Search Climate Insights Directory

The report presents a series of case studies from FOE member groups in Nigeria, Uganda, Indonesia, Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, the United States, Guatemala, and Switzerland. It highlights the conflict between industrial agricultural models—characterized by monocultures, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and land grabbing—and community-led efforts to maintain agroecological practices, preserve native seeds, and secure land rights. The document argues that food sovereignty is inextricably linked to the protection of forests and biodiversity, and it showcases various strategies for resistance, including community-based conservation, the creation of alternative markets, and legal initiatives to prevent urban sprawl and industrial land use.

This report by Friends of the Earth International compiles experiences from Nigeria, Uganda, Indonesia, Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, the USA, Guatemala, and Switzerland. It argues that food sovereignty is inseparable from the protection of biodiversity and forests, and it documents how local communities—including indigenous peoples and peasant farmers—resist monocultures, land grabbing, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) through agroecology, seed conservation, and community-based land management.

The document presents a collection of case studies from Friends of the Earth International member groups, highlighting the intrinsic link between biodiversity and food sovereignty. It examines the negative impacts of industrial monocultures, land grabbing, and genetic modification in countries such as Nigeria, Uganda, Indonesia, Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, the USA, Guatemala, and Switzerland. Each case study emphasizes the role of local and indigenous knowledge, the importance of seed saving, and the necessity of community-led land management to resist corporate-driven agricultural systems and environmental degradation.

The document argues that the dominant agro-industrial model, driven by profit and export, marginalizes rural women by ignoring their role in social reproduction and denying them land rights. Through testimonies from the Global South, it illustrates how corporate land grabbing and state complicity lead to economic displacement and environmental degradation. In response, rural women are organizing through movements like La Via Campesina to promote food sovereignty, preserve ancestral seeds, and implement agro-ecological alternatives to ensure the sustainability of life and biodiversity.

The document argues that rural women in the Global South face severe gender-based inequality, including restricted land access and economic exploitation, which is exacerbated by a corporate-led agribusiness model. It highlights how this model causes environmental destruction and social displacement, disproportionately affecting women who are often the primary preservers of biodiversity and traditional seeds. Through testimonies from regions such as Nigeria, Indonesia, and Latin America, the report details the 'work overload' women face as they manage both social reproduction and agricultural production, often without recognition or fair pay. It advocates for 'food sovereignty'—the right of peoples to control their own seeds, lands, and food production—as a political and practical alternative to the industrial model. The report concludes that rural women are leading resistance through agro-ecological practices, political self-organisation, and the preservation of ancestral knowledge to ensure the sustainability of human life.

The report denounces the Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment (RAI) as a mechanism to legitimise 'land grabbing' by corporations and governments. It argues that voluntary guidelines cannot remedy the systemic human rights violations, environmental destruction, and food insecurity caused by large-scale land acquisitions, which it claims are driven by financial speculation rather than food security. The authors call for an immediate ban on large-scale land transactions, the return of misappropriated lands to communities, and a transition toward food sovereignty based on peasant agriculture and agroecology.

Friends of the Earth International and a coalition of social movements denounce the 'Responsible Agricultural Investment' (RAI) principles promoted by the World Bank and other international agencies. The document asserts that these voluntary guidelines serve as a 'moral facade' for financial speculation and corporate land grabbing, which lead to forced evictions, water privatization, and the destruction of small-scale farming. It calls for the immediate suspension of land grabs, the return of stolen lands, and a transition toward food sovereignty based on agroecological methods and genuine land reform.

This report by Friends of the Earth International documents community struggles and successes in maintaining food sovereignty and biodiversity across diverse geographic contexts. It examines the negative impacts of industrial monocultures, corporate land grabs, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) while promoting agroecology, seed saving, and community-based forest management as sustainable alternatives. The text emphasizes the role of women and indigenous peoples in protecting ecosystems and argues that food sovereignty is unattainable without the preservation of biological diversity.

The document explores the intersection of climate change and the right to development (RTD), arguing that RTD is not a 'right to pollute' but a framework for a 'technological leap' toward non-carbon development. It emphasizes that industrialized countries bear the responsibility for providing financial and technological support to developing nations. The author advocates for development models integrated with biological cycles, such as agroecology, and critiques carbon-based industrial models like the American Corn Belt. The briefing also evaluates the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under RTD criteria, finding uneven benefit distribution and a lack of human rights considerations. Finally, it positions RTD as a 'moral compass' for the transition to a green economy, referencing the Rio+20 process and the Cancun outcomes of the UNFCCC.

This report highlights the achievements of Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) over four decades, detailing specific campaigns against extractive industries, pollution, and unsustainable development. It documents legal victories, such as the ban on open-pit mining in Costa Rica and the recognition of water as a human right in Uruguay, as well as grassroots successes in reforestation in Belgium and the protection of eucalyptus forests in Australia. The text emphasizes the role of international solidarity and legal action in challenging neoliberal globalization and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.

