Search Climate Insights Directory

The document assesses the GRP Incubator's approach to scaling resilience solutions, focusing on five grantees: Groundswell, IFPRI, Mahila Housing Trust, MetaMeta, and Producers Direct. It details the Incubator's support mechanisms, including mentoring, leadership training, and financial networking, and evaluates the progress of these grantees across a three-stage scaling framework. Key findings highlight the importance of context-specific adaptation, stakeholder engagement, and the transition from grant-funded projects to sustainable business models.

Friends of the Earth International assesses the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, acknowledging some progress in governance but condemning the lack of corporate accountability, the absence of indigenous rights, and the promotion of 'false solutions' like biodiversity offsetting. The organization calls for a systemic shift that addresses the root causes of biodiversity loss and ensures equity between the Global North and South.

Friends of the Earth International argues that the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must move beyond the failed Aichi targets by adopting a rights-based approach, ensuring accountability, and rejecting corporate-led 'false solutions' like offsetting.

A statement by Friends of the Earth International outlining requirements for the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to be established by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) following the failure of the 2011-2020 Aichi targets.

The 2020 Global Green Economy Barometer evaluates the shift toward sustainable and equitable economic systems. While it notes accelerating energy transitions, a rise in green bonds, and the emergence of wellbeing budgets in countries like New Zealand, it argues that the 'brown economy' still dominates. The report highlights that fossil fuel subsidies reached US$ 5.2 trillion in 2017 and that global energy intensity is declining at only 0.4% per year, far below the 4-10% needed for mid-century decarbonization. It calls for systemic reforms to move beyond GDP, value natural capital, and ensure a just transition for marginalized populations.

The document examines the Covid-19 pandemic as a systemic shock that exposed deep inequalities and the fragility of market-driven systems. It explores the intersection of public health and biodiversity loss, the role of the welfare state versus authoritarian and populist models, the digital divide in urban centers, and the disproportionate impact of the crisis on marginalized groups, including migrant workers and the elderly. The text advocates for a 'green recovery' that prioritizes a 'foundational economy' of basic needs over growth, promotes digital inclusion as a human right, and recognizes the link between environmental degradation and zoonotic disease emergence.

The report argues that the COVID-19 pandemic acted as an 'X-ray,' exposing deep structural inequalities and the failure of neoliberal policies. It critiques the global fiscal response, noting that while US$ 11 trillion was mobilized, the support was unevenly distributed, favoring high-income countries and corporate interests over the global South and public services. The document proposes an "8 R" agenda for systemic change: re-valuing care, re-empowering public services, re-balancing value chains, reinforcing climate justice, re-distributing economic power, re-regulating global finance, re-inventing multilateral solidarity, and re-defining progress beyond GDP. It specifically highlights the dangers of IMF-mandated austerity in countries like Ecuador and the failure of the Global Health Security Index to predict pandemic outcomes due to its reliance on infrastructure over social determinants of health.

The document outlines the 'One Food' concept, which emphasizes an integrated view of food chains involving humans, animals, and the environment. It provides practical agroecological advice for South African farmers to improve soil health, manage pests naturally, and adapt to climate challenges such as droughts and floods while protecting biodiversity.

The document outlines the 'One Food' approach, which integrates human, animal, and environmental health to ensure sustainable food production. It advocates for agroecology—farming in harmony with nature—and provides practical strategies for farmers to manage livestock, soil, water, and pests without relying on expensive chemicals. The guide emphasizes the interdependence of biodiversity, climate resilience, and food security, urging collaboration between government, communities, and business leaders to eradicate poverty and protect the environment.

The authors argue that the EU's current GMO legislation is fit for purpose and that attempts by the agrifood industry to deregulate 'new breeding techniques' undermine the precautionary principle. They contend that genetic engineering does not solve hunger or environmental crises, suggesting instead that resources should be redirected toward agroecology and the development of resilient, low-input conventional breeds.

The document calls for COP-25 to prioritize human rights, gender equality, and increased national ambition in climate commitments, while warning against the use of carbon offsets and the marginalization of Global South participants due to the conference's relocation from Santiago to Madrid.

