Search Climate Insights Directory

Biofuel Watch, Salva la Selva/Rettet den Regenwald, and CDM Watch have challenged the proposed CDM project 3197 in Bajo Aguan, Honduras. The organizations argue that the project fails to meet 'sustainable development' and additionality requirements due to the project developer's alleged human rights abuses and disputed land claims.

The document outlines four decades of activism by Friends of the Earth International, highlighting specific successes in banning commercial whaling in Spain, prohibiting open-pit mining in Costa Rica, and establishing the first climate change law in the UK. It details diverse campaigns against coal power in Germany, oil pollution in Nigeria, and genetically modified organisms in Europe, while emphasizing the role of grassroots mobilization and legal action in achieving environmental protections and human rights.

The report documents various environmental and social justice campaigns led by Friends of the Earth (FoE) member groups across the globe. Key achievements include the 2008 UK Climate Change Act, a ban on open-pit metal mining in Costa Rica (2010), and the cessation of commercial whaling in Spain (1985). The document also details ongoing resistance against coal-fired power plants in Germany and Scotland, gas flaring in Nigeria, and the impact of large-scale dams in Mozambique, South Korea, and the Philippines. It emphasizes a strategy of combining grassroots mobilization, legal challenges, and international solidarity to combat corporate globalization and protect indigenous and community rights.

The manual defines Conflict-Sensitive Conservation (CSC) as the programming and execution of conservation actions that account for the causes, actors, and impacts of conflict. It outlines a three-step organizational process: assessing institutional capacity, assigning human resources (such as a CSC Champion and Team), and adopting guiding principles. For field projects, it details a two-step operational process: conducting a conflict analysis using tools like conflict trees, conflict maps, and stakeholder profiles, and subsequently designing and monitoring CSC solutions. The guide emphasizes that conservation can either inadvertently fuel conflict—by restricting resource access or creating unequal benefit distribution—or support peace by addressing root causes of environmental degradation and fostering cooperation.

The report details a forum held in Kampala, Uganda, where negotiators from 40 developing countries discussed the risks of traditional Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and the need for regulatory space to pursue sustainable development. Key discussions focused on the 'African Mining Vision', the dangers of 'land grabbing' in agriculture, and the systemic biases of investor-state arbitration. Participants advocated for a shift toward regional cooperation, the use of 'police powers' exceptions in treaties to protect public interest, and the implementation of domestic laws that prioritize national economic policies over investor demands.

The report details a task force meeting in Manila, Philippines, focused on the 'Development Dividend' in REDD—the balance between greenhouse gas reductions (quantity) and sustainable development benefits (quality), such as poverty alleviation and indigenous rights (equity). Key discussions centered on the technical and political challenges of Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV), the implementation of socio-environmental safeguards, and the role of market versus non-market financing. The document also provides updates on national REDD strategies from various countries, including Brazil, Indonesia, and the Philippines, and proposes a research agenda to clarify forest definitions and governance structures for benefit sharing.

The report details a workshop in Douala, Cameroon, focused on the implementation of REDD+ in Africa. Key discussions centered on the need for cost-effective safeguard information systems, the scalability of Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) from subnational to national levels, and the role of agriculture as a driver of deforestation rather than a direct part of REDD+. Participants emphasized the necessity of transparent, equitable financing that prioritizes local experts and the integration of gender and indigenous perspectives to ensure multiple co-benefits beyond carbon sequestration.

The report analyzes the surge in foreign acquisitions and long-term leases of agricultural land and water, driven by food and energy security concerns and the 2008 food crisis. It highlights a critical lack of transparency and public contracts, which obscures the impact on local communities. The authors argue that a complex interplay between national laws, investment contracts, and International Investment Agreements (IIAs) often prioritizes foreign investor protections over the rights of local users and the regulatory autonomy of host states, potentially hindering sustainable development and public health measures.

The report argues that carbon trading is an ineffective and often corrupt mechanism for addressing climate change in Africa. It examines the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and voluntary markets, finding that they frequently favor large industrial polluters over sustainable development and marginalize local communities. Through case studies in South Africa, Uganda, and Ethiopia, the authors illustrate how 'additionality' is often fabricated and how projects can lead to land grabs or the subsidization of fossil fuel expansion. The document concludes that the carbon market is structurally flawed and should be abolished in favor of direct public funding and low-carbon development pathways based on historical responsibility.

