Search Climate Insights Directory

The statement critiques 'Nature-based Solutions' (NbS) as a deceptive framework used by governments and corporations to justify 'net zero' targets without implementing deep emission reductions. It asserts that NbS rely on flawed assumptions about carbon sequestration and risk triggering massive land grabs in the Global South, citing the example of ENI in Mozambique. The author calls for structural changes, immediate emission cuts by developed nations, and the protection of Indigenous rights over market-based environmental schemes.

The study finds that while the direct local conversion of degraded areas into deforested land is low (10% of total deforestation), there is a strong regional association: 30% of total deforestation occurs within one kilometer of previously degraded areas. This association is most frequent in medium or large private properties, rural settlements, and undesignated areas. The authors argue that degradation alerts can serve as a leading indicator for regional forest risk, suggesting that law enforcement should target both degraded areas and their immediate surroundings, particularly on private lands.

ClientEarth argues that current Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapters in EU FTAs are often insufficient and lack effective enforcement. The document proposes a 'blueprint' to integrate core environmental principles into the general chapters of agreements, make ratification conditional on multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), and introduce a robust system of sanctions for non-compliance. It specifically advocates for the systematic inclusion of the precautionary principle and the creation of reciprocal complaint mechanisms for civil society. The briefing also details specific legal obligations the EU should seek regarding climate (1.5°C limit), biodiversity (30% protected areas), deforestation-free products, and the elimination of harmful fisheries subsidies.

The briefing analyzes the proposed EU law on deforestation-free products, which aims to replace the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR). It highlights improvements such as the expansion of covered commodities to include cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, and soya, and the introduction of a 'deforestation-free' criterion alongside legality requirements. The document notes strengthened due diligence for large traders, mandatory geo-localisation coordinates for traceability, and more rigorous compliance check requirements for Member States. However, it warns of definitional ambiguities regarding 'forest' and 'deforestation' and criticizes the failure to include criminal liability for serious violations.

The European Commission's proposed regulation aims to minimize the EU's impact on global forests by establishing a 'deforestation-free' standard for cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, soya, and wood. The framework relies on mandatory supply chain due diligence, requiring full traceability to the point of production via geolocation coordinates. While it improves upon the EU Timber Regulation by introducing objective science-based standards and stronger penalties (up to 4% of annual turnover), it contains a 'simplified due diligence' loophole for low-risk countries. ClientEarth identifies critical gaps compared to the European Parliament's 2020 INL Report, specifically the lack of mandatory human rights protections, the exclusion of non-forest ecosystems like peatlands, the omission of the financial sector, and the absence of civil liability for victims of deforestation.

The report examines BNDES's impact on Brazilian agricultural investment credit, noting that disbursements nearly quadrupled in real terms between 1995 and 2020. The bank's credit is heavily concentrated in crop activities, particularly soy, and the acquisition of harvesters and tractors. Geographically, the Center-West region has become the primary recipient of these funds, reflecting the expansion of the agricultural frontier. Unlike general rural credit in Brazil, which is dominated by public banks, BNDES equipment credit is primarily channeled through private commercial banks and manufacturer-owned banks.

Between 2013 and 2020, approximately 42% of fire hotspots in the Brazilian Amazon occurred in previously undisturbed forests, affecting an estimated 18,000 square kilometers annually. While only 11% of fire-affected forest areas transitioned to clear-cut deforestation within three years, fire serves as a strong regional indicator of risk, with high rates of subsequent deforestation occurring in the surrounding areas. This association is particularly strong in rural settlements and public land holdings, where fire may facilitate land grabbing. Regional analysis shows an intensification of this fire-deforestation link in states such as Acre, Amazonas, Pará, Rondônia, and Roraima, especially around 2017.

The report analyzes the spatial and temporal links between forest degradation and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon from 2017 to 2020. Using INPE's DETER and PRODES systems, it finds that while direct local conversion of degraded areas into deforested land is low (10%), a significant portion of deforestation (30%) occurs within 1 km of previously degraded areas. The study highlights that degradation is more prevalent in medium and large private properties than deforestation is, suggesting that degradation can serve as a regional risk indicator for future deforestation and that policy efforts should be targeted based on land tenure categories.

The document examines Senator Carlos Fávaro's legislative report which favors PL 510/2021 over PL 2633/2020. The authors argue that the proposed changes primarily benefit medium and large land occupants by extending the time frame for land occupation, simplifying titling procedures through self-declaration for larger areas, and weakening environmental safeguards. These changes are seen as incentives for illegal deforestation and land grabbing, particularly in the Amazon, while offering no benefits to small-scale farmers.