The document argues that climate action must be rights-based to be effective, urging COP-25 to ensure that Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and Article 6 mechanisms include social and environmental safeguards. It specifically calls for the ratification of the Escazú Agreement, the establishment of a financial mechanism for loss and damage under the Warsaw International Mechanism, and the integration of gender-responsive approaches in the Lima Work Programme. The briefing also emphasizes the need for independent grievance mechanisms in the Sustainable Development Mechanism to remedy harms to local communities and indigenous peoples.

The report documents the risks faced by 'Defenders of Territories' in the Asia Pacific, linking violence and impunity to resource extraction, infrastructure projects, and weak rule of law. Through case studies in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Palestine, Russia, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines, it illustrates how corporate and state actors displace communities and suppress dissent. The document advocates for a systemic shift away from neoliberalism toward agroecology and renewable energy, while calling for a binding UN Treaty on transnational corporations to ensure accountability for human rights violations.

The report documents the systemic persecution of environmental and land defenders in the Asia-Pacific region, linking this violence to a neoliberal economic model that prioritizes corporate profit and resource extraction over human rights. It provides case studies from Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Palestine, Russia, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines to illustrate how large-scale infrastructure, energy, and agribusiness projects lead to land grabbing, environmental degradation, and the criminalization of activists. The document calls for a transition to community-led renewable energy, agroecology, and a legally binding UN treaty on transnational corporations to ensure corporate accountability and the protection of defenders.

The document highlights a global trend of violence against land defenders, particularly indigenous peoples, who face attacks from state and non-state actors to facilitate extractive projects. It provides case studies from Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Palestine, Russia, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines to illustrate how infrastructure, energy, and agribusiness projects lead to land grabbing and environmental degradation. The report argues that the current economic system prioritizes corporate profit over human rights and recommends the establishment of a binding UN treaty on transnational corporations, the transformation of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights into a judicial body, and a transition to renewable energy and agroecology.

The report examines the vulnerability of approximately 2.4 million US farmworkers to the combined risks of pesticide exposure and extreme heat. It argues that climate change increases these risks by expanding pest ranges and increasing the frequency of dangerous heat days. Focusing on California, Florida, and Washington, the report highlights a lack of federal heat standards and inconsistent pesticide safety enforcement. It recommends federal OSHA heat standards, the extension of labor protections like minimum wage and overtime to farmworkers, and a transition toward agroecological farming systems to reduce pesticide dependence.

ClientEarth proposes four priority areas to enhance the environmental ambition of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP): the establishment of an EU-wide strategic plan with SMART targets, increased transparency and stakeholder participation in line with the Aarhus Convention, the provision of independent agroecological farm advisory services, and the strengthening of conditionality rules to include key environmental directives.

The document critiques biodiversity offsetting markets, asserting that they are conceptually flawed and practically ineffective. It argues that nature cannot be accurately priced or restored to its original state, and that such markets often lead to land grabbing and human rights violations. Instead, the author proposes a return to binding environmental regulations and sustainable practices like agroecology to protect ecosystems.

The briefing critiques the shift in biodiversity policy from conservation to 'restoration' through financial markets. It argues that biodiversity offsetting—where developers pay to recreate habitats to justify destroying existing ones—is based on the flawed premise that nature can be monetized and replaced. The author cites high failure rates in restoration projects, the inability of markets to price public goods or scarcity, and the risk of land grabbing. Instead of market tools, the document advocates for binding environmental laws and sustainable practices like agroecology to protect biodiversity.

The document critiques the shift from biodiversity conservation to 'restoration' via financial markets, arguing that biodiversity offsets are conceptually flawed and practically ineffective. It asserts that these mechanisms often lead to net habitat loss and human rights abuses. The author contends that nature cannot be accurately valued monetarily and that the core concepts of 'price signals' and 'additionality' are invalid in this context. As an alternative, the report proposes binding conservation laws to restrict unsustainable economic activities and foster sustainable practices like agroecology.