Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines the conceptual and practical framework for declaring 'free territories' as an exercise of autonomy and human rights. It provides a strategic approach to resisting the 'extractivist model'—specifically targeting REDD+, mining, fracking, and GMOs—by documenting successful community-led initiatives across Latin America, Europe, Australia, and other regions. The guide emphasizes that these declarations are not merely legal acts but political processes requiring permanent organization, public legitimacy, and the proposal of sustainable alternatives for local development.

The guide outlines the political and social process of declaring territories 'free' from specific threats, such as REDD+, mining, fracking, and GMOs. It frames these declarations as an exercise of autonomy and self-determination, providing strategic advice on prevention, information sharing, and alliance building. The document details various global case studies, including the M4 movement in Mesoamerica, anti-fracking efforts in Australia and Europe, and GMO-free initiatives in Costa Rica and the European Union, emphasizing that such declarations are tools for resisting corporate imposition and promoting sustainable, community-led development models.

The author argues that the traditional vision of urban abundance is no longer realistic given systemic risks. By synthesizing theories from David Holmgren and the authors of 'Resilient Cities', the text outlines four potential futures: the Ecotechnic city (successful green transition), the Ecovillage city (radical semi-ruralization), the Enclaved city (authoritarian divide), and the Collapsed city (systemic breakdown). The author suggests that industrialized cities, including those in Europe, may soon reach a 'peak of urbanity' requiring a shift toward depopulation and economic relocalization.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) declares its alliance with La Via Campesina (LVC) following the VII International Conference. The document highlights a shared commitment to food sovereignty, agroecology, and climate justice, while opposing corporate control of the commons and 'false solutions' to climate change. It presents declarations from the main conference, a women's assembly, and a youth assembly, all emphasizing the need for grassroots mobilization against patriarchy, imperialism, and financial capital to ensure the survival of 'Mother Earth'.

Friends of the Earth International asserts that the current global energy model, dominated by fossil fuels and corporate-led 'false solutions', is driving a planetary emergency. The statement criticizes the Paris Agreement as insufficient and legally unenforceable, calling for urgent emission reductions by wealthy nations and a shift toward decentralized, community-led energy systems.

The statement by Friends of the Earth International characterizes the current climate situation as a 'planetary emergency' and criticizes the Paris Agreement for lacking legal enforcement and science-based cuts. It calls for the immediate end of fossil fuels—noting that over 1600 new coal plants are planned in 62 countries—and warns against 'false solutions' such as nuclear power and large-scale hydroelectric projects. The document advocates for a just transition where developed countries, whose 10% population is responsible for 50% of emissions, lead deep cuts and fund sustainable development in the global South. It promotes decentralized, people-centered community energy, agroecology, and community forest management as the only viable future.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a global movement to replace the centralized fossil fuel industry and other harmful energy sources—including nuclear power and large hydroelectric dams—with community-centered, sustainable energy. The statement asserts that the Paris Agreement is insufficient to limit warming to 1.5 degrees and demands that developed nations, responsible for the majority of emissions, lead emission reductions and provide financial support to the Global South.

The report examines the synergies between Community Forest Management (CFM) and agroecology, positioning them as essential tools for food sovereignty and biodiversity conservation. It critiques the 'green economy' and market-based conservation models like REDD+, arguing that they erode traditional values and community autonomy. The document specifically challenges the FAO's definition of forests for including monoculture plantations, which it claims facilitates deforestation and undermines the livelihoods of the 1.6 billion people dependent on forests. It advocates for the recognition of territorial control, women's autonomy, and traditional knowledge as the primary drivers of effective forest protection.

The report argues that Community Forest Management (MCB) and agroecology are complementary political and technical practices that protect biodiversity and ensure food sovereignty. It critiques top-down conservation models like REDD+ and the FAO's narrow definition of forests, which the author claims facilitate industrial monocultures and the displacement of local communities. The document highlights the role of traditional knowledge, women's autonomy, and local markets in maintaining ecosystem health, providing evidence from the Amazon, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Europe.

The report argues that community forest management (CFM) and agroecology are complementary systems based on shared principles of territorial control, traditional knowledge, and gender autonomy. It contends that these community-led approaches are more effective at preserving biodiversity and ensuring food security than top-down 'green economy' solutions, such as REDD+ or industrial monoculture plantations. The document specifically critiques the FAO's definition of forests for excluding social and cultural dimensions, which it argues facilitates deforestation and the displacement of local populations. It advocates for the recognition of collective land rights and the promotion of local markets to support sustainable, non-anthropocentric relationships with nature.

A survey of 176 experts reveals that while there is strong scientific support for agroecology, researchers face significant barriers, including a lack of public funding and pressure from entrenched financial interests. The report advocates for the USDA to prioritize interdisciplinary research, extend grant durations, and explicitly incorporate social justice and racial equity into its funding requests.