The report examines the jatropha biofuel industry in Mozambique, challenging the 'myths' that the crop grows well on marginal lands, requires minimal water, and is pest-resistant. It finds that both small-scale and industrial plantations typically occupy fertile arable land and often fail to meet promised yields. The document highlights risks to food security, as subsistence farmers replace food crops with jatropha, and reports widespread land grabbing facilitated by government corruption and the manipulation of the 1997 Land Law. It concludes that jatropha is not a viable development tool for Mozambique and recommends halting its support until food sovereignty is guaranteed.

The report argues that GM crops are primarily grown for animal feed and fuels rather than human food, and that industry claims regarding yield increases and climate change mitigation are unsupported by evidence. It highlights the rise of herbicide-resistant 'super weeds' in the US and the Southern Cone, the displacement of indigenous communities, and the risks of corporate seed monopolies. The document advocates for agro-ecology as a sustainable alternative to the industrial GM model.

The report challenges the narrative that genetically modified (GM) crops are a solution to global hunger and climate change, asserting that they primarily benefit biotechnology corporations. It argues that GM crops have not increased yields, have led to an increase in pesticide use due to the emergence of 'super-weeds,' and are often used for animal feed and biofuels rather than human consumption. The document highlights the concentration of market power in companies like Monsanto and describes the negative socio-environmental impacts in the Southern Cone of South America, including deforestation and the displacement of indigenous communities. It concludes that agroecology offers a more sustainable and effective alternative for climate adaptation and food sovereignty.

The report challenges the claims of the biotechnology industry, specifically the ISAAA, regarding the success and benefits of GM crops. It argues that GM plants are primarily used for animal feed and biofuels rather than human nutrition and that they lead to increased pesticide use, soil degradation, and the displacement of indigenous peoples. The document specifically critiques the 'climate scam'—the claim that GM crops can mitigate climate change through carbon sequestration or drought resistance—and proposes agroecology as a sustainable alternative.

The report evaluates emergy—a method that values goods and services based on the total solar energy used directly and indirectly to produce them—as an alternative or supplement to economic valuation of ecosystem goods and services (EGS). Through a literature review, expert interviews, and a survey of 119 environmental professionals and students, the study finds that while emergy provides a comprehensive, eco-centric perspective on sustainability, it faces significant academic criticism regarding its methodological rigour and conceptual complexity. The report concludes that a pluralistic approach combining biophysical and economic methods is most effective for EGS valuation.

The study demonstrates that the EU can achieve domestic emission cuts of 40% by 2020 and 90% by 2050 through radical energy efficiency, a shift to renewables, and the phase-out of fossil fuels and nuclear power. It argues that such a transition is technically possible and economically bearable, costing approximately 2% of the EU's cumulative discounted GDP between 2010 and 2020. To achieve climate justice, the report asserts the EU must also provide between €150 billion and €450 billion annually by 2020 to support mitigation in developing countries.

La Via Campesina and Friends of the Earth International advocate for a transition from industrial, export-oriented agriculture to a food sovereignty model. This model prioritizes the right to food as a human right, supports small-scale farmers' access to land and seeds, and promotes agroecological systems to mitigate climate change. The organizations reject 'false solutions' like carbon trading and agrofuels, and criticize the role of international financial institutions and the WTO in perpetuating unsustainable agricultural systems.

The statement advocates for a shift from industrial agricultural models to 'food sovereignty,' defined as the capacity of peoples to decide what to produce and how to market it. It supports UN Special Rapporteur Olivier De Schutter's call for a human-rights-based approach to agriculture that prioritizes the most vulnerable, protects small-scale farmers' access to land and seeds, and promotes agroecological systems to mitigate climate change. The authors explicitly reject the influence of transnational corporations and international financial institutions like the World Bank and IMF, characterizing their policies and certain 'green' initiatives—such as REDD and biofuels—as 'false solutions' that threaten food sovereignty.

The document contends that GM crops are not a solution to global hunger, as hunger is caused by poverty and lack of resource access rather than production deficits. It asserts that GM crops do not increase yields—and in some cases decrease them—while increasing pesticide use and costs for farmers. The text highlights that the primary beneficiaries are biotech giants like Monsanto, which maximize profits through 'trait penetration' and rising seed and herbicide prices, while the model favors large-scale export agriculture over small-scale farmers.

The report concludes that genetic engineering has failed to increase the intrinsic yield of any major food or feed crops and has provided only minimal gains in operational yield, primarily through Bt corn. Most yield increases in U.S. agriculture are attributed to traditional breeding and improved agricultural practices rather than GE traits.