Search Climate Insights Directory

The report evaluates SAICM's impact in Tanzania, finding that while it has improved political awareness, legislative frameworks, and safety in large-scale mining, significant risks persist in the informal sector and agriculture. Key gaps include a lack of hazardous waste destruction facilities and inadequate coordination between government sectors.

The document investigates the expansion of the oil palm industry in Palawan, operated primarily by Palawan Palm & Vegetable Oil Mills, Inc. (PPVOMI) and Agumil Philippines, Inc. (AGPI). It finds that while promoted as an economic opportunity, the industry has led to significant grievances, including contractual deception of smallholder cooperatives, land dispossession of indigenous peoples, and illegal encroachment into protected forestlands. The study highlights a failure in institutional oversight, noting that environmental clearances were often obtained after project initiation and that the legal framework fails to distribute liability fairly, leaving smallholders with most of the financial risk. It concludes with ten recommendations to strengthen corporate accountability, including contract revision, stricter government 'gatekeeping', and the promotion of RSPO certification.

The text, written by Alexander Bonde, Minister for Rural Affairs and Consumer Protection of Baden-Württemberg, advocates for a shift from industrial agriculture to a sustainable 'green triangle' model. This approach prioritizes quality over quantity, promoting organic farming, GMO-free production, and eco-tourism to support family farms and biodiversity while meeting consumer demand for high ecological and social standards.

The author advocates for a European agricultural policy that prioritises 'Quality not quantity', linking public payments to the delivery of social and ecological goods. This vision is contrasted with an industrial lobby pushing for export-oriented, intensive production. The author highlights the 'magic triangle' of agricultural production, nature conservation, and tourism as a wealth-creating model, citing the specific policy implementations in Baden-Württemberg, such as support for organic conversion, GMO-free mandates, and sustainable tourism initiatives.

The report details a global movement of small-scale farmers and activists resisting the corporate power of agribusiness, specifically Monsanto. It highlights legal battles, moratoria, and direct actions against GM crops in Europe, India, Latin America, and Africa. The document argues that the 'green economy' and 'climate-smart agriculture' frameworks are being used to further corporate control over seeds and land through market-based mechanisms and carbon offsets, while promoting food sovereignty as a sustainable alternative.

The report details a global movement of peasants and civil society organizations resisting Monsanto's influence on agriculture. It highlights specific battles in Europe, India, Latin America, and Africa, where activists fight against GMO seeds, toxic pesticides like Roundup, and the corporate control of seed systems. The document argues that the 'green economy' and 'climate-smart agriculture' are market-driven frameworks that facilitate corporate land grabbing and the spread of biotechnology. It advocates for food sovereignty—the right of peoples to define their own food and production systems—as a sustainable path to mitigate climate change and ensure food security.

The report documents global opposition to Monsanto and other biotechnology firms, highlighting the social and environmental costs of GM crops. It details resistance movements in Europe, India, Latin America, and Africa, while critiquing the 'green economy' and 'climate-smart agriculture' as market-driven mechanisms that reinforce corporate control. The authors advocate for food sovereignty and peasant-led agroecology as the only viable paths to climate resilience and food security.

The report examines how rural electrification and expanded independent tea production would affect stakeholders in the Jaldhaka watershed. Electrification is expected to increase crop yields and income but risks groundwater depletion and excludes those unable to afford installation. Expanded tea growing offers higher cash income but threatens food security, worker health due to chemical exposure, and downstream water availability.

The assessment identifies four primary livelihood strategies in the Nariarlé watershed: rainfed agriculture, irrigated gardening, pastoralism, and fishing. Rainfed agriculture is the most dominant activity, covering 60-70% of the watershed, but suffers from low yields and high climatic risk. Irrigated gardening provides higher financial returns, with up to 90% of harvests sold, though it faces challenges from dam siltation and pesticide pollution. Pastoralism serves as a critical financial safety net, though grazing lands are being reduced by the expansion of Ouagadougou and agri-business. Fishing is a minor activity involving less than 3% of the population, threatened by invasive plants and non-compliant fishing nets.