The report argues that reintegrating livestock into diversified cropping systems can improve farmer profits and reduce environmental degradation. Using economic and environmental modeling, it demonstrates that transitioning from corn-soy monocultures to perennial pastures and complex rotations can sequester soil carbon, reduce synthetic fertilizer and fuel use, and lower water footprints. However, the author notes that these systems typically produce less beef per acre, suggesting that the greatest benefits occur when improved management is paired with a reduction in overall beef consumption. The report concludes with policy recommendations for the USDA and Congress to incentivize regenerative practices through conservation programs, crop insurance reform, and increased agroecological research.

The document denounces the neoliberal capitalist system and the 'destructive practices' of transnational corporations as drivers of climate injustice and disaster severity in the Global South. It specifically highlights the impact of Hurricane Irma and earthquakes in Mexico, arguing that the most vulnerable are disproportionately affected. The statement rejects 'false solutions' such as the financialization of nature and REDD, instead advocating for 'people’s solutions' including food sovereignty, agroecology, and energy sovereignty to preserve life and manage the commons.

The statement argues that climate disasters, such as Hurricane Irma and the earthquake in Mexico, are results of the neoliberal capitalist system's production and consumption patterns. It criticizes global policies that promote the privatization and financialization of nature, such as REDD and Payments for Environmental Services, as 'false solutions' that protect corporate interests. The document advocates for popular alternatives including food sovereignty, agroecology, and energy sovereignty to preserve life and ensure environmental, social, and gender justice.

ATALC denounces the climate injustice facing Latin America and the Caribbean, linking disasters like Hurricane Irma and earthquakes in Mexico to neoliberal production systems. The statement rejects market-based 'false solutions' and advocates for food, energy, and water sovereignty as the only viable paths to preserve life.

The report argues that shifting from annual monocrops to farming systems with continuous living cover—such as perennials and cover crops—can create 'spongy' soils that reduce flood runoff and increase water availability during droughts. Based on a meta-analysis of 126 experiments and regional modeling in Iowa, the authors find that these practices improve water infiltration and soil porosity, potentially reducing rainfall runoff by up to 20% during floods and increasing crop water availability by up to 16% during droughts. The report concludes that current federal farm policies and crop insurance programs create barriers to these transitions and recommends USDA and Congressional reforms to incentivize ecological soil management.

The report analyzes the benefits of diversified crop rotations compared to the dominant corn-soybean system in the US Corn Belt, specifically focusing on Iowa. Based on research from Iowa State University's Marsden Farm, the authors find that three- and four-year rotations increase yields for corn and soybeans and maintain similar net profits while reducing herbicide and synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use. The report models the scalability of these systems, suggesting that implementing no-till diverse rotations on 3.6 million of Iowa's most erodible acres could reduce soil erosion by 91% and save taxpayers up to $198 million annually in water cleanup costs. It further suggests that up to 40% of Iowa's farmland could be converted to these systems if livestock feed markets adapt. To overcome financial, market, and technical barriers, the report recommends expanding USDA incentives, improving Whole Farm Revenue Protection insurance, and increasing funding for agroecological research.

The document argues that replacing a portion of Midwest corn and soybean acreage with diverse crop rotations—including oats and alfalfa—can increase yields and maintain profits while significantly reducing soil erosion, chemical runoff, and greenhouse gas emissions. Based on Iowa State University research and Union of Concerned Scientists modeling, the report suggests that such systems could be scaled to 20-40% of Iowa's farmland, potentially saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in water cleanup costs. However, adoption is hindered by market, financial, and technical barriers, necessitating federal policy reforms in crop insurance, USDA loan funding, and agricultural research.

The author contends that the 'feed the world' slogan used by industrial agriculture masks a system that exacerbates poverty and environmental degradation. The text argues that industrial farming fails the FAO's four criteria for food security—availability, accessibility, resilience, and quality—by promoting monocultures, seed concentration, and market speculation. It highlights how European agricultural subsidies and exports can destroy local rural economies in developing nations. As an alternative, the document promotes agroecology and peasant farming, which emphasize endogenous development, crop diversity, and ecological interaction to achieve genuine food sovereignty.

The author contends that the 'Feed the World' narrative used by agribusiness multinationals masks a system that exacerbates hunger and poverty. Industrial agriculture is criticized for destroying the natural resources it depends on, promoting dependency through food dumping and seed monopolies, and contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. The text asserts that food insecurity is primarily caused by poverty rather than structural shortages. It proposes a shift toward endogenous development, intercropping, and agroecology to ensure a resilient, high-quality, and accessible food system.