Search Climate Insights Directory

This report by Friends of the Earth International examines the socio-economic and environmental impacts of GM crops, specifically focusing on the dominance of a few corporations like Monsanto. It argues that GM technology does not solve hunger, as most crops are used for animal feed or biofuels in wealthy nations. The document highlights a trend of increasing pesticide use and the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds in the US, Argentina, and Brazil. It further claims that GM crops often result in lower yields than conventional varieties and suggests that agroecological and organic farming are more effective alternatives for food security.

The report contends that GM crops fail to alleviate hunger or poverty, instead increasing pesticide use and corporate control over seeds. It highlights that most GM crops are used for animal feed and biofuels in rich nations, while farmers in producer countries face rising costs and herbicide-resistant weeds. The document advocates for agro-ecological and organic farming as sustainable alternatives.

The report analyzes how global trends in climate change, energy, and biotechnology affect the competitiveness, social priorities, and risk management of Canadian agriculture. It finds that while warming trends may increase yields and competitive advantage, these gains are offset by increased vulnerability to extreme weather and emerging social demands for sustainable and healthy food systems.

The report argues that GM crops, particularly herbicide-tolerant varieties, have not increased yields and have instead led to an increase in pesticide use due to the emergence of resistant 'superweeds'. It highlights the monopolization of the seed market by a few agrochemical giants, specifically Monsanto, and documents negative socio-economic impacts on small farmers in India, South Africa, and South America, including increased debt and land displacement.

The report argues that GM crops, particularly herbicide-tolerant (HT) and Bt varieties, have failed to deliver promised benefits in yield and poverty reduction. It documents a significant increase in pesticide use and the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds in the US, Argentina, and Brazil. The document further highlights the monopolization of the seed market by a few firms, specifically Monsanto, and the resulting economic pressure and legal harassment of farmers. Case studies in India, China, and South Africa suggest that yield increases are often due to weather or irrigation rather than GM technology, while small farmers face increased debt and vulnerability.

The document presents a series of case studies from Australia, Brazil, Honduras, Malaysia, Mali, Peru, Swaziland, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom. It emphasizes that populations in the Global South are disproportionately vulnerable due to their dependence on land and water. The report documents specific impacts such as glacial retreat in Peru, sea-level rise in Tuvalu, and extreme droughts in Mali and Swaziland. It argues that institutional responses are often insufficient or driven by neoliberal interests, advocating instead for agroecology, traditional knowledge, and a global movement for climate justice.

The document asserts that the global expansion of genetically modified (GM) crops showed signs of stagnation by 2006, failing to outperform conventional crops in yield or reduce pesticide use. It highlights that GM varieties—primarily maize, cotton, soy, and rapeseed—have not alleviated hunger or poverty and have often negatively impacted small-scale farmers in countries such as India, China, and Colombia due to increased costs and secondary pests. Furthermore, it notes public opposition in the European Union and the inability of the industry to prevent the illegal spread of transgenic rice across multiple continents.

The document examines the relationship between natural resource access and poverty, arguing that neoliberal policies—such as trade liberalization, privatization, and industrial agriculture—exacerbate rural poverty by stripping local communities of their resources. It provides case studies from various regions to demonstrate how community-based management of forests, fisheries, and water, alongside sustainable energy and agro-ecological farming, can effectively alleviate poverty. The report calls for the unconditional cancellation of external debt, the recognition of an 'ecological debt' owed by the North to the South, and a structural shift away from corporate-driven development toward food sovereignty and environmental justice.

The document examines the relationship between environmental health and rural poverty, asserting that neoliberal policies—such as trade liberalization, privatization, and industrial agribusiness—exacerbate poverty by stripping local communities of their natural resources. It provides global case studies where community-led management of forests, fisheries, and water, alongside sustainable energy and agroecological farming, offers a viable path toward poverty eradication and environmental restoration.

The report examines the link between environmental degradation and rural poverty, asserting that neoliberal policies—such as trade liberalization, privatization, and industrial agriculture—exacerbate poverty by stripping communities of their natural resources. It provides global case studies where community-led initiatives in forestry, fisheries, and renewable energy have successfully improved livelihoods. The document advocates for the unconditional cancellation of external debt, the recognition of an 'ecological debt' owed by the North to the South, and the promotion of food sovereignty and environmental justice.

