Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines the critical role of forests in regulating the global climate through carbon, water, and nitrogen cycles. It argues that while forests currently act as carbon sinks, rising temperatures—particularly above 23C—risk turning them into carbon sources. The text emphasizes the superior carbon storage of old-growth forests over plantations and highlights the extreme vulnerability of peatlands and tropical forests. It concludes that protecting existing forests and their soils is a more effective climate strategy than relying on reforestation or the uncertain phenomenon of 'carbon fertilization'.

The report critiques REDD as a flawed approach that focuses on reducing rather than stopping deforestation, potentially rewarding polluters through carbon offsetting. It highlights significant risks to Indigenous Peoples' land rights, the danger of replacing natural forests with carbon-poor plantations, and methodological failures such as 'leakage'. The author argues that market-based funding is volatile and inequitable, suggesting instead that funding should be grant-based, managed by the UN, and focused on addressing the underlying drivers of deforestation.

The report argues that REDD, as currently designed, focuses on reducing rather than stopping deforestation and risks becoming a tool for corporate profit rather than climate mitigation. It highlights significant risks to indigenous land rights, the potential for 'leakage' where deforestation simply moves to other areas, and the danger of replacing natural forests with monoculture plantations. The author criticizes the use of carbon markets to fund REDD, suggesting instead public funding derived from fossil fuel taxes and the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies.

The report critiques REDD, asserting that it is designed to reduce rather than stop deforestation and may incentivize the replacement of natural forests with carbon-poor plantations. It warns that financing REDD through carbon markets could allow industrialized nations to avoid reducing fossil fuel emissions, undermine national sovereignty in developing countries, and lead to the displacement of indigenous communities. The author argues that REDD's 'opportunity cost' calculations often benefit polluters and that the mechanism is susceptible to market volatility and corporate lobbying. The document advocates for a non-market, grant-based funding system managed by the UN, focused on ecosystem justice, the recognition of indigenous land rights, and the elimination of the underlying drivers of deforestation.

The document examines the critical relationship between forests and the global climate, highlighting the risk that temperature increases above 2-3°C could transform forests from carbon sinks into net carbon sources. It emphasizes the superior carbon storage of old-growth forests over plantations and the extreme vulnerability of peatlands, particularly in Southeast Asia. The guide warns that climate change is increasing the frequency of wildfires and pest outbreaks, while also altering species distribution. It concludes that stopping deforestation and protecting old-growth forests and peatlands are urgent priorities for climate mitigation.

This executive summary by Friends of the Earth challenges the Malaysian Palm Oil Council's (MPOC) claims that Malaysian palm oil is sustainable. It argues that expansion, particularly in Sarawak, is driving tropical deforestation, the destruction of peat lands, and human rights violations against indigenous peoples like the Penan. The report highlights the role of European and American bio-energy targets in driving this demand and calls for the EU to abandon its 10% biofuel target and for the Malaysian government to recognize Native Customary Rights and enforce a zero-burning policy.

The report argues that the Malaysian palm oil industry's claims of sustainability are misleading, citing evidence of widespread deforestation, illegal open burning on peatlands, and the systemic violation of indigenous land rights in Sarawak. It highlights the 'carbon debt' created by converting peat forests to plantations and criticizes the lack of public participation in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). The document calls for the EU to abandon biofuel targets that drive this demand and for the Malaysian government to recognize Native Customary Rights (NCR).

The report argues that the drive for agrofuels in Latin America is based on a cash-crop model of intensive monocultures that benefits large landowners and international agribusiness while causing widespread deforestation, water shortages, and human rights abuses. In Brazil, sugarcane expansion is linked to slave-like working conditions and the displacement of family farms. Argentina's soy-based biodiesel industry has led to significant deforestation and the concentration of land ownership, with 46% of production controlled by 2.2% of producers. In Colombia, oil palm expansion is associated with paramilitary violence and the forced displacement of Afro-descendant and indigenous communities. Central American countries, including Costa Rica, Guatemala, and El Salvador, are increasing production to meet US and EU demand, which the report warns will exacerbate child labour and food insecurity. The document highlights the influence of multilateral banks like the IADB and the World Bank, and corporations such as Cargill and Bunge, in financing and driving this transition.

The report analyzes the 'agrofuel offensive' in Latin America, focusing on Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, and Central American nations (Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Guatemala). It argues that the rapid expansion of monocultures for biofuels is driven by Northern demand and supported by government subsidies and international finance, leading to widespread deforestation, land concentration, and human rights abuses. Key findings include the use of slave-like labor in Brazilian sugarcane fields, the displacement of indigenous and Afro-descendant communities in Colombia for palm oil, and the loss of food security as food crops are replaced by energy crops. The document highlights the role of transnational corporations and international financial institutions in funding these developments while local populations face increased poverty and environmental degradation.

