Search Climate Insights Directory

The document advocates for agroecology as a holistic science, practice, and social movement led by small-scale food producers. It contrasts this approach with industrial models like 'climate-smart agriculture' and 'sustainable intensification,' which it labels as false solutions. The report provides a framework for evaluating agricultural innovations and offers policy recommendations to support food sovereignty, gender justice, and the rights of small-scale producers.

The briefing contends that industrial agriculture drives climate change and food insecurity, and that 'climate-smart agriculture' serves as a corporate tool to maintain existing power structures. It proposes agroecology—combining traditional practices and ecological principles—as a superior alternative that increases climate resilience, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and supports food sovereignty for small-scale producers.

The report critiques 'climate-smart agriculture' as a corporate tool to maintain industrial food systems and instead advocates for agroecology. It asserts that agroecological practices increase resilience to extreme weather, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve the livelihoods of small-scale producers by focusing on local markets and biodiversity.

The policy brief advocates for agroecology as a resilient, low-emission alternative to industrial agriculture. It claims that agroecological systems better withstand extreme weather, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve the livelihoods of small-scale producers. The text warns against 'climate smart agriculture' (CSA), describing it as a tool for agribusiness corporations to maintain industrial production models without implementing necessary social or economic changes.

At its 21st meeting in October 2018, the GCF Board approved 19 new projects and programmes totaling USD 1.04 billion in GCF investment to support over USD 4 billion in climate action across more than 50 countries. The Board also accredited 16 new entities, appointed the World Bank as the Fund's Trustee, and launched the process for the GCF's first formal replenishment to be concluded by October 2019. Governance updates included the establishment of a Performance Oversight Committee and the appointment of Javier Manzanares as Executive Director ad interim.

The document details how transnational corporations and agribusinesses in Central America disproportionately affect women through the looting of natural resources and environmental degradation. In El Salvador, Coca Cola's water extraction in Nejapa has depleted aquifers and polluted water sources, increasing the domestic burden on women. In Honduras, hydroelectric dams in La Paz have caused water scarcity and led to the murder of environmental activists, including Berta Cáceres. In Costa Rica, pineapple monocultures have contaminated water with agrotoxics, impacting women's health and care work. In Guatemala, sugarcane plantations on the Southern Coast have caused land grabbing, water shortages, and health issues due to aerial spraying and burning. Across all cases, women have emerged as key leaders in community resistance, organizing to defend their rights to water, land, and a healthy environment.

The report examines how corporate activities—including water extraction by Coca-Cola in El Salvador, hydroelectric projects in Honduras, pineapple monocultures in Costa Rica, and sugarcane production in Guatemala—disproportionately affect women's health, labor, and access to resources. It details the specific burdens placed on women, such as increased domestic labor due to water scarcity and health risks from agrotóxicos, while showcasing the emergence of women-led resistance movements and community-based research to challenge corporate power and state negligence.

As of 31 January 2018, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) had accredited 59 entities, with a pipeline of 198 entities having created accounts on the Online Accreditation System. The report highlights a strategic shift toward prioritizing direct access entities, which now constitute a larger share of those completing the accreditation process. It also details the ongoing support provided to direct access entities through readiness programs and gap assessments, and tracks the progress of accredited entities in fulfilling specific fiduciary, environmental, social, and gender conditions. Additionally, the document notes a temporary lack of quorum in the Accreditation Panel (AP), which delayed new accreditation recommendations for the nineteenth Board meeting.

The document outlines the process of declaring 'free territories' as a political practice of autonomy and self-determination. It provides a framework for preventive and reactive strategies, emphasizing the need for information dissemination, network organization, and propositional agendas to protect territories from extractivist models and corporate appropriation. The guide details specific regional examples, including mining-free zones in Mesoamerica, gasfield-free communities in Australia, and GMO-free regions in Europe and Costa Rica.

The document outlines the conceptual and practical framework for declaring 'free territories' as an exercise of autonomy and human rights. It provides a strategic approach to resisting the 'extractivist model'—specifically targeting REDD+, mining, fracking, and GMOs—by documenting successful community-led initiatives across Latin America, Europe, Australia, and other regions. The guide emphasizes that these declarations are not merely legal acts but political processes requiring permanent organization, public legitimacy, and the proposal of sustainable alternatives for local development.

