Search Climate Insights Directory

The document critiques the use of biodiversity offsets and certificates, asserting that these financial mechanisms allow for the destruction of nature in one area to be compensated elsewhere, thereby serving capitalist interests rather than solving the biodiversity crisis.

A fact sheet by Friends of the Earth International critiquing biodiversity offsets and credits as ineffective and harmful mechanisms for biodiversity protection and financing.

A briefing document by Friends of the Earth International regarding the COP27 climate summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, which critiques 'false climate solutions' and proposes alternatives for a just energy transition.

This fact sheet by Friends of the Earth International critiques 'Nature-based Solutions' (NbS) and soil carbon markets, arguing that these concepts are tools for corporate co-optation of environmental and food policies rather than viable solutions for climate change, biodiversity loss, or hunger.

A fact sheet by Friends of the Earth International arguing that biodiversity offsets and credits are ineffective and potentially harmful mechanisms for biodiversity protection, advocating instead for transformational change to address the root causes of biodiversity loss.

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.

This fact sheet from Friends of the Earth International critiques biodiversity offsets and biocrédits, arguing that these market-based mechanisms often lead to social and environmental harm rather than effective conservation.

Friends of the Earth International (ATI) rejects the concept of Nature-based Solutions (SBN), arguing that the term is an opaque, overly broad framework used by governments and corporations to justify carbon neocolonialism, market mechanisms, and corporate greenwashing while facilitating land grabbing.

Friends of the Earth International rejects the concept of Nature Based Solutions (NBS), arguing that the term is too vague and is used by governments and corporations to facilitate greenwashing, neo-colonialism, and the dispossession of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

This briefing by Friends of the Earth International critiques Target 8 of the first draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, arguing that it prioritizes climate goals over biodiversity conservation.

Friends of the Earth International (ATI) rejects the concept of Nature-based Solutions (NbS), arguing that the term is overly broad and serves as a cover for carbon neocolonialism, market mechanisms, and corporate greenwashing.

This briefing from Friends of the Earth International identifies 'false climate solutions' promoted by high-emissions industries at COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, and proposes alternatives focused on just transitions and corporate accountability.

The report argues that 'nature-based solutions' and carbon offsetting used by corporations to achieve 'net zero' goals lead to land grabbing and the dispossession of indigenous and rural peoples. It highlights that the massive land requirements for these schemes—such as those proposed by Nestlé and Shell—threaten food sovereignty and risk co-opting agroecology, which the report presents as the only truly transformative way to produce food while cooling the planet.

The document critiques the 'green economy' as a mechanism for financial institutions and multinationals to commodify nature. It argues that market-based solutions, such as carbon markets and biodiversity offsets, lead to 'green grabbing,' the marginalization of indigenous communities, and the evasion of corporate environmental responsibility. The report advocates for the recognition of ecological debt, the protection of common goods through community management, and a radical shift toward sustainable societies based on social and ecological justice rather than market logic.

The fact sheet criticizes the adoption of "nature-based solutions" by over 1,500 companies, asserting that these strategies allow firms to maintain polluting business models while claiming "net zero" targets. It highlights Shell and Nestlé as examples of companies using carbon offsets to mask continued emissions and environmental damage. The document advocates for "real zero emissions" through the cessation of fossil fuel extraction and the support of agroecology and community-led forest management led by indigenous peoples and local communities.

The document critiques the framing of 'nature-based solutions' (NbS) as compatible with agroecology, asserting that NbS are instead used by corporate and financial interests to maintain industrial agriculture and create speculative assets. It contrasts agroecology's holistic, emancipatory approach with the NbS model, which focuses on carbon sequestration to justify 'net zero' distractions and the continued use of fossil fuels and synthetic inputs. The text highlights how NbS can lead to land grabs and the marginalization of small-scale producers, opposing the goals of land reform and food sovereignty.

The document critiques soil carbon sequestration markets, asserting they allow major polluters to avoid real emission reductions while increasing corporate control over agriculture. It highlights how these systems favor large-scale industrial farms, marginalize smallholders, and rely on unreliable measurement methods. The text further details the role of governments and corporations, such as Yara, in promoting these mechanisms despite scientific evidence suggesting that 'climate-smart' practices do not significantly increase soil carbon storage.

The document provides a comprehensive list of requirements for a successful Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). It advocates for a rights-based approach, the adoption of a 'Whole Government Approach' to mainstreaming, and the prohibition of destructive activities like deep-sea mining and fracking. It argues against voluntary commitments, biodiversity offsetting, and the use of high-risk technologies such as geoengineering and synthetic biology, while calling for public finance from developed countries to support biodiversity conservation in developing nations.

The document argues that the Global Biodiversity Framework must be based on binding norms rather than voluntary commitments and must address the structural economic drivers of biodiversity loss. It advocates for a rights-based approach that protects indigenous peoples and environmental defenders, the elimination of harmful subsidies, and the prohibition of high-impact industrial activities like deep-sea mining and Arctic oil extraction. The text explicitly rejects the commodification of nature, biodiversity offsets, and the use of geoengineering or synthetic biology as solutions to the environmental crisis.

The document provides a comprehensive guide for the Global Biodiversity Framework, emphasizing the need for binding rules over voluntary commitments and the integration of human rights, especially for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. It argues that biodiversity loss is driven by the current economic system and unsustainable consumption, calling for a 'Whole Government Approach' to integrate biodiversity across all sectors. Key recommendations include the elimination of harmful subsidies for industrial farming and aquaculture, the prohibition of high-risk technologies like geoengineering, and the rejection of biodiversity offsetting and market-based solutions. The text stresses that conservation must prioritize existing habitats and be supported by public funding, particularly from developed nations to developing ones.