Selected Strategy – Option B
As a policy advisor, I would prioritize Option B: coordinating with regional and global blocs to strengthen international leverage, drawing directly from the DRC experience.
Equity
By acting collectively with other climate-vulnerable and resource-rich countries, this strategy helps shift negotiations away from isolated national bargaining toward shared justice claims. Coalition approaches (such as the Coalition for Rainforest Nations) make it harder for powerful actors to ignore the needs of vulnerable populations and reinforce demands for fair compensation, including adaptation and loss-and-damage finance that directly benefits affected communities.
Efficiency
Coalition-based engagement reduces duplication of effort and negotiation costs. Shared technical platforms, joint positions, and pooled expertise help countries access finance more efficiently and strengthen accountability, reducing the risk of fragmented or poorly managed climate finance flows.
Sustainability
Multilateral coordination supports long-term sustainability by anchoring climate finance demands within stable diplomatic frameworks, rather than one-off political signaling. It also encourages consistent standards for forest protection, adaptation planning, and monitoring, strengthening both environmental and financial resilience.
According to your option of discussion that is the multilateral collaboration (bureaucracy involving Indonesia, Brazil and Democratic Republic of Congo), the resultant outcome seems quite effective in terms of sustainability, equity and efficiency. The option acts as a shield for my sword that the option strategic signaling that I have discussed above. While my strategy (Option C) creates the initial shock and attention, it carries the high risk of international backlash or greenwashing accusations. Through multilateral collaboration, the countries involved such as the G3 can ensure that the signals sent to the market are uniform hence giving a more uniform bargaining power.