Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that the agrocommodities model is a patriarchal system of production that drives deforestation, water pollution, and land grabbing, disproportionately harming women by increasing their care workloads and exposing them to violence. It documents specific abuses in sectors like oil palm and pineapple plantations across Africa, Latin America, and Asia, and advocates for a transition toward food sovereignty, agroecology, and a feminist care economy.

The document analyzes how the industrial agrocommodity system, driven by transnational corporations and patriarchal logic, causes territorial dispossession, environmental degradation, and systemic violence against women. It details impacts on land access, water quality, health, and food sovereignty, while advocating for a feminist economy of care and agroecology as transformative alternatives.

The report argues that individual human rights frameworks are insufficient to protect Indigenous Peoples, Afrodescendants, and peasants facing systemic threats from corporate extraction and neoliberal globalisation. It defines 'territory' as any socially constructed space—including the human body—and calls for a shift toward recognizing collective rights to land, water, and self-determination to achieve transformative system change.

Friends of the Earth International argues that the neoliberal system drives ecological crises and fuels violence against marginalized communities. The organization advocates for a shift from individual human rights frameworks toward the recognition of collective 'rights of peoples' to protect land, water, and ancestral practices. It defines 'territory' as a socially constructed space—including the human body—and positions the defense of these territories and their defenders as a prerequisite for systemic transformation toward sustainable societies.

The document argues that carbon markets and offsetting mechanisms are ineffective 'false solutions' that allow major polluters to continue emitting while causing harm to ecosystems and communities, particularly in the Global South. It details the mechanisms of the UNFCCC's Article 6, various regional and national carbon pricing initiatives, and provides strategies for civil society to resist these systems through advocacy, legal action, and community mobilization.

The document argues that carbon markets and emission offsets are ineffective at reducing emissions and instead serve as a distraction for major polluters while enabling extractivism and neocolonialism, particularly in the Global South. It details the mechanisms of the UNFCCC's Article 6, including the cooperative approaches of 6.2 and the UN-managed market of 6.4, as well as various regional and national systems in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The guide concludes by offering strategies for opposition, such as policy advocacy, community awareness, and legal challenges, while providing resources for tracking carbon projects.

The report documents systemic human rights violations in Paraguay's soy-growing regions, linking these abuses to major US commodity traders (ADM, Cargill, and Bunge) and European meat processors (2 Sisters and Danish Crown). It argues that voluntary sustainability certifications, specifically 'mass balance' schemes, act as accounting tricks that allow tainted soy to enter European supply chains. The document calls for mandatory due diligence legislation in the EU and UK to replace ineffective voluntary initiatives.

Global Witness reports that the expansion of soy monocultures in Paraguay is driving illegal land grabs, forced evictions of indigenous and peasant communities, and toxic pesticide poisoning. The report traces these products through global traders like ADM, Cargill, and Bunge to major European meat producers 2 Sisters and Danish Crown, and numerous high-street retailers. It argues that voluntary sustainability certifications, such as 'mass balance', act as 'accounting tricks' that mask the origin of 'tainted' soy, and calls for mandatory human rights due diligence legislation in the EU and UK.

The report examines how 'maldevelopment'—development that prioritizes economic growth over social equity—increases the vulnerability of marginalized groups, particularly women and Indigenous peoples, to disasters in Nepal and the Philippines. It details how inadequate planning and failed free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) processes lead to land grabs and forced displacements, which are experienced as disasters. The study highlights the role of WEHRDs in resisting these processes through grassroots mobilization, legal advocacy, and capacity building, while also documenting the severe hostility, violence, and systemic fragmentation they face.

Carbon Market Watch analyzes a leaked draft of the EU's Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF), warning that the proposal fails to define permanent storage, lacks liability rules for carbon reversals, and ignores social safeguards. While the author notes positive environmental sustainability objectives, they argue the framework risks certifying temporary removals as permanent and could allow agricultural emission reductions to be mislabeled as removals, potentially undermining EU climate targets.

