Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that the financialization of nature—transforming ecological functions into tradable units—serves corporate interests by facilitating greenwashing, easing regulatory compliance, and opening protected areas to extractive industries. It details the emergence of a new conservation industry comprising specialized NGOs, think tanks, and financial instruments like green bonds. The document contends that while these mechanisms are presented as solutions to the biodiversity crisis, they often act as a "mirage" of private investment, primarily benefiting corporations through improved credit ratings and a "social license to operate" while continuing environmental destruction.

The briefing by Friends of the Earth International critiques carbon trading and offsetting, specifically the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), as mechanisms that lock in fossil fuel dependency and facilitate human rights abuses. It warns that proposed expansions at COP 17—including sectoral crediting, soil carbon markets, and the inclusion of carbon capture and storage (CCS)—will further undermine global climate goals. The author advocates for a systemic transition to renewable energy and the provision of public, additional climate finance instead of market-based mechanisms.

The report argues that while state and private ownership still dominate global forests, community forest management (CFM) is a more effective strategy for forest conservation, poverty reduction, and climate mitigation. It identifies a set of key rights—including territorial, consultation, and cultural rights—that underpin successful CFM and maps these against 17 international agreements, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and UNDRIP. The document concludes that while no single agreement mandates the creation of community forests, the collective weight of these international norms provides a strong legal and moral basis for states to devolve forest authority to local communities.

The report contends that corporate-driven trade deals, such as TTIP, TISA, and CETA, obstruct the transition to renewable energy and empower corporations to sue governments over environmental regulations. It highlights the role of the WTO and Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in protecting polluting industries and criticizes 'false solutions' like carbon trading and REDD+. The authors call for a democratic economic approach that prioritizes local resources and sustainable development over growth-at-all-costs trade regimes.

The report contends that mega-regional trade agreements and the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework obstruct climate action by protecting fossil fuel interests and limiting the regulatory capacity of governments. It highlights the role of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in allowing corporations to sue governments over environmental protections. The document criticizes 'false solutions' like carbon trading and REDD+, advocating instead for a democratic economic approach based on local resources, agroecology, and corporate accountability.

The report contends that global trade rules and agreements, such as the TTIP, CETA, and TISA, obstruct the transition to renewable energy and climate stability. It highlights how Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms allow corporations to sue governments over environmental policies, and criticizes 'false solutions' like carbon trading and REDD+. The authors call for a democratic, sustainable economic approach that prioritizes local resources and a binding global carbon budget.

The report 'Regulated Destruction' by Friends of the Earth International critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism that enables corporate pollution and habitat destruction. It argues that by framing nature as 'natural capital' or 'ecosystem services', these instruments allow companies to circumvent environmental protections through promises of restoration or protection elsewhere. The document examines national implementations in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, and highlights the role of the World Bank's IFC Performance Standard 6 in driving these practices. It further contends that offsetting leads to 'double land grabs' and is used by the aviation and agro-industry to maintain a social license to operate despite ongoing deforestation and emissions.

The document critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism of 'regulated destruction' that allows companies to destroy nature in one location by promising to protect or restore it elsewhere. It argues that this approach redefines nature as 'natural capital' or 'ecosystem services,' reducing complex ecological systems to tradable units. The report examines national implementations in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, highlighting how these schemes often lead to 'double land grabbing,' the displacement of local communities, and the failure to provide long-term protection. It specifically criticizes the World Bank's IFC Performance Standard 6 for enabling the financing of destruction in 'critical habitats.' Furthermore, it analyzes how the aviation and agribusiness sectors use carbon offsets and REDD+ to greenwash their operations while continuing destructive activities.

The report critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism of 'regulated destruction' that replaces strict environmental limits with flexible, market-based compensation. It contends that these systems—including biodiversity banks and carbon credits—often lead to a net increase in environmental damage, facilitate land grabbing from indigenous and local communities, and provide a veneer of sustainability for destructive industries such as mining, agribusiness, and aviation. Through case studies in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, the document demonstrates how the promise of future restoration is used to justify immediate, irreversible ecological loss.

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 report argues that the 'financialization of nature'—the process of turning ecological functions into tradeable monetary units—primarily serves corporate interests rather than conservation. It details how companies in extractive industries, aviation, and construction use biodiversity offsets to bypass environmental regulations and greenwash destructive activities. The document also highlights the emergence of a 'new conservation industry' comprising NGOs, think tanks, and financial institutions that promote these market-based approaches. Finally, it contends that private sector investment in conservation is significantly over-hyped, serving as a facade to secure public subsidies and avoid stringent environmental laws.

The document argues that community forest management (CFM) is a highly effective strategy for forest conservation and poverty reduction, yet it remains under-supported by governments. It identifies seven key rights—state obligations, self-determination, consultation, territorial rights, livelihoods/economic development, women's rights, and cultural/traditional knowledge—and maps these against international legal frameworks to provide advocates with tools to pressure governments for the legal recognition of community-led forestry.

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 document outlines the goals of the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDf), noting that the target to halve deforestation by 2020 was not met. It identifies key drivers of forest loss, including large-scale infrastructure, extractive industries, and specific agricultural commodities, while highlighting the gap between conservation commitments and financial investments. Despite these challenges, it notes progress in Paris Agreement updates and the adoption of anti-deforestation measures by major consumer markets.

The document outlines the objectives of the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDf), noting that the 2020 goal to halve deforestation was not met. It identifies key drivers of forest loss, including agricultural commodities and extractive industries, while highlighting the role of financial institutions and the importance of indigenous peoples in forest conservation. Despite challenges, it notes progress through the Paris Agreement and demand-side measures in major consumer markets.

The document reports that the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF) failed to meet its 2020 target of halving deforestation, with 10 million hectares of forest lost annually. It identifies drivers of loss including commodity agriculture, extractive industries, and a lack of deforestation policies in nearly two-thirds of the top 150 financial institutions. While noting progress through the Paris Agreement and demand-side measures in markets like the EU, US, UK, and China, it emphasizes the need for alternative development pathways and the inclusion of Indigenous peoples as forest stewards.

The document outlines the objectives of the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDf), noting that the 2020 target to halve deforestation was not met. It identifies drivers of forest loss, such as global commodity demand and extractive industries, while highlighting the role of financial institutions and the necessity of empowering Indigenous peoples and local communities to achieve climate solutions.

The document outlines the objectives of the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF), noting that the goal to halve deforestation by 2020 was not met. It identifies key drivers of forest loss, such as large-scale infrastructure, extractive industries, and specific agricultural commodities, while highlighting the role of indigenous peoples as forest guardians. The text calls for urgent systemic change, increased financial transparency, and the implementation of alternative development models to protect forests as a climate solution.

The world is off track to meet 2025 and 2030 forest goals, with commodity-driven deforestation increasing by 5.6% in 2022. While some leading agricultural companies and governments (notably the EU) are taking action, overall impact is limited by low political priority, insufficient corporate transparency in extractives, and systemic risks to environmental defenders.

The world is off track to meet 2025 and 2030 forest goals, with commodity-driven deforestation increasing by 5.6% in 2022. While some leading agricultural companies and EU regulations show progress, most governments deprioritize forests in macroeconomic planning, and the mining sector lacks transparency. Indigenous Peoples and local communities have increased international awareness but face severe violence and funding gaps. Collaborative jurisdictional efforts are emerging but remain in early stages.