The document identifies four primary areas of focus for the COP5 meeting in Geneva: the potential banning of the pesticide endosulfan, the elimination of newly listed persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and the review of DDT and lindane exemptions, the improvement of the Convention's effectiveness regarding compliance and voting, and the closing of the funding gap for developing countries. It also notes the United States' status as an observer and the legislative hurdles preventing its ratification of the treaty.

The report argues that the GM crop industry exaggerates benefits and suppresses evidence of harm. It documents a global trend of public and legal rejection, including the reduction of GM acreage in Europe and court rulings against Monsanto in the US. The text highlights the increased use of agrotóxicos, specifically glyphosate, and the risks of new GM animals like salmon and pigs. It further criticizes the influence of the US government and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in promoting GM technologies in Africa and Latin America, which the authors claim threatens traditional agricultural practices and food sovereignty.

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 report evaluates two proposed reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regarding their ability to enable U.S. ratification of three international chemicals treaties. It finds the Lautenberg bill more effective in providing the comprehensive prohibitions required for ratification, while the Rush-Waxman draft contains delays and gaps that could hinder compliance. Both bills are criticized for failing to provide sufficient authority for the EPA to lead internationally on the elimination of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals beyond the minimum treaty requirements.

The document argues that the degradation of ecosystem services—approximately 60 per cent of those examined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment—poses a significant barrier to eradicating hunger and poverty. It specifically highlights how air pollutants like ground-level ozone threaten crop yields in South Asia, how slow progress in energy access in sub-Saharan Africa and developing Asia may lead to increased forest clearing, and how uncontrolled pesticide use in Southeast Asia risks the health of farmers and the supply of wild foods. The brief recommends integrated pest management, stricter chemical legislation, and pro-poor energy policies to mitigate these environmental pressures.

The report assesses three primary stressors—air pollution, energy generation, and pesticides—and their capacity to degrade ecosystem services like crop production, pollination, and nutrient cycling. It argues that these pressures create significant barriers to achieving MDG 1, particularly in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. The analysis highlights that while universal modern energy access is financially feasible and would reduce ecosystem pressure, current trends in air pollution and uncontrolled pesticide use pose severe risks to food security and biodiversity.

The document examines the environmental benefits and risks of pulse production in Canada, focusing on the information systems that track these impacts from the farm to the federal level. It highlights the role of nitrogen-fixing pulses in reducing synthetic fertilizer use and the shift toward conservation tillage to combat soil erosion. The analysis identifies a gap between informal, farm-level observations and formal, aggregated government data, noting that proprietary soil-testing data and political boundaries between provinces hinder a fully integrated information infrastructure.

The document contends that GM crops are not a solution to global hunger, as hunger is caused by poverty and lack of resource access rather than production deficits. It asserts that GM crops do not increase yields—and in some cases decrease them—while increasing pesticide use and costs for farmers. The text highlights that the primary beneficiaries are biotech giants like Monsanto, which maximize profits through 'trait penetration' and rising seed and herbicide prices, while the model favors large-scale export agriculture over small-scale farmers.

The document asserts that GM crops fail to address hunger because food insecurity is driven by poverty rather than production deficits. It claims that most GM crops are used for animal feed and biofuels in wealthy nations, with production concentrated in the US, Argentina, and Brazil. The text argues that GM crops do not increase yields and instead lead to higher pesticide use and the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds. It highlights the financial gain of companies like Monsanto through a "trait penetration" strategy that raises seed and herbicide prices, while small farmers face escalating costs and rural unemployment.

This report by Friends of the Earth International examines the socio-economic and environmental impacts of GM crops, specifically focusing on the dominance of a few corporations like Monsanto. It argues that GM technology does not solve hunger, as most crops are used for animal feed or biofuels in wealthy nations. The document highlights a trend of increasing pesticide use and the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds in the US, Argentina, and Brazil. It further claims that GM crops often result in lower yields than conventional varieties and suggests that agroecological and organic farming are more effective alternatives for food security.