The guide outlines the political and social process of declaring territories 'free' from specific threats, such as REDD+, mining, fracking, and GMOs. It frames these declarations as an exercise of autonomy and self-determination, providing strategic advice on prevention, information sharing, and alliance building. The document details various global case studies, including the M4 movement in Mesoamerica, anti-fracking efforts in Australia and Europe, and GMO-free initiatives in Costa Rica and the European Union, emphasizing that such declarations are tools for resisting corporate imposition and promoting sustainable, community-led development models.

The 2018 Progress Assessment for Goal 5 indicates that Bonn Challenge pledges have reached 168.9 million hectares, surpassing the 2020 milestone in terms of pledges. However, actual implementation remains difficult to aggregate, with a five-country sample showing 13.4 million hectares under restoration. Analysis of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) reveals that while 127 of 165 NDCs include forest landscape restoration (FLR) commitments, only 30% are quantifiable. When combining official NDC targets with non-target ambitions, 114 million hectares are reflected, representing one third of the 2030 target.

The report details discussions between Canadian government officials, academics, and civil society on reforming international investment law. It argues that traditional investment treaties, focused on investor protection, often conflict with sustainable development goals and human rights. Key proposals include shifting the focus of treaties toward sustainable development, conducting broad impact assessments, and reforming or eliminating investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms to protect the state's right to regulate in the public interest, particularly for climate change objectives.

The report provides an evaluation of corporate peacebuilding initiatives, arguing that most 'Business for Peace' (B4P) efforts have yielded few positive impacts and can sometimes exacerbate local conflicts. It presents seven key questions for firms to assess their impact on conflict environments, local definitions of peace, socio-economic structures, and supply chain links to conflict actors. The authors conclude that the most peace-positive strategy is often to avoid conflict regions entirely and that substantive progress requires binding, independently verified regulatory initiatives.

The document critiques the European Commission's proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court, asserting that it merely rebrands the controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system without addressing its substantive flaws. It argues that ISDS allows corporations to challenge public interest laws—including those related to health, environment, and human rights—through biased tribunals, often resulting in massive taxpayer-funded payouts. The report claims the proposed court would further institutionalize this imbalance, undermine national judiciaries, and create a parallel legal system accessible only to foreign investors. It concludes by advocating for the termination of bilateral investment treaties and the adoption of a UN treaty to regulate transnational corporations.

The document outlines six key tips for managing country-led development assistance: prioritizing in-country leadership by nationals, utilizing co-developed and flexible Theories of Change, aligning budgets with long-term goals, preferring local suppliers, and integrating monitoring and learning into ongoing strategic planning.

This report by Friends of the Earth International documents systemic human rights and environmental violations by transnational corporations (TNCs) across eight Latin American and Caribbean countries. It highlights cases of corporate impunity, the use of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms to challenge public health and environmental policies, and the violent suppression of territory defenders. The document advocates for a legally binding international treaty to hold TNCs accountable and the creation of an International Tribunal on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations.

This report by Friends of the Earth International documents systemic human rights and environmental violations by transnational corporations across eight Latin American and Caribbean countries. It argues that a 'architecture of impunity'—composed of free trade agreements, investment protection treaties, and the ICSID arbitration system—shields corporations from accountability while allowing them to challenge public health and environmental policies. The report advocates for a legally binding UN treaty on transnational corporations and human rights, including the creation of an International Court to ensure justice for affected communities.

The report details various cases in Latin America where transnational corporations in mining, energy, agribusiness, and tobacco have violated human rights and caused environmental destruction. It highlights the 'architecture of impunity' created by bilateral investment treaties and the ICSID arbitration system, which allow companies to sue states over public interest policies. The document advocates for a binding international treaty and an independent international tribunal to ensure corporate accountability and the supremacy of human rights over commercial interests.

The report details cases of corporate abuse in Latin America, including mining disasters in Brazil, the assassination of environmental defenders in Mexico and Honduras, and legal battles over public health and water in Uruguay and Argentina. It argues that current international investment frameworks, such as the ICSID, protect corporate profits over human rights and national sovereignty. The authors call for a binding UN treaty to end corporate impunity and the establishment of an international tribunal to hold transnational companies accountable for environmental and social crimes.