Search Climate Insights Directory

In 2024, 146 land and environmental defenders were murdered or disappeared globally, with 82% of cases occurring in Latin America. Mining remains the most lethal sector, followed by logging and agribusiness. The report highlights systemic failures in state protection, high levels of impunity, and the criminalization of activists. It specifically examines the precarious situation of indigenous and peasant communities in Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, the Philippines, Honduras, Guatemala, and Chile, while also addressing the environmental destruction and land expropriation in occupied Palestinian territories. The document calls for the ratification of the Escazú Agreement, the implementation of the EU's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, and the guaranteed safe participation of defenders in COP30.

Global Witness reports that 1,733 land and environmental defenders were killed between 2012 and 2021, with 200 deaths recorded in 2021 alone. The report identifies extreme land inequality, corruption, and the repression of civic space as primary drivers of violence, particularly affecting indigenous peoples in the Global South. It highlights critical situations in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, and the Philippines, while advocating for the implementation of the Escazú Agreement and mandatory corporate due diligence in the EU to protect those on the front lines of the climate and biodiversity crises.

In 2024, 146 environmental and land defenders were killed or disappeared globally, with 82% of cases occurring in Latin America. The report identifies mining as the deadliest industry for defenders and highlights the role of organized crime and state actors in these attacks. It specifically examines the critical situations in Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, the Philippines, Honduras, and Guatemala, while detailing the systemic failures of state protection mechanisms and the criminalization of activism. The document calls for the ratification of the Escazú Agreement, the implementation of binding corporate due diligence laws, and the recognition of defenders' roles in climate solutions ahead of COP30.

The report examines the bioeconomy in Brazil and the Amazon through three conceptual lenses: biotechnology, bioresources, and bioecology. It finds that while Brazil possesses a broad set of regulations covering these areas, it lacks a unified national strategy and coordinated governance. The analysis highlights that the 'various Amazons'—conserved, deforested, under pressure, and urban—require different bioeconomy approaches. Key regulatory tensions exist within the Biodiversity Law, which is viewed as too bureaucratic by the biotechnology sector and insufficient in protecting traditional knowledge by bioecology advocates. The report concludes that effective governance must integrate multiple ministries and prioritize land tenure regularization to ensure sustainability and legal security.

A randomized control trial in the Peruvian Amazon demonstrated that Indigenous communities using Global Forest Watch satellite alerts reduced deforestation rates by 52% in the first year and 21% in the second year compared to a control group. The system, which costs approximately $6 per hectare annually, empowers local monitors to detect illegal clearing and coordinate community responses.

The document examines the greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint of palm oil, noting that emissions range from -0.3 to over 20 kgCO2e/kg CPO, with an average of approximately 6 kgCO2e/kg CPO. The primary drivers of these emissions are land-use change (LUC), particularly the conversion of tropical forests and peatlands, and the degradation of palm oil mill effluent (POME). The report highlights that emissions are highly spatially heterogeneous, with peat-based production being significantly more carbon-intensive than mineral-soil production. Mitigation strategies focus on preventing further deforestation and peatland development, managing water tables in existing peatlands, and implementing POME treatment technologies such as biogas capture and composting. The document also compares production characteristics across key regions, noting that Southeast Asia has the highest yields and production volumes, while West Africa has the lowest.

The document analyzes GHG emissions from coffee production, ranging from 3 to over 40 kgCO2e/kg roast coffee, with an average of approximately 20 kgCO2e/kg. It identifies land-use change, fertilizer use, and wet-processing effluent as the primary emission drivers. The briefing highlights that while polyculture systems sequester more carbon than monocultures, the overall footprint is highly variable based on location and practice. Key mitigation strategies include preventing deforestation, treating processing effluent, and improving fertilizer management, though implementation is challenged by the prevalence of smallholder farming.

The document examines the GHG footprints of soy production, emphasizing that land-use change (LUC) is the primary driver of emissions. It details emissions from farm-gate activities, processing, and transport, while comparing production systems and regional impacts, particularly in South America. Mitigation priorities focus on preventing deforestation and improving tillage and fertilizer practices.

The report examines the greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint of beef production, highlighting that emissions vary drastically by region and production system, ranging from 16 to 360 kg CO2e/kg edible meat. It identifies enteric fermentation, feed production, and land-use change as the primary emission drivers, while noting that well-managed grazing lands can act as carbon sinks. The document outlines mitigation strategies including improved feed digestibility, rotational grazing, and feed additives, estimating a total global mitigation potential between 0.67 and 2.55 GtCO2e/yr.

The document examines the GHG footprint of the pulp and paper industry, noting that emissions range from 14 to 75 tCO2e/t paper (excluding biogenic forestry emissions). It highlights that pulping and papermaking are energy-intensive stages that dominate the footprint, while forest management—specifically deforestation and premature harvesting—represents a significant source of emissions and a major mitigation opportunity. The report emphasizes the need for standardized GHG accounting in the sector and suggests shifting to renewable energy and sustainable forestry to reduce impacts.

