Search Climate Insights Directory

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) opposes REDD, arguing that carbon markets and financial incentives fail to address the root causes of climate change and instead lead to 'green grabbing' and the erosion of traditional forest management. The document contends that REDD shifts responsibility away from industrialized nations and threatens the land rights and cultural values of forest-dependent populations. FoEI proposes an alternative based on the legal recognition of Indigenous and community land rights, collective forest management, and a structural transition away from fossil fuels based on climate justice.

The report advocates for climate justice, asserting that wealthy nations bear a historical responsibility for emissions and must provide financial and technological support to developing regions. It critiques market-based mechanisms like carbon credits and biofuels, labeling them as 'false solutions' that protect corporate profits while harming local communities and ecosystems. The text provides specific examples of climate impacts in Nigeria, Kiribati, and the Himalayas, and proposes a transition for Europe toward a low-carbon society based on drastic emission reductions and lifestyle changes.

The document outlines the dangers of BECCS, highlighting its potential to cause massive deforestation, land grabbing, and food insecurity. It argues that the technology is inefficient, carries risks of CO2 leakage, and serves as a justification for continued fossil fuel use through carbon offsetting. The authors advocate for a systemic shift toward agroecology, community-managed ecosystems, and a just energy transition based on renewable sources like wind and solar.

The document critiques the framing of 'nature-based solutions' (NbS) as compatible with agroecology, asserting that NbS are instead used by corporate and financial interests to maintain industrial agriculture and create speculative assets. It contrasts agroecology's holistic, emancipatory approach with the NbS model, which focuses on carbon sequestration to justify 'net zero' distractions and the continued use of fossil fuels and synthetic inputs. The text highlights how NbS can lead to land grabs and the marginalization of small-scale producers, opposing the goals of land reform and food sovereignty.

The report argues that community forest management (GCB) is a vital tool for environmental conservation and social justice, contrasting it with industrial logging and monoculture plantations. It provides a framework for successful GCB, including the need for clear boundaries, participatory regulation, and legal recognition. The document details case studies from India, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, Indonesia, France, Greece, Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, El Salvador, and Haiti, illustrating both successful community-led conservation and the violent resistance against corporate land grabs. It further critiques the role of International Financial Institutions (IFIs), the impact of global consumerism on forest destruction, and the risks associated with 'environmental services' markets, while advocating for food sovereignty and the restoration of native forests.

The fact sheet critiques the adoption of 'nature based solutions' (NBS) by over 1,500 corporations, asserting that these strategies allow companies to maintain fossil fuel use and industrial growth under the guise of 'net zero' commitments. It highlights Shell's plan to plant trees on an area nearly the size of Brazil and Nestlé's reliance on offsetting to mask projected growth in animal product sourcing. The document contrasts these corporate approaches with community-led solutions like agroecology and community forest management, which it describes as essential for climate justice and food sovereignty.

The fact sheet critiques the use of 'nature-based solutions' by major corporations to achieve 'net zero' targets without abandoning fossil fuels or changing core business models. It highlights Shell's plan to plant forests the size of Brazil and Nestlé's reliance on offsets despite its contribution to deforestation. The document contrasts these corporate strategies with 'real solutions' led by Indigenous peoples and local communities, such as agroecology and community forest management, which prioritize ecological governance over the commodification of carbon.

The fact sheet critiques the trend of presenting agroecology as a subset of 'nature-based solutions' (NbS), asserting that this framing serves the interests of fossil fuel companies, agribusiness, and the financial sector. It argues that while agroecology seeks systemic change and social justice, NbS focuses narrowly on carbon capture to create new financial assets and 'green' credentials for industrial actors. The document highlights the incompatibility between the emancipatory goals of agroecology and the market-driven approach of NbS, which it claims facilitates land displacement and the continuation of destructive business models.

The document critiques carbon markets, specifically 'cap and trade' and 'carbon offsetting', as mechanisms that allow major polluters to avoid reducing emissions at the source. It highlights the failure of the EU ETS and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), noting that global emissions continue to rise. The briefing emphasizes the severe impacts on indigenous peoples and local communities, citing REDD as a driver of land grabbing and forced displacement. It specifically warns against the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which could institutionalize these markets, and calls for a transition to agroecology and a just energy transition instead.

