Search Climate Insights Directory

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 challenges the narrative that jatropha is a 'miracle crop' for Mozambique, finding that it requires fertile land and significant water, is vulnerable to pests that can spread to food crops, and often leads to land grabbing and economic instability for subsistence farmers.

The report investigates the reality of jatropha production in Mozambique, challenging the narrative that it is a sustainable 'miracle crop' for marginal lands. Through case studies and interviews, it finds that jatropha is typically grown on fertile land, displacing food crops and endangering food security for the 87% of Mozambicans who are subsistence farmers. The document highlights significant failures in industrial projects, including low yields, high pest vulnerability, and broken promises of community development. It also criticizes the Mozambican government for manipulating land laws to favor foreign investors, leading to land grabs and the marginalization of local communities.

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 document critiques the World Bank Group's draft palm oil strategy, highlighting systemic failures in protecting indigenous land rights and biodiversity. It specifically warns against a 'loophole' regarding Financial Intermediaries (FIs) and Advisory Services, which the authors claim could be used to bypass environmental and social safeguards. The authors argue that investment should only occur after a strict sequencing of policy and regulatory capacity building, and they call for the continuation of the sector-wide moratorium on palm oil lending until these issues are resolved.

The report examines food security policies within the Southern African Development Community (SADC), noting that the region exists in a state of permanent food-security crisis. It discusses the role of the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) and the risks associated with strategic grain reserves and inappropriate trade policies. The document emphasizes the importance of domestic production capabilities and short-term safety nets for vulnerable populations.

The document defines environmental justice as the right to healthy living environments and a fair share of nature's benefits. It argues that the poorest populations are disproportionately affected by environmental damage and climate change, while the wealthiest are most responsible. Friends of the Earth advocates for 'climate justice,' where rich countries lead in carbon cuts and fund adaptation for poorer nations. The text highlights specific case studies of its work, including fighting oil pollution in Nigeria, uranium mining in Australia, and urban planning issues in the UK.

The document asserts that tree plantations are uniform agricultural systems that cause biodiversity loss, community displacement, and hydrological alteration. It criticizes the use of these plantations as carbon sinks under the Kyoto Protocol, arguing that such schemes provide a 'fictional solution' to climate change while benefiting transnational corporations. The paper further denounces international organizations like the FAO for legitimizing plantations by classifying them as forests.

The World Bank is criticized as a major climate polluter that uses its role in climate finance to maintain developed country control over developing nations. Despite its rhetoric, the Bank continues to fund carbon-intensive projects, such as a $3.75 billion coal plant loan to South Africa, and promotes flawed carbon offsetting and forest conservation schemes. The report contrasts the World Bank's donor-controlled Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) with the more equitable, grant-based UNFCCC Adaptation Fund, calling for a transition to a Global Climate Fund accountable to the Conference of Parties.

The report examines the surge in land acquisitions across Africa for agrofuel production, driven largely by EU mandatory targets for renewable transport fuels. It finds that approximately 5 million hectares of land have been acquired for fuel crops, often without community consent. The document argues that these 'land grabs' threaten food security by competing with food crops for fertile land and water, while providing minimal local employment. Environmental impacts include deforestation in the Congo Basin and habitat loss in Ethiopia's Babile Elephant Sanctuary. The report concludes that agrofuels are often exported for international profit rather than providing local energy security, leaving African nations with depleted natural resources.

The report argues that the expansion of agrofuels in Africa, driven largely by European Union mandates, leads to 'neo-colonialism' where land is acquired by foreign companies and governments. This process results in the displacement of local farmers, increased food insecurity, and significant ecological damage, including deforestation and water scarcity. The document highlights the 'myth of marginal lands,' asserting that land claimed as unused is often vital for communal survival. It recommends halting land acquisitions, prioritizing food sovereignty, and ensuring the free, prior, and informed consent of local communities.

The IAI Directorate Report details a period of significant scientific productivity contrasted with a severe core funding crisis caused by member country non-payments. While the institute successfully advanced research on ecosystem boundaries, urban emissions, and Andean biodiversity, it faced operational disruptions, including temporary salary halts and the cancellation of travel for international climate negotiations. The report emphasizes the transition of the IAI from a funding agency to an active participant in science-policy dialogue and highlights the need for sustainable financial commitments from member states.

The paper examines the complexity of comparing national emissions pledges due to inconsistent base years, varying scopes of greenhouse gases, and divergent accounting methods for LULUCF. It analyzes the specific pledges of Annex I countries (Australia, Canada, EU, Japan, Russia, Kazakhstan) and non-Annex I countries (China, India), highlighting how 'cherry picking' accounting systems can make targets appear more ambitious than they are. The authors recommend a common accounting framework where countries provide scenarios showing how energy-related emissions, LULUCF, and international offsets contribute to their total commitments.

The report examines the environmental, social, and economic impacts of unconventional oil extraction, focusing on tar sands and oil shale. It highlights that these resources produce significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil and cause severe local ecological damage, such as boreal forest destruction in Canada. The document criticizes the EU's Fuel Quality Directive for potentially underestimating the carbon intensity of these fuels and urges the EU to discourage their import and investment. It also details the involvement of European companies in projects across Venezuela, Madagascar, Congo, Russia, Jordan, and Morocco, warning that such developments in countries with weak governance risk exacerbating the 'resource curse' and undermining Millennium Development Goals.

The project developed the Local Knowledge Scenarios (LKS) method, which integrates field work and Agent-Based Models to document local perceptions of environmental change and their impact on decision-making. Testing across five diverse American regions revealed that local awareness of issues like deforestation in the Amazon does not always translate to the acceptance of environmental laws, and that fishing communities in Canada require national public policies to successfully diversify their income sources.

The document examines the 'major loophole' in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) regarding the lack of a clear judicial mechanism to compensate Southern Sudanese communities for environmental degradation caused by oil companies. It details the adverse impacts of oil production—including water contamination, soil erosion, and mass displacement—and analyzes the overlapping and often conflicting jurisdictions of the Government of National Unity (GNU) and the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS). The author argues that while the CPA guarantees compensation, the absence of specific environmental laws and the political nature of the National Petroleum Commission (NPC) leave victims without recourse. The paper recommends the urgent enactment of interim environmental laws and the use of existing regional judiciaries to fill the legal vacuum before the 2011 referendum.

The document clarifies that in science, uncertainty refers to the degree to which something is known rather than a complete lack of knowledge. It explains that climate scientists use specific probabilistic language—such as 'very likely' to denote a greater than 90 percent chance—to inform public policy and decision-making. While certain facts are established without uncertainty, such as the role of fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect in warming the Earth, uncertainties remain regarding the exact magnitude of future warming and the timing of specific ecological losses, often depending on future human actions to reduce emissions.

The report finds that IOI Corporation is failing to meet its sustainability commitments in Ketapang, West Kalimantan. Evidence shows the company developed plantations without approved Environmental Impact Assessments, made fraudulent statements about physical activity on the ground, and encroached on permanent forests and peat lands. Additionally, the report notes a significant increase in fire hotspots in newly cleared areas and potential for land rights conflicts with local villagers.