Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that India's push for jatropha to meet biodiesel targets has led to the forced displacement of tribal and lower-caste communities from their traditional lands. While promoted as a pro-poor, non-food crop for 'waste land', the report finds that jatropha often displaces food crops and common resources, fails to thrive due to poor understanding of growing conditions, and is unlikely to be commercially viable as a monoculture.

The report argues that carbon trading is a fundamentally flawed mechanism that fails to drive real emissions reductions or technological innovation, instead creating risks of financial speculation and locking economies into high-carbon infrastructure. It specifically critiques the use of offsetting as an unjust 'escape hatch' that shifts responsibility from developed to developing nations. The authors advocate for a shift toward direct government interventions, including carbon taxation, strict regulation, and massive public investment in low-carbon infrastructure, while calling for developed countries to provide at least €200 billion per year in new and additional climate finance to the global South.

The document argues that carbon trading is an ineffective and dangerous approach to climate mitigation, failing to drive necessary emissions cuts or technological innovation. It highlights six central problems: inefficiency in driving reductions, failure to stimulate innovation, lock-in of high-carbon infrastructure, reliance on flawed offsetting, the risk of a financial bubble similar to the subprime mortgage crisis, and its use as a smokescreen for the developed world's failure to provide climate finance. The report recommends halting the global expansion of emissions trading and instead deploying direct tools such as carbon taxes, regulation, and public investment. It further calls for developed countries to reduce emissions by at least 40% by 2020 (excluding offsets) and provide at least 200 billion in annual public funds to developing countries by 2012.

The report details a systemic failure of governance in Ketapang District, West Kalimantan, where oil palm expansion—driven by EU biofuel targets—has led to widespread illegal land clearing, deforestation of protected forests, and severe social conflicts. It highlights that the Ketapang government issued permits for approximately 40% of the district's land in just three years, often bypassing legal requirements for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and forestland release approvals. The document argues that voluntary certification schemes like the RSPO and the EU's Renewable Energy Directive (RED) are insufficient to prevent these abuses, as they lack rigorous legality checks and fail to address 'replacement effects' where certified oil is diverted to energy, pushing the food sector toward unsustainable sources. Socially, the expansion has resulted in land grabs from indigenous communities and precarious labor conditions, including the non-payment of smallholders and chemical poisoning of workers.

The report examines the compatibility of various climate policies—including labelling, fuel efficiency standards, border carbon adjustments, and green subsidies—with WTO law. It concludes that WTO rules do not prevent countries from taking immediate action to combat climate change, provided the measures are properly designed and non-discriminatory. The authors argue against using the WTO as an excuse for policy inaction and suggest that 'Kyoto-compliance' should take priority over 'WTO-compliance' in global governance.

The report contends that the Asian Development Bank (ADB) contributes to climate change and increases the vulnerability of communities in the Asia Pacific region. It highlights a contradiction between the ADB's stated climate goals and its continued funding of coal power plants and projects that cause deforestation. Through case studies in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Bangladesh, the document demonstrates how ADB-funded infrastructure and aquaculture projects have led to the destruction of mangroves and forests, increased flooding, and the displacement of local populations. The report concludes that the ADB lacks effective climate impact assessments and calls for the institution to recognize its 'climate debt' and stop supporting fossil fuel projects.

The report claims Shell is the most carbon-intensive oil company globally, with its production intensity projected to rise by 85% due to a shift toward oil sands, oil shale, and liquefied natural gas (LNG). It documents a history of gas flaring in Nigeria, alleging that internal documents show Shell prioritized profit over ending the practice. The report further asserts that Shell engages in 'greenwashing' by promoting limited renewable initiatives while lobbying against fuel quality directives and emissions trading reforms in the European Union and climate legislation in the United States.

La Via Campesina and Friends of the Earth International advocate for a transition from industrial, export-oriented agriculture to a food sovereignty model. This model prioritizes the right to food as a human right, supports small-scale farmers' access to land and seeds, and promotes agroecological systems to mitigate climate change. The organizations reject 'false solutions' like carbon trading and agrofuels, and criticize the role of international financial institutions and the WTO in perpetuating unsustainable agricultural systems.

