Search Climate Insights Directory

Friends of the Earth International advocates for a comprehensive global plastics treaty that targets the full life cycle of plastics. The statement highlights the link between plastics and the fossil fuel industry, the issue of 'waste colonialism' where rich nations export plastic waste to the Global South, and the need to include production limits. It provides examples of grassroots resistance to petrochemical expansion in the US, waste reduction efforts in El Salvador, legal battles against industry influence in Canada, and the essential role of waste pickers in Argentina.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a legally binding global Plastics Treaty that prioritizes the full lifecycle of plastics, specifically targeting upstream production controls. The organization demands a mechanism to cap and phase down global plastic production, a ban on plastic waste exports from the Global North to the Global South, and the accountability of transnational corporations. The proposed framework rejects 'false solutions' like chemical recycling and plastic offsets, instead advocating for a 'Zero Waste Hierarchy' and a just transition that protects human rights and provides grant-based finance for the Global South.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a legally binding global plastics treaty that moves beyond voluntary measures to implement strict production caps, ban waste exports from the Global North to the Global South, and hold multinational corporations accountable. The organization advocates for a 'zero waste hierarchy' and a just transition that protects human rights and provides grant-based financing for developing nations.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a legally binding global treaty that addresses the full life cycle of plastics, specifically demanding mandatory targets to reduce global production, a ban on plastic waste exports from the Global North to the Global South, and the accountability of transnational corporations. The organization rejects 'false solutions' like chemical recycling and plastic offsets, advocating instead for a 'zero waste hierarchy' focused on reduction, reuse, and redesign. It further demands a just transition for waste workers, the application of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' for financing in the Global South via grants, and strict transparency regarding the chemical composition of plastics.

The document evaluates the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), specifically Target 10 and Target 7, in the context of agriculture. It highlights the positive inclusion of agroecology and goals to reduce pesticide pollution by 2030. However, it warns that terms like 'sustainable intensification' and 'innovative approaches' may be used by corporate interests to promote GMOs, synthetic biology, and industrial farming. The author concludes that the GBF lacks specific mandates to restrict harmful agricultural practices and calls on NGOs and movements to use the framework's criteria to challenge corporate claims and advocate for agroecology.

The document evaluates the 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), highlighting a tension between its recognition of human and indigenous rights and its failure to impose binding regulations on transnational corporations. It criticizes the framework for promoting 'sustainable intensification' in agriculture and allowing 'biodiversity offsets,' which the author argues can be used as 'greenwashing' to justify continued environmental destruction. The text provides guidance for civil society and NGOs to use specific GBF targets to pressure governments for better land rights and corporate accountability.

The document evaluates the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), highlighting positive steps toward preventing species extinction and protecting indigenous rights, while warning that the framework's reliance on total area targets and 'Nature-based Solutions' may implicitly permit biodiversity offsetting. It argues that the lack of explicit prohibitions on destructive activities like deep-sea mining and Arctic hydrocarbon extraction allows ecosystem destruction to continue, and encourages civil society to use the GBF's quality and restoration targets to hold governments accountable.

The fact sheet analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework's (GBF) approach to human rights, highlighting positive inclusions such as the protection of environmental human rights defenders and gender equality, while warning of gaps in corporate accountability and climate-related human rights protections.

The fact sheet analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), specifically Targets 4, 15, and 16. It highlights the positive call to integrate biodiversity into all regulatory processes (Target 4) and the goal to reduce negative corporate impacts (Target 15). However, it criticizes the framework for favoring voluntary 'encouragement' over mandatory regulation, relying on corporate self-reporting through platforms like the TNFD, and omitting human rights protections from Target 15. The author urges civil society to use the GBF to challenge inadequate government policies and to advocate for a binding UN Treaty on TNCs and Human Rights.

The report critiques the industrial agribusiness model, describing it as a network of transnational corporations and financial institutions that prioritise profit maximisation through large-scale monocultures and high-input systems. It argues that these entities promote 'false solutions'—including voluntary certifications, sustainable intensification, and regenerative agriculture—to greenwash their image, capture policy-making processes, and commodify nature through carbon markets. The document highlights the negative impacts of this model, such as deforestation in Indonesia and Brazil, human rights violations, and the displacement of small-scale farmers in Argentina, while contrasting these with 'real peoples' solutions' based on food sovereignty and agroecology.

The report critiques the industrial agri-food system, describing it as a network of producers, processors, and retailers that prioritizes profit maximization through intensive monocultures and chemical inputs. It argues that corporate-led initiatives—such as sustainability certifications, 'sustainable intensification,' and 'regenerative agriculture'—are 'false solutions' designed to greenwash industrial practices, capture carbon markets, and shift responsibility to consumers. The document highlights the negative impacts of this model, including deforestation, human rights violations, and the marginalization of small-scale farmers, while contrasting these with 'people's solutions' based on food sovereignty and agroecology.

The report critiques the industrial agribusiness model, describing it as a network of transnational companies and financial institutions that prioritize profit and scale over environmental and social health. It argues that the industry employs 'false solutions'—market-based mechanisms and corporate-led certifications—to avoid genuine regulation and maintain control over the global food system. The document highlights specific examples, including the failure of RSPO certifications in Indonesia and the impact of no-till farming in Argentina, to demonstrate how these tactics often exacerbate deforestation and undermine small-scale producers.

The document analyzes the 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework, highlighting its recognition of indigenous rights and agroecology while criticizing its reliance on corporate self-reporting, 'sustainable intensification' in agriculture, and the implicit acceptance of biodiversity offsets (compensation). It urges civil society to use the framework's targets to pressure governments for stronger legislation and accountability.

The document analyzes the 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework, noting its commitment to a human-rights-based approach and the recognition of indigenous territories. While it praises the protection of environmental human rights defenders in Target 22 and gender equality in Target 23, it warns that Target 3's goal of protecting 30% of the world could lead to human rights violations if indigenous peoples are excluded. It highlights critical gaps in Target 15 regarding corporate accountability and Target 8 regarding climate change and human rights, and urges NGOs to push for concrete implementation protocols and legal recognition of indigenous-managed areas.

The document analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), specifically Target 10 and Target 7, regarding their impact on agriculture. While it acknowledges the framework's commitment to sustainable management and the reduction of pesticide risks, it warns that terms like 'sustainable intensification' and 'innovative approaches' may be used by corporate lobbyists to promote biotechnology, GMOs, and synthetic biology. The author argues that the GBF lacks specific mandates to restrict harmful industrial agricultural practices and risks the financialization of nature through the concept of 'ecosystem services'.

The document analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework, noting that while Target 4 promotes urgent measures to prevent species extinction and Target 3 emphasizes effective protected area management, the framework is flawed by an implicit reliance on biodiversity offsetting. The author argues that offsetting is a harmful practice that fails to address root causes of biodiversity loss and may justify the destruction of nature. Key gaps include the lack of explicit bans on high-impact activities like deep-sea mining and Arctic drilling, and a failure to adequately link conservation to industrial agriculture and fossil fuel extraction.

The fact sheet analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework, specifically Targets 14, 15, and 16, arguing that while it advocates for integrating biodiversity into regulatory processes, it relies too heavily on corporate self-reporting and 'carrots' rather than binding regulations. It criticizes the framework for enabling greenwashing through platforms like the TNFD and for omitting human rights protections in Target 15, urging civil society to use the framework to challenge ineffective government policies.

The document analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), specifically Target 10 and Target 7, regarding their impact on agriculture. It highlights the positive inclusion of agroecology and goals to reduce pesticide risks by 2030. However, it criticizes the framework for endorsing 'sustainable intensification' and 'innovative approaches' that may promote biotechnology, GMOs, and synthetic biology. The author argues that the GBF lacks specific mandates for systemic agricultural change and warns against the 'financialisation of nature' through the use of 'ecosystem services' terminology.

The document evaluates the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), noting that while Target 4 supports preventing species extinction and Target 3 emphasizes quality in conserved areas, the framework is undermined by the implicit enablement of offsetting. The author argues that the GBF lacks clear prohibitions on destructive activities like deep-sea mining and fails to adequately link conservation to industrial drivers of biodiversity loss. It suggests that civil society can use the GBF's targets on restoration and governance to hold governments accountable.

The document analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), highlighting its recognition of Indigenous Peoples' rights and the goal to protect 30% of the world's land and sea. However, it criticizes the framework for relying on corporate self-reporting, lacking mandatory regulations for transnational corporations, and promoting 'sustainable intensification' in agriculture, which may favor biotech and agribusiness. It also warns that the GBF's approach to restoration and conservation may enable harmful offsetting practices and the 'financialisation of nature'.