Search Climate Insights Directory

The fact sheet advocates for a legally binding international treaty to end corporate impunity, arguing that voluntary self-regulation is ineffective. It highlights severe environmental and social damages caused by transnational corporations in Nigeria, Colombia, Brazil, Mozambique, and El Salvador, specifically citing oil extraction, mining, and palm oil production as drivers of human rights violations and ecological destruction.

The document critiques the current global energy system as a tool of corporate and elite power that drives climate change, energy poverty, and human rights abuses. It identifies 'destructive energy sources'—including fossil fuels, nuclear power, industrial agrofuels, and mega dams—as causes of severe environmental and social harm. The author warns of a 'climate trap' where the transition to renewables could be co-opted by corporations to continue land grabbing and privatization. To counter this, the document advocates for a decentralized, democratically controlled energy system that treats energy access as a basic human right and ensures the free, prior, and informed consent of affected communities.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) opposes REDD, arguing that carbon markets and financial incentives fail to address the root causes of climate change and instead lead to 'green grabbing' and the erosion of traditional forest management. The document contends that REDD shifts responsibility away from industrialized nations and threatens the land rights and cultural values of forest-dependent populations. FoEI proposes an alternative based on the legal recognition of Indigenous and community land rights, collective forest management, and a structural transition away from fossil fuels based on climate justice.

The report advocates for climate justice, asserting that wealthy nations bear a historical responsibility for emissions and must provide financial and technological support to developing regions. It critiques market-based mechanisms like carbon credits and biofuels, labeling them as 'false solutions' that protect corporate profits while harming local communities and ecosystems. The text provides specific examples of climate impacts in Nigeria, Kiribati, and the Himalayas, and proposes a transition for Europe toward a low-carbon society based on drastic emission reductions and lifestyle changes.

The document argues that community-based forest governance (CFG) is essential for halting unprecedented forest destruction, which it attributes to consumerism, unfair distribution of goods, and colonial legacies. It defines CFG as the collective regulations and practices used by communities for the conservation and sustainable use of forests, contrasting this with 'forest science' models that often facilitate devastation. The report identifies key characteristics of successful CFG, including clear boundary definition, traditional resource knowledge, and participatory regulation. It highlights the critical role of women, who often possess distinct knowledge of non-timber forest products and water protection, and emphasizes that their inclusion is vital for holistic governance. Through various case studies, the document illustrates the struggle for land tenure and the impact of industrial pressures, such as palm oil in Indonesia and pulp production in Brazil. It further critiques the role of International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and environmental services markets, arguing that the commodification of nature often privatizes heritage and marginalizes the poor. Finally, it links forest conservation to food sovereignty, public health, and disaster resilience, proposing a shift toward local production and fair timber markets.

The report argues that community forest management (GCB) is a vital tool for environmental conservation and social justice, contrasting it with industrial logging and monoculture plantations. It provides a framework for successful GCB, including the need for clear boundaries, participatory regulation, and legal recognition. The document details case studies from India, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, Indonesia, France, Greece, Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, El Salvador, and Haiti, illustrating both successful community-led conservation and the violent resistance against corporate land grabs. It further critiques the role of International Financial Institutions (IFIs), the impact of global consumerism on forest destruction, and the risks associated with 'environmental services' markets, while advocating for food sovereignty and the restoration of native forests.

The report 'Regulated Destruction' by Friends of the Earth International critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism that enables corporate pollution and habitat destruction. It argues that by framing nature as 'natural capital' or 'ecosystem services', these instruments allow companies to circumvent environmental protections through promises of restoration or protection elsewhere. The document examines national implementations in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, and highlights the role of the World Bank's IFC Performance Standard 6 in driving these practices. It further contends that offsetting leads to 'double land grabs' and is used by the aviation and agro-industry to maintain a social license to operate despite ongoing deforestation and emissions.

The document critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism of 'regulated destruction' that allows companies to destroy nature in one location by promising to protect or restore it elsewhere. It argues that this approach redefines nature as 'natural capital' or 'ecosystem services,' reducing complex ecological systems to tradable units. The report examines national implementations in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, highlighting how these schemes often lead to 'double land grabbing,' the displacement of local communities, and the failure to provide long-term protection. It specifically criticizes the World Bank's IFC Performance Standard 6 for enabling the financing of destruction in 'critical habitats.' Furthermore, it analyzes how the aviation and agribusiness sectors use carbon offsets and REDD+ to greenwash their operations while continuing destructive activities.

The report critiques biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism of 'regulated destruction' that replaces strict environmental limits with flexible, market-based compensation. It contends that these systems—including biodiversity banks and carbon credits—often lead to a net increase in environmental damage, facilitate land grabbing from indigenous and local communities, and provide a veneer of sustainability for destructive industries such as mining, agribusiness, and aviation. Through case studies in India, Uganda, Canada, Colombia, Brazil, and Costa Rica, the document demonstrates how the promise of future restoration is used to justify immediate, irreversible ecological loss.