The statement advocates for a shift from industrial agricultural models to 'food sovereignty,' defined as the capacity of peoples to decide what to produce and how to market it. It supports UN Special Rapporteur Olivier De Schutter's call for a human-rights-based approach to agriculture that prioritizes the most vulnerable, protects small-scale farmers' access to land and seeds, and promotes agroecological systems to mitigate climate change. The authors explicitly reject the influence of transnational corporations and international financial institutions like the World Bank and IMF, characterizing their policies and certain 'green' initiatives—such as REDD and biofuels—as 'false solutions' that threaten food sovereignty.

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 report challenges the promotion of jatropha as a 'wonder crop' for biofuels, using evidence from Swaziland to argue that it may compete with food production, require significant water and chemical inputs, and offer marginal economic benefits to small-scale farmers. It highlights concerns over unfair contracting practices by D1 Oils and the lack of environmental risk assessments, concluding that jatropha is not a sustainable 'silver bullet' for meeting EU and UK biofuel targets.

The report argues that EU consumption and trade policies drive the expansion of monoculture tree plantations in the Global South, which disproportionately harms women by destroying their livelihoods, health, and cultural identities. Through case studies in Nigeria (rubber), Papua New Guinea (oil palm), and Brazil (eucalyptus), the document details the loss of food sovereignty, the erosion of traditional medicinal knowledge, and the increase in gender-based violence and economic dependency. It highlights that while these projects are often framed as 'development,' they frequently result in land theft and environmental degradation. The report concludes by documenting the emergence of women-led resistance movements fighting for land return and food sovereignty.

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.

The report contends that GM crops fail to alleviate hunger or poverty, instead increasing pesticide use and corporate control over seeds. It highlights that most GM crops are used for animal feed and biofuels in rich nations, while farmers in producer countries face rising costs and herbicide-resistant weeds. The document advocates for agro-ecological and organic farming as sustainable alternatives.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) has withdrawn its membership from the IUCN, citing the IUCN's corporate partnership with Shell as the primary reason. FoEI argues that such partnerships serve as 'greenwash' for harmful corporate activities and undermine community struggles for environmental and human rights. The document highlights Shell's record on gas flaring, human rights abuses, and arctic drilling, and notes that a majority of IUCN non-government organizations and members voted to terminate the Shell agreement via Motion 107, though they were blocked by government delegates.

The document defines destructive logging as forest exploitation that threatens ecosystem health and the rights of local and indigenous peoples. It identifies transnational corporations and unsustainable timber demand as primary drivers, facilitated by flawed forestry concession systems and governance policies that often legitimize destructive activities. The paper highlights devastating environmental impacts, such as biodiversity loss, and social consequences, including the impoverishment of indigenous peoples and the erosion of their cultural fabric. It concludes that the complexity of the issue requires diverse approaches, ranging from fighting illegal timber trade to addressing systemic lacks of community land rights.

A declaration by various international organizations opposing the World Bank's role in the UNFCCC climate regime due to its continued financing of fossil fuels, contribution to deforestation, and undemocratic governance.

The document analyzes the 'Global Europe' strategy, which shifts the EU from multilateralism toward 'WTO+' bilateral free trade agreements. It argues that this approach focuses on 'competitiveness' and securing raw materials, often at the expense of social and environmental protections in the Global South. The report details negative impacts in Central America, Africa, the Caribbean, and Asia, specifically highlighting threats to food sovereignty, the displacement of peasant communities for agrofuels, and the erosion of domestic policy space through the liberalization of services and government procurement.

The report analyzes the 'Global Europe' strategy as a political and economic tool used by the EU to secure access to raw materials, energy reserves, and open markets in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. It argues that 'Association Agreements' go beyond trade in goods to include the liberalization of services, investments, and government procurement, which the author claims undermines the sovereignty of developing nations. The document highlights specific negative impacts, such as the promotion of agrofuels in Central America, the pressure on African nations to sign Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) to maintain tariff preferences, and the role of European financial institutions like the European Investment Bank in funding extractive projects. It concludes that the strategy prioritizes corporate competitiveness over human rights and environmental sustainability.