The document analyzes the GHG footprint of salmon, noting that emissions are dominated by feed, with total retail emissions typically between 7 and 10 kgCO2e/kg edible weight. It highlights significant variability based on production methods, feed composition, and transport modes, while identifying land-use change in feed and air freight as primary targets for mitigation.

The document analyzes the GHG emissions of chicken production, noting that cradle-to-retail meat averages 7–10 kgCO2e/kg edible weight (EW). Feed, particularly land-use change (LUC) from soy and oil palm, is the primary emission driver. The report compares broiler, layer, and backyard systems, highlighting that conventional industrial farming generally has lower emissions than organic systems due to better feed conversion and bird performance. Mitigation focuses on deforestation-free feed, optimized diets, and improved manure management.

The document analyzes how climate change interacts with socio-political fragility in Papua New Guinea, highlighting risks such as food insecurity, illegal logging, and escalating tribal violence. It argues that these stressors, combined with geopolitical competition from China, threaten regional security. The author recommends that the U.S. provide technical assistance for renewable energy, establish a climate data platform, and support local NGOs and military disaster response capacity to mitigate these risks.

The briefing addresses the lack of standardised definitions for sustainable agriculture, which increases the risk of greenwashing. It examines four representative production systems—regenerative, ecological intensification, sustainable intensification, and organic agriculture—and argues that sustainability should be assessed based on specific management practices rather than broad system labels. The author categorises practices into 'Always', 'Usually', and 'Sometimes' sustainable based on environmental impact, while emphasizing that all must meet 'do no significant harm' (DNSH) social standards. It identifies uncontrolled deforestation and the conversion of high-carbon stocks as permanently unsustainable practices.

The document examines the proposed EU Regulation on deforestation-free products, specifically focusing on the country benchmarking mechanism in Article 27. It argues that the European Commission's initial unilateral approach risks trade distortions and diplomatic tensions, and instead advocates for a multi-stakeholder process involving civil society, Indigenous Peoples, and smallholders. The briefing compares the positions of the Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council, recommending that benchmarking include not only deforestation rates but also compliance with national legality requirements and human rights standards. It suggests that a transparent, inclusive process will better incentivize producer countries to reform forest governance and reduce the risk of 'leakage' to less stringent markets.

The interim evaluation of the I-GFLL/CliPAD IV project in Lao PDR indicates a generally successful implementation, rated as 'Level 2: successful' overall. The project is highly aligned with national policies and the needs of rural populations in Luang Prabang, Sayabouri, and Houaphan provinces. While it has successfully established an enabling environment for REDD+ and integrated women and ethnic groups, effectiveness is rated as 'moderately successful' because many village-level activities only began in 2021, making it too early to quantify total CO2 reductions. Key achievements include the creation of a Climate Change Funding Window within the Environment Protection Fund and the development of 25 Village Forest Management Plans. However, challenges remain regarding high staff turnover in government agencies, bureaucratic delays in fund disbursement, and external risks from mining concessions and infrastructure projects.

Global Witness calls for the UK to amend the Financial Services and Markets Bill 2022 to introduce mandatory forest-risk commodity due diligence for financial actors and a statutory objective for regulators on nature and net zero. The briefing highlights that the UK financial sector is a major financier of global deforestation, with an estimated $16.6 billion provided to 20 agri-businesses implicated in deforestation between 2015-2020, and faces up to £200 billion in risk exposure in Brazilian beef and soy and Indonesian palm oil supply chains.

The briefing reveals that the US Federal Reserve, Bank of England, and European Central Bank have invested in bonds from agribusinesses like Cargill, ADM, and Bunge, which are linked to deforestation and land-grabbing in regions such as the Brazilian Cerrado and Indonesia. The document argues that such investments subsidize environmentally destructive companies and send a negative signal to private investors. It highlights a gap between central banks' public climate commitments and their actual portfolios, noting that deforestation is often missing from their risk assessments and 'stress tests'. Global Witness recommends that central banks divest from deforestation-linked bonds, implement zero-deforestation policies, and increase prudential supervision of the private financial sector's exposure to these risks.

The report examines the global coffee market, highlighting the vulnerability of smallholder farmers to climate change and price volatility. It analyzes the impact of voluntary sustainability standards (VSSs), noting that while VSS-compliant production grew significantly between 2008 and 2019, it has recently faced a decline due to oversupply and a shift toward corporate sustainability programs. The document argues that sustaining the sector requires internalizing environmental costs, increasing demand for sustainable coffee in producing countries, and implementing living income reference prices to ensure fair compensation for farmers.

The IRM found that the Bio-CLIMA project in Nicaragua failed to comply with GCF safeguards regarding conflict sensitivity, human rights due diligence, and informed consultation and participation (ICP). Specifically, the project did not adequately assess recurrent violent conflicts between indigenous communities and non-indigenous settlers, nor did it conduct meaningful consultations on key project components like Peaceful Co-habitation Regime Agreements (PCRAs). The IRM warns that the current design may reward illegal land occupation and exacerbate violence. It recommends conducting a macro-level conflict sensitivity analysis, a human rights due diligence report, and a framework-level ICP process before any project activities commence.