Search Climate Insights Directory

The report denounces the Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment (RAI) as a mechanism to legitimise 'land grabbing' by corporations and governments. It argues that voluntary guidelines cannot remedy the systemic human rights violations, environmental destruction, and food insecurity caused by large-scale land acquisitions, which it claims are driven by financial speculation rather than food security. The authors call for an immediate ban on large-scale land transactions, the return of misappropriated lands to communities, and a transition toward food sovereignty based on peasant agriculture and agroecology.

Friends of the Earth International and a coalition of social movements denounce the 'Responsible Agricultural Investment' (RAI) principles promoted by the World Bank and other international agencies. The document asserts that these voluntary guidelines serve as a 'moral facade' for financial speculation and corporate land grabbing, which lead to forced evictions, water privatization, and the destruction of small-scale farming. It calls for the immediate suspension of land grabs, the return of stolen lands, and a transition toward food sovereignty based on agroecological methods and genuine land reform.

This report by Friends of the Earth International documents community struggles and successes in maintaining food sovereignty and biodiversity across diverse geographic contexts. It examines the negative impacts of industrial monocultures, corporate land grabs, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) while promoting agroecology, seed saving, and community-based forest management as sustainable alternatives. The text emphasizes the role of women and indigenous peoples in protecting ecosystems and argues that food sovereignty is unattainable without the preservation of biological diversity.

The document critiques carbon markets, specifically the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), as tools that perpetuate dependence on fossil fuels and facilitate 'carbon colonialism'. It highlights how offsetting allows rich nations to outsource their climate responsibilities to developing countries, often resulting in human rights violations, land grabbing, and the funding of projects like coal plants or gas flaring. The author advocates for a systemic transformation based on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and public climate finance instead of market-based mechanisms.

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 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 report argues that India's push for jatropha to meet biodiesel targets has led to the forced displacement of tribal and lower-caste communities from their traditional lands. While promoted as a pro-poor, non-food crop for 'waste land', the report finds that jatropha often displaces food crops and common resources, fails to thrive due to poor understanding of growing conditions, and is unlikely to be commercially viable as a monoculture.

The report details a systemic failure of governance in Ketapang District, West Kalimantan, where oil palm expansion—driven by EU biofuel targets—has led to widespread illegal land clearing, deforestation of protected forests, and severe social conflicts. It highlights that the Ketapang government issued permits for approximately 40% of the district's land in just three years, often bypassing legal requirements for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and forestland release approvals. The document argues that voluntary certification schemes like the RSPO and the EU's Renewable Energy Directive (RED) are insufficient to prevent these abuses, as they lack rigorous legality checks and fail to address 'replacement effects' where certified oil is diverted to energy, pushing the food sector toward unsustainable sources. Socially, the expansion has resulted in land grabs from indigenous communities and precarious labor conditions, including the non-payment of smallholders and chemical poisoning of workers.

La Via Campesina and Friends of the Earth International advocate for a transition from industrial, export-oriented agriculture to a food sovereignty model. This model prioritizes the right to food as a human right, supports small-scale farmers' access to land and seeds, and promotes agroecological systems to mitigate climate change. The organizations reject 'false solutions' like carbon trading and agrofuels, and criticize the role of international financial institutions and the WTO in perpetuating unsustainable agricultural systems.

The statement advocates for a shift from industrial agricultural models to 'food sovereignty,' defined as the capacity of peoples to decide what to produce and how to market it. It supports UN Special Rapporteur Olivier De Schutter's call for a human-rights-based approach to agriculture that prioritizes the most vulnerable, protects small-scale farmers' access to land and seeds, and promotes agroecological systems to mitigate climate change. The authors explicitly reject the influence of transnational corporations and international financial institutions like the World Bank and IMF, characterizing their policies and certain 'green' initiatives—such as REDD and biofuels—as 'false solutions' that threaten food sovereignty.

The report documents a global pattern of violence and legal harassment against land and environmental rights defenders in 2013. It argues that these individuals, often representing vulnerable indigenous or rural communities, are targeted by governments and corporations during conflicts over natural resources and large-scale development projects. The document provides specific case studies from Europe, the Americas, Africa, and Asia, detailing arrests, assassinations, and forced displacements linked to opposition to mining, hydroelectric dams, agribusiness, and oil exploration.

ClientEarth warns that Brazilian Bill 490/2007 restricts Indigenous land demarcation to areas occupied by 1988, potentially impacting over 300 pending cases and increasing vulnerability to illegal land grabbing. The organization argues that denying these rights threatens biodiversity in the Amazon and Cerrado, contributing to global greenhouse gas emissions.

The document argues that insecure land rights in Brazil lead to increased violence, deforestation, and agricultural inefficiency. It highlights that Brazil ranks 76th out of 129 countries for secure physical property rights, with significant portions of federal land in the Amazon illegally occupied. The insecurity is attributed to a complex institutional system involving 11 federal executive bodies, poor recordkeeping, and a lack of integrated databases. The text notes that 20% of Brazil's total area consists of vacant lands prone to illegal occupation and that land disputes resulted in 770 homicides between 1994 and 2015.

The report argues that 'nature-based solutions' and carbon offsetting schemes promoted by governments and over 1,500 large companies are 'false climate solutions' that risk causing mass land grabbing and dispossession. It highlights that the land requirements for corporate net-zero promises are immense, citing examples from Nestlé and Shell. The document further asserts that these mechanisms benefit agribusiness, fossil fuel, and tech companies while forcing small-scale farmers into intensive practices, ultimately threatening to co-opt and weaken agroecology, which is presented as the genuine transformative alternative for food production and climate cooling.

The report critiques the 'no net loss' (NPN) biodiversity framework, characterizing it as a corporate tool for greenwashing that allows the destruction of ecosystems through flawed compensation mechanisms. It asserts that ecosystems are qualitatively unique and cannot be quantified or traded, and calls for the exclusion of NPN from the new Global Biodiversity Framework to facilitate a genuine systemic change.

The document argues that carbon markets, offsetting systems, and carbon credits are 'false climate solutions' rooted in capitalism, neocolonialism, and extractivism. It asserts that these mechanisms often violate the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, leading to land theft and environmental harm, and provides a framework to help these communities protect their rights and territories.

This report by Friends of the Earth International critiques the use of "net zero" pledges and carbon offsetting by corporations and governments, arguing that these mechanisms are used to obscure climate inaction and avoid the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels.