Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that the 'financialization of nature'—the process of turning ecological functions into tradeable monetary units—primarily serves corporate interests rather than conservation. It details how companies in extractive industries, aviation, and construction use biodiversity offsets to bypass environmental regulations and greenwash destructive activities. The document also highlights the emergence of a 'new conservation industry' comprising NGOs, think tanks, and financial institutions that promote these market-based approaches. Finally, it contends that private sector investment in conservation is significantly over-hyped, serving as a facade to secure public subsidies and avoid stringent environmental laws.

The report criticizes the EU's reliance on agrofuels to meet renewable energy targets in transport, asserting that these fuels often cause more environmental damage than fossil fuels. It highlights the role of Indirect Land-Use Change (ILUC) in increasing greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss, while also noting the negative impact of biofuel production on global food prices and water consumption. The document calls for a shift toward a transport strategy based on energy efficiency and renewable electricity, and the implementation of stricter sustainability criteria that account for ILUC.

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 document argues that community forest management (CFM) is a highly effective strategy for forest conservation and poverty reduction, yet it remains under-supported by governments. It identifies seven key rights—state obligations, self-determination, consultation, territorial rights, livelihoods/economic development, women's rights, and cultural/traditional knowledge—and maps these against international legal frameworks to provide advocates with tools to pressure governments for the legal recognition of community-led forestry.

The document is a template letter calling for an urgent, transparent investigation into the June 5 disappearance and murder of indigenist activist Bruno Araújo Pereira and journalist Dom Phillips in the Vale do Javari indigenous territory. It highlights the high risk faced by human rights and environmental defenders in Latin America and the Caribbean, specifically noting the ongoing threats to the Union of Indigenous Organisations of Vale do Javari (UNIVAJA) and the 2019 assassination of Maxciel Pereira dos Santos. The letter requests that embassies push Brazilian authorities to find the perpetrators, punish those trespassing on indigenous lands, and guarantee the rights to territory and self-determination for indigenous peoples in Brazil.

The document is a sample letter designed for human rights organizations to urge the Brazilian government to investigate the 'Guapoy Massacre' and protect the territorial rights of the Guarani and Kaiowá peoples in Mato Grosso do Sul.

Friends of the Earth International argues that EU legislation on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD) must move beyond procedural requirements to establish substantive obligations and strict legal liability. The organization demands that the law cover all company sizes and sectors, include criminal and civil liability for parent companies and their directors, and provide robust access to justice for affected persons, including the reversal of the burden of proof and the creation of legal funds.

Friends of the Earth International argues that the proposed EU corporate sustainability due diligence legislation must move beyond procedural requirements to establish substantive obligations and strict liability for companies. The document asserts that EU law should complement a legally binding UN instrument to end corporate impunity, ensuring that parent companies are held administratively, civilly, and criminally liable for damages caused by their subsidiaries and value chains globally. Key demands include the inversion of the burden of proof, the recognition of the right to free, prior and informed consent for affected communities, and the provision of effective legal remedies in EU courts for victims, including those in the Global South.

Friends of the Earth International argues that EU legislation on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD) must move beyond procedural 'box-ticking' to establish substantive obligations and strict liability for parent companies. The document demands that the law include criminal, civil, and administrative liability for companies and their decision-makers, reverse the burden of proof in legal claims, and ensure that EU national courts are accessible to affected people worldwide. It further asserts that EU law must complement a legally binding instrument at the UN (UN LBI) to eliminate corporate impunity and prioritize human rights over trade and investment agreements.

The document argues that the 'COVID crisis' consists of three layers: a viral reality, a systemic crisis rooted in existing inequalities, and a 'power crisis' driven by the strategic responses of powerful actors. It contends that multistakeholderism (MSism)—exemplified by ACT-A and COVAX—serves as a tool for the Global North to maintain corporate profits and the rules of globalisation while bypassing the accountability of the UN system. The author identifies four responses by the powerful: expanding markets, protecting globalisation, a passive 'stand-back' approach that allows mass death in the Global South, and limited mitigation. The report concludes with recommendations to treat health as a global public good and return governance to multilateral frameworks.

The document critiques carbon emission markets, including 'cap and trade' and 'offsetting' mechanisms, as ineffective tools for climate action. It asserts that these systems allow historical polluters to avoid reducing emissions at the source while causing human rights abuses and 'climate colonialism' in the Global South. The briefing specifically warns against the adoption of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement at COP25, arguing that it would institutionalize these flawed mechanisms and prioritize corporate interests over climate justice.

The document expresses concern over the growing influence of major corporations and business lobby groups within the UN, asserting that this 'corporate capture' undermines democracy and blocks effective solutions for climate change and social justice. It criticises partnerships between UN agencies and transnational companies, as well as the promotion of market-based 'false solutions' to environmental crises. The signatories demand a cap on business representation in negotiations, greater transparency regarding lobbying, and the establishment of a legally binding framework to hold companies accountable for human rights and environmental violations.

The document examines the contradiction between the EU's reluctance to support a binding international mechanism for corporate accountability and its promotion of the Investment Court System (ICS) and a proposed Multilateral Investment Court (MIC). It details how the EU has hindered UN Treaty negotiations through procedural complaints and budget challenges while entrenching investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in agreements with countries such as Canada, Mexico, and Chile.

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.