institutionalizing information integrity through international frameworks and concrete funding mechanisms

Speakers

– Eugênio Garcia
– Charlotte Scaddan
– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi

Arguments

Brazil launched the Global Initiative during G20 presidency, making information integrity a priority for the first time in G20 history

The UN’s Global Principles for Information Integrity provide a framework for action across five principles including societal trust, healthy incentives, and transparency

UNESCO’s approach recognizes information as a public good requiring support for both supply and demand sides of the information ecosystem

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers recognize that climate disinformation has evolved from outright denial to more sophisticated tactics aimed at undermining trust in institutions and delaying action

Speakers

– Charlotte Scaddan
– Fredrick Ogenga

Arguments

Climate disinformation creates distrust in institutions responsible for climate action and undermines public trust in climate science

Strategic skepticism is replacing climate denialism to delay climate response and derail climate interventions

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasize the importance of community-level engagement and the need to reach vulnerable populations through trusted local channels rather than top-down approaches

Speakers

– Charlotte Scaddan
– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi

Arguments

Community-based approaches are essential, as people are most influenced by trusted local voices like pastors, teachers, and community leaders

Vulnerable and marginalized groups, including refugees, need special attention and multilingual approaches to access reliable climate information

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Key takeaways

Climate disinformation is fundamentally a democratic issue that undermines trust in institutions and delays climate action through strategic skepticism rather than outright denialism

Information integrity requires a multi-stakeholder ecosystem approach rather than focusing on individual actors, involving supply side (journalists, scientists), demand side (citizens), and distribution channels (platforms, advertisers)

The Global Initiative on Information Integrity and Climate Change represents unprecedented international cooperation, with Brazil pledging $1 million and making it a G20 priority for the first time

The advertising industry inadvertently funds climate disinformation through opaque supply chains but can be part of the solution by demanding transparency and supporting quality climate journalism

Research gaps are severe, particularly in the Global South, hampering evidence-based policy development and requiring urgent investment in local research and investigative journalism

Environmental journalists and climate defenders face increasing physical and digital threats, requiring international protection mechanisms

Youth engagement must be meaningful and equal rather than tokenistic, as young people are most affected by climate change and online mental health impacts

Community-based approaches are essential since people trust local voices more than mainstream media or institutions

Resolutions and action items

Launch a Call to Action for COP30 that will be open to all stakeholders to submit concrete proposals on information integrity and climate change

UNESCO’s Global Fund will provide funding for research and investigative journalism, with an open call closing July 6th

Plan high-level side events at COP30 in Belém to showcase information integrity initiatives

Develop a global toolkit on data governance under the Broadband Commission with UNDP

Engage advertisers at industry events like Cannes to promote information integrity principles

Expand research efforts particularly in the Global South to fill critical evidence gaps

Implement community-based approaches using trusted local voices for climate information dissemination

Unresolved issues

How to balance communicating climate urgency without inciting fear while motivating action, particularly in contexts where climate change is seen as ‘a white man’s problem’

Lack of transparency in digital platforms and AI systems that continue to spread climate disinformation

Protection mechanisms for environmental defenders’ data security, particularly regarding carbon credit projects and indigenous territories

How to effectively reach vulnerable populations like refugees in camps with reliable climate information

Integration of information integrity concerns into youth climate statements and movements

Economic sustainability of quality climate journalism when platforms demonetize climate content

How to incorporate local and indigenous knowledge systems into formal climate information frameworks

Addressing the mental health crisis among young people exacerbated by online climate despair

Suggested compromises

Applying traditional journalism standards (fact-checking, multiple sources) to climate activism while recognizing the scientific consensus is not equivalent to fringe denial views

Balancing the need for urgent climate communication with avoiding fear-based messaging by always pairing problems with specific, actionable solutions

Combining top-down policy approaches with grassroots community engagement to address different information needs and trust levels

Working with rather than against the advertising industry by demonstrating business cases for supporting quality climate information

Integrating both digital and offline approaches to reach all populations regardless of connectivity levels

So we lose what the bad actors already knew at that time, the ecosystem logic of this. So the initiative, that one that I did 20 years ago, was very successful in its goals… But when we were talking with them, or even with the scientists, the logic is the scientists want to know how to give better interviews for the journalists. The scientists were not even thinking that there was an important field of research on the issue of information integrity… And this was a huge mistake of our part because we were not prepared enough to think the rest of the ecosystem.

Speaker

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it reveals a fundamental strategic error in past approaches to climate communication – focusing on individual actors rather than understanding the systemic nature of information ecosystems. It demonstrates how well-intentioned efforts can fail when they don’t account for the coordinated, ecosystem-wide approach that disinformation actors use.

Impact

This comment fundamentally reframed the discussion from viewing information integrity as a series of individual problems to understanding it as a complex ecosystem challenge. It established the theoretical foundation for why multi-stakeholder approaches are necessary and influenced subsequent speakers to emphasize systemic solutions rather than isolated interventions.

Most of this you know, I think there’s been plenty of cleverer people than me talking about that at this conference but the twist that I want you to take away is that this situation does not work for advertisers either and that actually creates opportunities for us to create powerful alliances that can really, really take on some of this system.

Speaker

Harriet Kingaby

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it completely reframes advertisers from being part of the problem to potential allies in the solution. It challenges the typical adversarial framing and introduces a strategic insight about aligned interests that opens new pathways for action.

Impact

This comment shifted the conversation from a defensive posture against harmful actors to a more strategic approach of building coalitions with unexpected allies. It introduced the concept that economic incentives can be realigned to support information integrity, which became a recurring theme in subsequent discussions about sustainable solutions.

So people are strategically frustrating or obscuring climate science in order to delay the climate response, to cut into the chains of those in the policy line of coming up with measures that are supposed to address climate change and effectively derailing climate interventions… strategic scepticism is actually replacing climate denialism.

Speaker

Fredrick Ogenga

Reason

This observation is crucial because it identifies the evolution of climate disinformation tactics from outright denial to more sophisticated delay strategies. This insight reveals why traditional counter-narratives focused on proving climate change exists are no longer sufficient.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion’s analytical sophistication by showing how disinformation tactics have evolved. It helped other panelists and the audience understand why current approaches may be inadequate and influenced the conversation toward more nuanced response strategies that address delay tactics rather than just denial.

In countries like the US and North America, we found out that the mainstream media is still led in terms of spreading false information about climate… What many institutions have long thought, and I include the UN in that, have long thought as mainstream media is no longer mainstream. The mainstream has shifted, and that’s true across many geographies.

Speaker

Charlotte Scaddan

Reason

This comment is profoundly insightful because it challenges fundamental assumptions about media landscapes and information distribution. It forces a reconsideration of communication strategies based on outdated models of how information flows.

Impact

This observation prompted a significant shift in how participants discussed outreach and communication strategies. It moved the conversation away from traditional media-focused approaches toward community-level engagement and influenced discussions about reaching people through trusted local voices rather than institutional channels.

In the region where I come from, climate change is viewed as a white man’s problem. It is viewed as a matter of whether it is cold or it is hot. But in actual fact, what we see is that it means loss of life, loss of property, loss of assets, and displacement… what are the ethics in information sharing and information dissemination when it comes to climate change?

Speaker

Lee Cobb-Ottoman (audience member)

Reason

This comment is exceptionally thought-provoking because it exposes how climate change communication can be perceived as culturally biased and disconnected from lived realities. It raises profound ethical questions about how to communicate urgency without perpetuating colonial or paternalistic narratives.

Impact

This intervention fundamentally challenged the panel’s framing and forced a deeper examination of cultural and ethical dimensions of climate communication. It led to more nuanced discussions about local knowledge systems, community-based approaches, and the need for research and solutions that emerge from the Global South rather than being imposed from outside.

We are in effect guinea pigs in an information experiment in which the resilience of our societies is being put to the test… People just don’t know what’s real, what to believe.

Speaker

Charlotte Scaddan

Reason

This metaphor is striking because it captures the unprecedented nature of our current information environment and the societal-scale risks we face. It frames the current moment as an uncontrolled experiment with democracy and social cohesion at stake.

Impact

This vivid characterization heightened the urgency of the discussion and helped frame information integrity as a fundamental threat to social stability. It influenced subsequent speakers to emphasize the democratic and societal implications of their work, moving beyond technical solutions to consider broader social resilience.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed the discussion from a relatively straightforward presentation of initiatives into a sophisticated analysis of systemic challenges and strategic opportunities. Guilherme’s ecosystem insight established the theoretical foundation for understanding information integrity as a complex system rather than isolated problems. Harriet’s reframing of advertisers as potential allies introduced strategic thinking about coalition-building and economic incentives. The research findings about evolved disinformation tactics and shifted media landscapes challenged assumptions about effective response strategies. Most importantly, the intervention from the Global South participant forced the entire panel to confront issues of cultural bias and ethical responsibility in climate communication. Together, these comments elevated the discussion from operational details to strategic and ethical considerations, creating a more nuanced understanding of both the challenges and opportunities in addressing climate disinformation. The conversation evolved from presenting solutions to questioning fundamental assumptions about how information systems work and how change can be achieved.