The document argues that 'net zero' targets are a 'smoke screen' allowing corporations to maintain fossil fuel and industrial agriculture business models. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' (NbS) and carbon offsets as mechanisms that lead to land grabbing, the displacement of Indigenous and peasant communities, and the co-optation of agroecology. The report highlights the technical failures of carbon offsets, the volatility of biological carbon storage compared to fossil carbon, and the risks of 'digital soil carbon' platforms that allow agribusinesses to control farmer data and land use.

The document argues that 'net zero' strategies serve as a 'smoke screen' for large corporations to continue fossil fuel extraction and industrial agriculture. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, data appropriation, and the co-optation of agroecology, ultimately benefiting agribusiness and tech firms while undermining the rights of small-scale producers and Indigenous peoples.

The document argues that 'net zero' targets are deceptive tools used by fossil fuel and agribusiness giants to avoid radical emission cuts. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' (NBS) and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, marginalize small-scale farmers, and prioritize corporate profit over genuine agroecology and food sovereignty.

The document argues that 'net zero' promises act as a 'smoke screen' for multinational corporations to maintain fossil fuel and industrial agriculture growth. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, data extraction from small farmers, and the marginalization of agroecology. The report contends that these market-based approaches prioritize carbon metrics over food sovereignty and ecological justice, calling instead for a transition to agroecological systems and the abandonment of industrial food models.

The document critiques the reliance on 'net zero' frameworks, carbon offsets, and technological fixes, asserting that these mechanisms allow polluters to continue emissions while risking land grabbing and violating indigenous rights. It specifically analyzes the implications of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and the promotion of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) and geoengineering, calling instead for a systemic shift toward energy sovereignty and the phased elimination of fossil fuels.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework and the expansion of carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, labeling them as 'false solutions' used by the fossil fuel industry to avoid drastic emission cuts. It specifically warns that 'nature-based solutions' (NBS) lead to land grabbing and that geo-engineering technologies are unproven and risky. The briefing outlines the outcomes of COP26 and the expected agenda for COP27, advocating instead for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels, support for agroecology, and the recognition of indigenous land sovereignty.

The document critiques the 'net zero' narrative, asserting that it relies on unproven carbon removals and offsets that allow polluters to continue emissions. It specifically highlights the risks of 'Nature Based Solutions' (NBS) leading to land grabbing in the Global South and the dangers of techno-fixes like BECCS and DACCS. The briefing details how the Article 6 'Rulebook' agreed at COP26 facilitates global carbon markets and warns that COP27 may further entrench these mechanisms. It concludes by advocating for 'real solutions' centered on a coordinated fossil fuel phase-out, food sovereignty, and Indigenous rights.

The document argues that 'net zero' pledges act as a 'smokescreen' for corporations to continue fossil fuel extraction and industrial agriculture. It specifically critiques nature-based solutions (NbS) and soil carbon sequestration, claiming these mechanisms facilitate land grabbing, data harvesting by agribusiness and IT firms, and the co-option of agroecology. The report contends that carbon offsetting relies on a false 'equivalence' between volatile biomass carbon and long-term fossil carbon, ultimately benefiting corporate power over small-scale food producers.

The report argues that 'net zero' targets are a 'smokescreen' allowing corporations to maintain fossil-fuel-based business models through carbon offsetting and 'nature-based solutions'. It contends that these mechanisms lead to land grabbing, the dispossession of Indigenous and peasant communities, and the co-option of agroecology. The document specifically highlights the risks of soil carbon farming as a means for agribusiness and IT companies to harvest farm data and exert control over land use. It concludes that real climate justice requires a transition to food sovereignty and a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels rather than reliance on unverifiable carbon credits.

The complaint argues that TIAA/Nuveen engages in systematic greenwashing by marketing sustainable ESG products while maintaining substantial holdings in coal, oil, and gas, and acquiring land in Brazil linked to deforestation and human rights abuses. It requests that the PRI Board investigate these practices and require corrective actions, including full divestment from fossil fuels by 2025.