The document examines REDD+ as a tool for developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation while fostering low-carbon development. It highlights that while over $4.5 billion had been pledged by 2012, significantly more funding is needed to meet estimated costs of $22 to $36 billion by 2015 to reduce global deforestation by 25%. The brief warns that REDD+ could increase the vulnerability of forest-dependent and indigenous peoples if land rights are not secured. It emphasizes that success requires long-term investment in monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems, which may take up to a decade to establish, and the integration of forest policies into broader national development strategies.

The document examines REDD+ as a tool for mitigating climate change through the reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. It argues that while REDD+ offers opportunities for low-carbon transitions, economic growth, and climate adaptation, its success depends on significant institutional investment and the mitigation of risks to forest-dependent communities.

The document examines the 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation' (REDD) framework, highlighting how its implementation often prioritizes corporate profit and carbon market volatility over the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it illustrates risks such as 'leakage', the displacement of forest-dependent populations, and the lack of genuine free, prior, and informed consent. The report concludes that REDD should be decoupled from carbon markets and instead focus on reducing demand for agricultural commodities and timber while rewarding those who have historically conserved forests.

The report critiques the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) framework, highlighting how its implementation often leads to the marginalization of indigenous communities and the privatization of forest resources. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it argues that REDD is being used by transnational energy companies to 'greenwash' their images while continuing fossil fuel extraction. The document warns that linking REDD to unstable carbon markets and allowing monoculture plantations may undermine actual emission reductions and exacerbate land conflicts.

The report critiques 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries' (REDD), claiming it risks exacerbating inequality and privatizing forest resources. It highlights how energy companies use REDD for greenwashing while continuing fossil fuel extraction. Through case studies in Indonesia, Mexico, Paraguay, and others, the document illustrates failures in community consultation, the risk of 'leakage' where deforestation simply shifts location, and the danger of including monoculture plantations in carbon accounting. It concludes that REDD should be decoupled from volatile carbon markets and instead based on public funding and the recognition of Indigenous land rights.

The report critiques the 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries' (REDD) mechanism, highlighting how it can exacerbate inequality and privatize forest resources. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it demonstrates that REDD projects often exclude indigenous communities from decision-making and serve as a 'greenwash' for fossil fuel and logging companies. The document warns that without reducing demand for agricultural commodities and timber, REDD may lead to 'leakage,' where deforestation simply shifts to other areas, rendering the mechanism ineffective for global climate mitigation.

The report outlines how tropical forests can be transitioned from net carbon emitters to net sinks through the REDD+ framework. It details specific reforestation, restoration, and sustainable production forestry techniques, while emphasizing the necessity of 'additional' carbon benefits beyond business-as-usual baselines. The authors argue that achieving zero net emissions by 2030 requires a combination of reducing deforestation and scaling up sequestration activities, supported by international financial incentives and national policies that protect biodiversity and the rights of indigenous and local communities.

The document examines how natural resources—both through abundance and scarcity—fuel social and armed conflicts in Africa. It argues that traditional peace processes often fail by focusing on 'high politics' (like power-sharing) while ignoring the underlying political economy of resource distribution. Using the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (IC/GLR), and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) as examples, the author advocates for integrating natural resource management into diplomatic and mediation frameworks to achieve sustainable peace.

The document outlines systemic failures in the IFC's environmental and social due diligence, highlighting an overreliance on unverified client data and inadequate project categorization. It calls for the explicit integration of international human rights standards, including the right to free, prior and informed consent for indigenous peoples, and a strategic shift away from fossil fuel investments toward renewable energy. The authors also criticize the 'loophole' created by financial intermediaries and demand greater transparency in extractive industry contracts.

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.

Sudan is highly vulnerable to climate change due to its reliance on rain-fed agriculture, with projections indicating significant declines in crop yields and increased water scarcity by 2060. The document argues that while the country has established frameworks like the Environmental Protection Act of 2001 and the National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA), effective adaptation is hindered by political instability, top-down planning, and land tenure conflicts. It recommends a comprehensive approach including land tenure reform, a national early warning system, and the integration of climate risks into all levels of national development planning.