The document argues that the current global economic system, driven by neoliberal ideology, has failed by causing environmental destruction and extreme inequality. It proposes five key pillars for transformation: ensuring universal public services through tax justice, scaling up social ownership and cooperatives, supporting local markets and fair trade, adopting wellbeing-based economic indicators instead of GDP, and establishing binding international rules to hold transnational corporations accountable for human rights and environmental abuses.

The report critiques neoliberalism for causing environmental destruction and inequality, advocating for a transition to a sustainable economy. It proposes five key pillars: expanding public services through tax justice, scaling up cooperatives and solidarity economies, supporting local markets and fair trade, adopting wellbeing-based economic indicators instead of GDP, and establishing binding international regulations to curb the power of transnational corporations.

The document critiques neoliberalism for causing ecological destruction and deep inequalities, proposing a shift toward an economy that prioritizes people and the planet. It outlines five strategic pillars for transformation: ensuring universal public services through tax justice, expanding cooperatives and the social and solidarity economy, supporting local agroecological markets and fair trade, replacing GDP with wellbeing indicators (such as 'Buen vivir' or 'doughnut economics'), and establishing a binding UN treaty to hold multinational corporations accountable for human rights and environmental abuses.

The report argues that community forest management, based on traditional knowledge and collective rights, is essential for biodiversity conservation and social justice. It contrasts this with industrial logging and monoculture plantations, which it links to neoliberal globalization, international financial institution funding, and the marginalization of indigenous peoples. Through case studies from Asia, Africa, and the Americas, it demonstrates how local control of resources can ensure food sovereignty, climate resilience, and poverty alleviation.

The fact sheet advocates for a binding UN Human Rights Treaty to close the gap in international law where corporations escape accountability for cross-border activities. It contrasts the strong legal protections afforded to corporate rights via free trade agreements and investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) with the lack of legal recourse for victims of corporate abuse. The document provides examples of corporate misconduct in El Salvador, Nigeria, Colombia, and Indonesia, highlighting issues such as water pollution, gas flaring, land-grabbing, and deforestation, while arguing that voluntary corporate responsibility codes are insufficient.

The document provides the technical annexes for the Forest Declaration Assessment, detailing the definitions and methodologies used to measure deforestation, forest degradation, and restoration potential. It establishes a 'gross zero' deforestation benchmark for 2030, requiring a linear 10 percent annual reduction in loss relative to a 2018-2020 baseline. The methodology incorporates satellite data and econometric models to estimate GHG emissions from forest loss and identifies 'cost-effective' restoration potential based on a carbon price threshold of USD 100/tCO2eq. A provided table lists the 30 countries with the highest absolute levels of deforestation in 2021, showing varied trends such as a 3% increase in Brazil and a 25% decrease in Indonesia compared to the baseline.

The white paper argues that African capital market regulators often face a dual mandate of both developing and regulating markets, which requires a proportional approach based on the market's maturity. It introduces a five-stage analytical framework—Foundational, Nascent, Emerging Early, Emerging Maturing, and Advanced—to help regulators determine whether to focus on building blocks, commodity markets, or sophisticated financial products. The report highlights that while some regulators like Morocco's AMMC are well-aligned, others face operational deficits or inefficiencies. It suggests a fluid funding mix of government and industry fees to ensure financial sustainability and independence.

The document outlines mandatory requirements and recommendations for several GCF funding proposals across various countries. General requirements for all proposals include signing a funded activity agreement (FAA), completing legal due diligence, and confirming internal approvals. Project-specific conditions vary, including requirements for solar power financing in Mongolia, grievance mechanisms in Senegal, co-financing and budget increases for forest conservation in Bhutan, and water-balance studies in Ethiopia. Recommendations focus on gender-sensitive training, biodiversity protection in Egypt, and women's participation in water committees in Colombia.

The GCF approved USD 3.7 billion for 76 projects across 79 developing countries, targeting a reduction of 1.3 billion metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Key operational developments include the launch of the Simplified Approval Process (SAP) Pilot Scheme, the adoption of an Indigenous Peoples Policy, and the establishment of an Environmental and Social Policy. The fund is also preparing for its first formal replenishment process and expanding its private sector engagement through dedicated pilot programmes for MSMEs and resource mobilization at scale.

The document outlines mandatory conditions and recommendations for multiple GCF funding proposals across various countries. General conditions for all proposals include the signing of a funded activity agreement (FAA) and completion of legal due diligence. Specific conditions target projects in Afghanistan (mini-grid market governance), Colombia (REDD+ emission reductions), Ghana (sustainability of shea landscapes), Sudan (conflict analysis and water infrastructure), and others. Recommendations from the independent Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) focus on quality assurance in Indonesia, policy advocacy in Nepal, and gender-inclusive decision-making in Sudan.

This report by the Green Economy Coalition reviews the first ten years of the SEED Awards (2005-2015), an initiative founded by UNEP, UNDP, and IUCN to support social and environmental enterprises. It analyzes the survival and impact of 202 SEED Winners across 37 countries, highlighting the role of multi-stakeholder partnerships and tailored support in fostering green and inclusive growth at the grassroots level.