The document critiques carbon emission markets, including 'cap and trade' and 'offsetting' mechanisms, as ineffective tools for climate action. It asserts that these systems allow historical polluters to avoid reducing emissions at the source while causing human rights abuses and 'climate colonialism' in the Global South. The briefing specifically warns against the adoption of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement at COP25, arguing that it would institutionalize these flawed mechanisms and prioritize corporate interests over climate justice.

The EU is establishing Strategic Partnerships with 14 countries to secure critical minerals for its 2050 climate neutrality goal. Global Witness argues that these deals prioritize resource access over social and environmental governance, citing specific risks in Serbia, Rwanda, Australia, Argentina, Uzbekistan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The author calls for the EU to implement stringent safeguards and transparent 'Roadmaps' to ensure the energy transition does not perpetuate human rights abuses or environmental destruction.

Global Witness has withdrawn from the Kimberley Process (KP), stating that the international certification scheme has become an 'outdated' and 'cynical corporate accreditation scheme'. While the KP initially helped break links between diamonds and conflict, the organization argues it now lacks integrity due to a failure to hold governments accountable and a lack of independent verification in the diamond industry's 'system of warranties'. Specific failures cited include the KP's inability to address conflict diamonds from Côte d'Ivoire, rule breaches by Venezuela, and state-sponsored violence in Zimbabwe's Marange region. Global Witness advocates for a transition from voluntary schemes to legally mandated international standards for minerals supply chain controls, including third-party audits and public disclosure.

Global Witness criticizes the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) in Vietnam, stating that the $15.5 billion deal lacks sufficient protections for human rights and civil society. The organization highlights the imprisonment of environmental defenders and argues that a truly 'just' transition is impossible without the free participation of civil society and the release of unjustly arrested climate leaders.

The document highlights the imprisonment of environmental defenders Nguy Thi Khanh and Dang Dinh Bach in Vietnam on tax evasion charges, which Global Witness describes as an attempt to silence those calling for transparency in the energy transition. It argues that suppressing civil society threatens climate progress and urges G7 countries and the UN Human Rights Council to pressure Vietnam to release these defenders, particularly as the country considers a 'Just Energy Transition Partnership' (JET-P) involving billions of dollars in funding.

Global Witness reveals that the Private Infrastructure Development Group (PIDG), largely funded by UK aid, committed $749.8 million to fossil fuel projects between 2002 and 2018. The report highlights the use of highly polluting heavy fuel oil (HFO) in West Africa and the continued funding of gas plants in Togo and Cote D'Ivoire in 2019. It further criticizes PIDG's investments in diesel-powered telecommunications towers and high-carbon industrial projects, while noting that 43% of its renewable energy spending went to biomass and hydropower. The document calls for an immediate end to all UK overseas fossil fuel investments across all government departments and agencies.

The report exposes the failure of voluntary zero-deforestation policies among Brazil's largest beef producers—JBS, Marfrig, and Minerva—and the inadequacy of audits by DNV-GL and Grant Thornton. It highlights that these companies continue to source cattle from illegally deforested lands and farms linked to land grabbing and human rights abuses, while receiving continued funding from global banks such as HSBC, Barclays, and Santander.

Global Witness asserts that BP's claim of alignment with Paris climate goals is false, as more than half of its planned $140 billion investment in oil and gas over the next decade involves new extraction. The organization contends that BP's models rely on an improbable 14,000% increase in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) capacity over 20 years to justify continued fossil fuel production, whereas IPCC findings suggest a need for a 40% drop in oil and gas production over the next decade.

The document argues that President Donald Trump's 2018 executive order to increase logging by 31 percent to prevent forest fires is misleading and dangerous. It asserts that large-scale industrial timber harvesting is associated with worse fires in some regions and that the primary drivers of worsening fires are climate change, excessive drought, high winds, and heat. The text claims the policy serves to expand the logging industry rather than address the environmental causes of wildfires.

Global Witness criticizes the UK's 'Policing Bill' as an attack on democracy that uses the threat of imprisonment to deter nonviolent climate protests. The organization contends that this legislation contradicts the UK's leadership at COP26 and mirrors a global trend of criminalizing land and environmental defenders seen in countries like Brazil, India, Mexico, and the Philippines.

The document characterizes carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a 'get-out-of-jail-free card' for the fossil fuel industry, asserting that the technology is prohibitively expensive and fails to remove emissions at scale. It highlights that over 80% of global CCS projects have failed and that a significant portion of captured carbon is used for enhanced oil recovery to extract more oil. The text warns that relying on CCS to meet climate targets is 'wishful thinking' that distracts from cheaper, existing renewable energy solutions.