Search Climate Insights Directory

A position paper by Friends of the Earth International arguing that achieving food sovereignty requires dismantling patriarchy and strengthening women as political subjects, specifically through feminist policies and agroecology.

The document argues that the COVID-19 pandemic and other socio-ecological crises stem from a capitalist and neoliberal system. It proposes a recovery based on four principles: abandoning neoliberalism and austerity in favor of state-led justice and ecological limits; fostering multilateral cooperation and international solidarity, including debt cancellation for the Global South; strengthening democracy and human rights; and addressing systemic crises—including climate and biodiversity loss—through transformative change, such as transitioning to agroecology and renewable energy managed by local communities.

A position paper by Friends of the Earth International advocating for the integration of a feminist perspective into the pursuit of food sovereignty, emphasizing the need to dismantle patriarchy and implement agroecology based on equal power relations.

The report argues that 'nature-based solutions' and carbon offsetting used by corporations to achieve 'net zero' goals lead to land grabbing and the dispossession of indigenous and rural peoples. It highlights that the massive land requirements for these schemes—such as those proposed by Nestlé and Shell—threaten food sovereignty and risk co-opting agroecology, which the report presents as the only truly transformative way to produce food while cooling the planet.

The document reports on the third Sustainability School organized by COECOCeiba AT in the community of Juanilama, Costa Rica. It advocates for 'Buen Vivir' (Good Living) as a foundation for sustainability, emphasizing the role of popular education in descolonizing thought and empowering social movements. The text contrasts the community-led agroecological practices and forest management in Juanilama with the destructive impacts of industrial agribusiness, such as pineapple and sugarcane monocultures. It further calls for climate justice, the rejection of carbon offsets and free trade agreements, and the promotion of food sovereignty through peasant mobilization and the recovery of ancestral knowledge.

The report critiques the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), funded by the Rockefeller and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations, as a vehicle for corporate dominance in African agriculture. The author contends that AGRA promotes a 'technology push' involving GMOs, hybrid seeds, and chemical inputs that benefit agribusiness giants like Monsanto while undermining indigenous knowledge and sustainable agro-ecological practices. The text highlights failed attempts to introduce GM cassava in Nigeria and argues that food insecurity should be addressed through eco-farming and the implementation of the IAASTD review rather than industrial models.

The document outlines a framework for climate equity, asserting that developed nations owe an ecological debt to developing nations due to historical overconsumption. It advocates for a global carbon budget apportioned by responsibility, capacity, and the right to sustainable societies, while calling for a systemic shift away from neoliberalism toward community-owned energy and agroecology to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

The guide critiques the agribusiness investment model, highlighting how bilateral investment treaties and mechanisms like Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) prioritize corporate profits over state sovereignty and environmental protections. It details the negative impacts of industrial agriculture, including land grabbing, biodiversity loss, and high greenhouse gas emissions. As an alternative, the document promotes agroecology led by small-scale food producers, citing evidence that such methods can increase crop yields and enhance climate resilience while supporting food sovereignty.

The report critiques the 'agribusiness investment model' promoted through bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements, asserting that these frameworks prioritize corporate profits over human rights and environmental health. It highlights how mechanisms like Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) prevent governments from implementing public health and environmental protections. The document advocates for food sovereignty and agroecology, noting that small-scale farmers produce 70-80% of food in the developing world and that agroecological methods can significantly increase crop yields while regenerating natural resources.

The document advocates for a global carbon budget distributed according to historical responsibility, capacity, and the right to sustainable societies. It asserts that developed countries owe a climate debt to developing nations and must provide funding and technology without intellectual property restrictions. It calls for a systemic shift away from neoliberalism and fossil fuels toward community-owned renewable energy and agroecology to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

The report critiques the impact of bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements on national sovereignty, specifically highlighting how mechanisms like Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) prevent states from implementing environmental and social protections. It argues that the agro-industrial model leads to land grabbing, biodiversity loss, and increased hunger, while proposing that investing in small-scale agroecology can double food production in critical regions and improve climate resilience.

The document defines climate equity as the fair sharing of the global carbon budget, emphasizing that developed countries bear a 'historical responsibility' due to their past emissions and resource exploitation. It advocates for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C, which requires an immediate revolution in energy, food, and transport systems. The text calls for a 'system change' over mere climate change, proposing a transition away from neoliberalism and fossil fuels toward community-controlled renewable energy and agroecology, while urging the UN to enforce equitable responsibility among nations.

The statement by Friends of the Earth International and partner organizations denounces the RAI framework as a tool to legitimize land grabbing. It argues that large-scale land acquisitions are driven by financial speculation and result in human rights violations, environmental degradation, and threats to food security. The authors demand the cancellation of existing land grab agreements and the adoption of food sovereignty and agroecological models based on small-scale farming.

The report documents various grassroots initiatives by Friends of the Earth (FoE) groups in Asia and the Pacific, focusing on community forest management, social and solidarity economies, food rights, and renewable energy. It advocates for a systemic transformation of economic and political systems in the region to address the entwined crises of inequality and climate change, calling for the removal of fossil fuel subsidies and the protection of customary land rights.

The document argues that climate equity requires developed nations to take the lead in reducing emissions and providing financial and technological support to developing nations due to their historical responsibility. It advocates for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C through a carbon budget based on responsibility, capacity, and the right to sustainable societies. The text calls for a systemic economic transformation away from neoliberalism and fossil fuels toward community-led renewable energy and agroecology.

Friends of the Earth Asia Pacific presents a series of community-driven projects aimed at transforming the region's economic and political systems. The report details successful initiatives in forest management, social economy, food rights, renewable energy, and sustainable tourism, arguing that these local models can be replicated and expanded if supported by national and regional policies.

Friends of the Earth International argues that the COVID-19 pandemic shares root causes with climate and biodiversity crises, stemming from a capitalist and neoliberal system. The organization proposes a recovery based on four principles: abandoning neoliberalism and austerity in favor of state-guaranteed rights; enhancing multilateral cooperation and international solidarity, including Global South debt cancellation; strengthening democracy and human rights; and pursuing a transformative system change that shifts from industrial agriculture and fossil fuel dependency toward food sovereignty and community-owned renewable energy.

The document outlines the dangers of BECCS, highlighting its potential to cause massive deforestation, land grabbing, and food insecurity. It argues that the technology is inefficient, carries risks of CO2 leakage, and serves as a justification for continued fossil fuel use through carbon offsetting. The authors advocate for a systemic shift toward agroecology, community-managed ecosystems, and a just energy transition based on renewable sources like wind and solar.

The fact sheet criticizes the adoption of "nature-based solutions" by over 1,500 companies, asserting that these strategies allow firms to maintain polluting business models while claiming "net zero" targets. It highlights Shell and Nestlé as examples of companies using carbon offsets to mask continued emissions and environmental damage. The document advocates for "real zero emissions" through the cessation of fossil fuel extraction and the support of agroecology and community-led forest management led by indigenous peoples and local communities.

The document critiques the framing of 'nature-based solutions' (NbS) as compatible with agroecology, asserting that NbS are instead used by corporate and financial interests to maintain industrial agriculture and create speculative assets. It contrasts agroecology's holistic, emancipatory approach with the NbS model, which focuses on carbon sequestration to justify 'net zero' distractions and the continued use of fossil fuels and synthetic inputs. The text highlights how NbS can lead to land grabs and the marginalization of small-scale producers, opposing the goals of land reform and food sovereignty.