The report examines the expansion of transnational corporations (TNCs) in Latin America and the Caribbean, specifically within the agro-industrial and energy sectors. It argues that neoliberal state reforms, free trade agreements, and investment treaties since the 1990s have facilitated the concentration of power, leading to the displacement of small-scale farmers, environmental degradation, and systemic violence. The document highlights a gendered dimension to these impacts, noting that women face severe restrictions on land ownership and increased vulnerability to violence. It concludes by proposing strategies for resistance, including the promotion of food sovereignty, agroecology, and the pursuit of a legally binding UN treaty to end corporate impunity.

The document examines the expansion of transnational corporations (TNCs) in Latin America and the Caribbean, specifically within the energy and agriculture sectors. It argues that neoliberal reforms, free trade agreements, and the dismantling of state institutions have enabled TNCs to control territories, leading to widespread dispossession, environmental degradation, and human rights violations. The report highlights a systemic pattern of anti-democratic governance and a specific, severe impact on women's rights and land tenure. It concludes by proposing strategies for resistance, including the promotion of food sovereignty, agroecology, and the establishment of a UN Binding Treaty on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations.

The project achieved a 'Satisfactory' overall rating, successfully exceeding several output targets despite an ambitious design and challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Key achievements include the development of the Soy, Beef, and Palm Oil Toolkits, the expansion of the Trase transparency platform, and the launch of RSPO-labeled cooking oil in Indonesia. While the project was highly efficient in leveraging co-financing—reaching US$ 130,308,741 against an initial target of US$ 42,334,902—it faced difficulties in gender mainstreaming and encountered socio-political resistance in Brazil. The evaluation recommends deeper local context analysis during design and the formalization of exit strategies to ensure the sustainability of established platforms and tools.

The document provides a multi-expert critique of COP26, noting that while the summit completed the Paris Agreement rule book and secured net zero commitments for 90% of the world, it failed to secure a 'grand bargain' for coal with India or a loss and damage fund. It highlights the $8.5 billion just transition deal for South Africa as a potential model but warns that developed nations have failed to meet the $100 billion annual finance goal. Experts argue that the summit ignored the critical role of oceans in carbon absorption and failed to address the resource-intensive economic systems driving global warming.

The document evaluates the revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED), praising the expansion of renewable energy targets into heavy industry and the prevention of double counting for carbon capture and utilization (CCU). However, it criticizes the lack of strong sustainability criteria for biomass, noting that food crops are still labeled as renewable energy. The author emphasizes that 'additionality' in renewable energy production is critical for green hydrogen and renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs) to prevent increased natural gas consumption in the power sector. The text also discusses the necessity of grid strengthening and demand-side flexibility for the EU to potentially achieve 100% renewable energy.

The report outlines findings from several IAI Small Grants Programme projects. Key highlights include the loss of carbon retention in the Amazon due to deforestation, the identification of a complex 'water crisis' in border regions of Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, and the development of predictive models for the Paraná River basin to balance hydroelectric energy needs with ecosystem services. It also emphasizes the role of co-production of knowledge and participatory governance in enhancing community adaptation to global environmental change across countries including Chile, Colombia, and Uruguay.

The World Resources Institute evaluates COP26, noting that while 151 new national commitments were submitted, they are insufficient to limit warming to 1.5°C. The statement highlights progress on phasing down coal, doubling adaptation funding, and addressing loss and damage, while criticizing the failure of developed nations to meet the $100 billion annual finance goal and the decision to allow old emission credits in carbon markets.

The We Mean Business Coalition asserts that while COP26 has seen increased ambition, current national pledges and methane commitments may only limit warming to 1.8°C. The coalition emphasizes the need for clear reporting frameworks and a data-driven Global Stocktake in 2023 to track progress and inform future national targets. It highlights that corporate action, such as the 25% emissions reduction by 338 companies with science-based targets, can provide governments with the confidence to accelerate decarbonization.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation pledge as a rebranding of failed initiatives like REDD+, asserting that it facilitates corporate greenwashing through carbon credits and offsets. The statement highlights the hypocrisy of signatory nations, citing the EU-Mercosur agreement's impact on the Amazon and the lack of binding regulations to protect Indigenous Peoples' rights and stop industrial agriculture and extractive industries.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation pledge as a 'greenwashing' effort similar to failed REDD+ initiatives. The organization contends that the reliance on carbon offsets and private financing—exemplified by the UK's funding of the LEAF coalition—enables corporations like Amazon and Unilever to continue emitting while risking land grabs in the Global South. The statement highlights contradictions, such as the EU-MERCOSUR trade agreement's impact on the Amazon and Brazil's treatment of indigenous peoples, and calls for binding human rights instruments and immediate emission cuts over market-based sinks.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation promise as a 'relooking' of failed initiatives like REDD+, claiming it facilitates corporate carbon offsetting rather than actual emission reductions. The statement highlights the hypocrisy of signatory nations, citing the EU-Mercosur trade agreement and Brazil's treatment of indigenous peoples, and calls for binding regulations and direct climate finance instead of market-based mechanisms.