How can we better understand the impact of social media on audiences regarding climate disinformation in measurable ways?

Speaker

Fredrick Ogenga

Explanation

There is a significant gap in understanding how social media platforms specifically impact audiences with climate disinformation, which is crucial for developing effective countermeasures

What are the governance mechanisms and transparency requirements needed for digital platforms, especially regarding climate disinformation?

Speaker

Fredrick Ogenga and Charlotte Scaddan

Explanation

The lack of transparency in digital platforms about ownership, data sources, and content moderation makes it difficult to address climate disinformation systematically

How can we expand research on climate disinformation in the Global South, Latin America, and Southeast Asia?

Speaker

Fredrick Ogenga

Explanation

Out of 300 studies reviewed, only one was from South Africa, indicating a massive research gap in understanding climate disinformation in these regions

What are the legal frameworks and litigation possibilities for addressing greenwashing and climate disinformation?

Speaker

Fredrick Ogenga

Explanation

This is described as a ‘grey area’ and ‘contentious area’ where data is still minimal, requiring further legal and policy research

How can we develop secure data infrastructure for climate science data in regions lacking reliable data centers?

Speaker

Fredrick Ogenga and Agenunga Robert

Explanation

The need for secure hosting of climate data sets is crucial, especially when data must be stored elsewhere due to lack of local infrastructure

What protocols are needed to protect data collected for carbon credit projects from indigenous territories?

Speaker

Agenunga Robert

Explanation

There are concerns about data security and potential harm to indigenous communities if carbon credit data is compromised or misused

How can we ensure that only 4% of carbon credit benefits go to forest-dependent communities while protecting their data rights?

Speaker

Agenunga Robert

Explanation

Questions about fair distribution of benefits from the Tropical Forest Forever Facility and data governance for indigenous communities

What self-regulatory standards should climate activists and civil society adopt to maintain information integrity?

Speaker

Pavel Antonov

Explanation

Concerns about whether climate defenders should adopt traditional journalism standards to avoid contributing to the fractured information environment

What are the ethical boundaries for communicating climate urgency without inciting fear, particularly in regions where climate change is viewed as a distant problem?

Speaker

Lee Cobb-Ottoman

Explanation

Balancing the need to communicate climate risks effectively while avoiding fear-mongering, especially in contexts where climate change is not seen as locally relevant

How can reliable climate information be effectively delivered to refugee populations in encampment settings?

Speaker

Mbadi (UNHCR representative)

Explanation

Refugees and asylum seekers have limited access to reliable information and are vulnerable to misinformation in enclosed settings

How can we better engage and channel young people’s climate concerns into effective action that influences decision-makers?

Speaker

Larry Maggett

Explanation

Young people are highly concerned about climate change but need better mechanisms to translate their energy into policy impact

What lessons can be learned from the Greta Thunberg movement and how can similar youth mobilization be sustained?

Speaker

Mikko Salo

Explanation

Understanding what made the Thunberg movement effective and how to prevent similar movements from losing momentum

How can information integrity be integrated into youth climate statements and agendas at regional conferences?

Speaker

Jasmine Ku

Explanation

Youth representatives are not considering information integrity as a climate problem, partly due to overwhelming corporate greenwashing that makes the problem seem solved

How can evidence-based climate policies be developed in regions with insufficient data on climate disinformation?

Speaker

Online audience member

Explanation

The challenge of creating effective policies when there is a lack of research and data, particularly in the Global South

How can grassroots approaches and local knowledge be better documented and integrated into climate intervention strategies?

Speaker

Fredrick Ogenga

Explanation

Need to move beyond systematic reviews to primary research that captures local wisdom and oral traditions in climate solutions

What is the relationship between the attention economy, mental health crises in young people, and climate disinformation?

Speaker

Harriet Kingaby

Explanation

Understanding how the same systems that spread climate disinformation also contribute to mental health problems among youth