The briefing contends that forests should not be treated primarily as carbon sinks and warns that market-based REDD mechanisms risk creating climate loopholes and displacing local communities. It advocates for funding forest conservation through national programs and carbon taxes in industrialized nations rather than carbon markets, emphasizing the need to address the underlying drivers of deforestation such as agrofuels and industrial logging.

This briefing by Friends of the Earth International contends that forests provide value beyond carbon sequestration and warns that integrating REDD into carbon markets threatens indigenous land rights and climate goals. It advocates for direct funding of community-led conservation, the recognition of territorial rights for over one billion forest-dependent people, and a shift in responsibility toward industrialized nations to reduce emissions and address the root causes of deforestation, such as biofuels and industrial extraction.

The fact sheet contends that treating forests primarily as carbon sinks undermines biodiversity and the rights of indigenous peoples. It argues against the use of carbon markets and REDD, suggesting instead that industrialized nations provide direct financial support and address the root causes of deforestation, such as industrial logging and unsustainable consumption of meat and paper.

The report criticizes the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) for promoting a 'flawed model' of large-scale, export-oriented agrofuels in Latin America and the Caribbean. It argues that these projects, driven by demand from the US and Europe, lead to deforestation, biodiversity loss, and human rights abuses, such as violent land grabs in Colombia. The document asserts that agrofuels are not a viable climate solution due to land-use emissions and calls for the IDB to shift funding toward small-scale, local energy projects and truly clean renewables like wind and solar.

The document critiques the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) for promoting large-scale biofuel monocultures as a 'clean energy' solution. It argues that these projects, particularly in Brazil and Colombia, lead to deforestation, biodiversity loss, and rural displacement while failing to provide significant greenhouse gas reductions. The report calls for a shift toward small-scale, decentralized energy systems that support local food security and rural development.

The document critiques the World Bank's proposed Climate Investment Funds (CIF), consisting of the Clean Technology Fund and the Strategic Climate Fund, arguing that the Bank is an unsuitable manager due to its continued financing of fossil fuels. It highlights concerns regarding the lack of democratic design, the potential for funding 'clean coal', and the unethical use of repayable loans for adaptation in developing countries. The author calls for climate financing to be moved into a transparent multilateral framework under the UNFCCC.

The document critiques 'oil aid'—public financing for fossil fuel infrastructure in the Global South—arguing it exacerbates the 'resource curse', benefits wealthy nations and corporations over the poor, and undermines climate action. It calls for a shift in public subsidies toward renewable energy to achieve a socially just energy transition.

Friends of the Earth International rejects the Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS), claiming it provides a "façade of sustainability" for agribusinesses and energy companies while failing to address the systemic impacts of industrial soy. The document highlights how soy expansion leads to deforestation, biodiversity loss, human rights violations, and increased food insecurity. It specifically criticizes the promotion of genetically modified (GM) soy, noting substantial increases in herbicide use in Brazil and the United States. The statement argues that the RTRS ignores indirect regional and global impacts, such as the displacement of agriculture into primary forests and the pollution caused by intensive livestock production in Europe. To address these issues, the organization calls for structural land reforms, reduced global demand for meat and dairy, and an end to large-scale agrofuel production.

The International Federation of Friends of the Earth rejects the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS), claiming it provides a facade of sustainability for multinational corporations while ignoring the systemic impacts of industrial soy monocultures. The document details how soy expansion leads to biodiversity loss, climate change, human rights violations, and food insecurity. It specifically criticizes the promotion of genetically modified (GM) soy, noting significant increases in pesticide use in Brazil and the US. The text argues that demand is driven by intensive livestock farming and biofuels, and calls for structural land reforms, reduced meat consumption, and a shift toward organic and local agriculture.

This fact sheet by Friends of the Earth International contends that GM crops, primarily soya, maize, and cotton, fail to increase yields or reduce poverty in developing regions. It asserts that the GM model benefits large-scale industrial farmers through 'convenience' while harming small-scale farmers via high seed costs, land displacement, and increased pesticide use. The document specifically highlights negative outcomes in South America, Africa, India, and China, and disputes claims that GM technology makes food cheaper or is necessary for the livestock industry.

The report 'Losing Ground' documents the systemic human rights violations associated with the expansion of oil palm plantations in Indonesia. It details how the conversion of customary lands into industrial monocultures leads to land dispossession, violent conflict, and the erosion of indigenous cultures. The authors highlight the economic failure of many smallholder schemes, which often result in debt bondage rather than prosperity, and describe severe environmental degradation, including water pollution and the loss of biodiversity. The document calls for the adoption of the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and urges European governments to abandon biofuel targets that drive this unsustainable expansion.