The report defines food security as food that is available at all times, accessible to all, nutritionally adequate, and culturally acceptable. It argues that while global food supply has generally kept pace with demand, food insecurity persists due to failures in distribution and individual access. The document evaluates four policy paths: food self-sufficiency (now largely seen as unrealistic), trade liberalization (which offers supply stability but can undermine local producers), food sovereignty (which emphasizes national policy autonomy and peasant rights), and multi-functional agriculture (which integrates environmental sustainability and non-commodity public values into farming). It concludes that a pragmatic, flexible approach is necessary to reconcile economic, social, and ecological objectives.

The briefing argues that climate change adaptation must begin by addressing current vulnerabilities, particularly for the poor who rely heavily on ecosystem services. It advocates for a 'sustainable livelihoods approach' that combines disaster risk reduction, environmental management, and poverty reduction. By implementing activities such as watershed restoration and mangrove reforestation, communities can secure their natural resource base, diversify income, and increase resilience to both immediate disasters and long-term climate impacts.

The document presents case studies of biodiversity restoration by small farmers in Costa Rica, Paraguay, and Uruguay, contrasting these with the destructive impacts of industrial agriculture, genetically modified seeds, and international trade agreements.

The paper argues that the predominant reductionist model of Western science has failed, contributing to environmental degradation and the marginalisation of indigenous knowledge. It proposes a non-binding 'Convention on Knowledge' based on principles of public ownership, ecological accountability, and the protection of indigenous rights. The authors call for a shift toward holistic, organic sciences and the banning of destructive technologies, such as weapons of mass destruction and certain forms of genetic engineering, while promoting research into agro-ecology, renewable energy, and holistic health.

The document analyzes the conflict between corporate biotechnology and local communities defending agricultural diversity. It argues that the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the US government use trade sanctions and neoliberal policies to impose GMOs and monocultures, which lead to genetic erosion, loss of traditional seed varieties, and the displacement of small-scale farmers. Through case studies in Bolivia, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Canada, it highlights the risks of genetic contamination, the privatization of water and seeds, and the failure of transgenic crops to deliver promised yields. The report concludes by calling for the recognition of food sovereignty, the application of the precautionary principle, and the protection of farmers' rights to save and exchange seeds.

The document details community-led adaptation strategies across different ecological zones in Ghana. In the West Gonja District, women use Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLAs) and energy-saving stoves to enhance organic shea processing and resilience. In the Savannah and northern regions, farmers employ climate-smart agriculture, including agroforestry and solar-powered irrigation, to improve soil fertility. In the peri-urban area of Aboabo, residents implement early warning systems and infrastructure modifications to mitigate flooding. Along the coast in Keta, communities use gabions, beach nourishment, and mangrove restoration to combat coastal erosion and sea-level rise.

The report highlights that the agricultural sector is the largest source of methane emissions in the EU, accounting for 53% of total anthropogenic methane emissions in 2019. It argues that current EU policies lack the ambition and urgency needed to meet the Global Methane Pledge's 30% reduction target by 2030. A study by CE Delft indicates that while a 'business-as-usual' scenario would only yield a 13.4% reduction, the EU could potentially reduce emissions by 49% to 68% if all available mitigation measures are adopted, including a widespread shift toward healthier diets with lower meat and dairy consumption. The report emphasizes that dietary changes alone could reduce total EU methane emissions by 15% to 19%. It recommends that the EU establish science-based methane reduction targets for the agricultural sector, promote plant-based diets through the Sustainable Food Systems Framework Law, and impose binding methane reporting and reduction targets on companies operating within the EU.

The Methane Matters Consortium argues that the EU's Vision for Food and Agriculture ignores the critical need to reduce methane emissions from animal agriculture. The authors state that over 50% of EU methane emissions originate from agriculture and that current voluntary measures are insufficient. They recommend establishing binding methane reduction targets, reforming the Common Agricultural Policy to support farmers in reducing herd sizes, and promoting plant-based diets to meet the goals of the Global Methane Pledge.

The policy brief outlines key principles for land-use mitigation, warning against using carbon sequestration to offset fossil fuel emissions and emphasizing the protection of food security and indigenous rights. It critiques current Kyoto Protocol LULUCF accounting as overly complex and prone to loopholes, recommending separate targets for industrial and land-use emissions due to the temporary nature of terrestrial carbon pools. The document advocates for policy-based measures, improved forest governance, and a focus on methane and nitrous oxide in agriculture to achieve permanent emission reductions.

The document advocates for a land-use framework in the post-2020 climate agreement based on four principles: rights, ambition, equity, and biodiversity. It warns that treating terrestrial carbon sequestration as fungible with fossil fuel emissions undermines climate ambition and risks human rights violations. The authors recommend separate targets for industrial and land-based emissions, the protection of tenure rights for indigenous peoples and local communities, and a per capita allocation of agricultural emissions to ensure global food security.