Search Climate Insights Directory

The document advocates for a transition to renewable energy based on 'energy sovereignty' and 'energy sufficiency' rather than corporate extractivism. It warns that urgent climate action can lead to 'green' projects that cause land grabbing and human rights violations. Through case studies in India, Argentina, Palestine, and Scotland, it illustrates the need for community participation, respect for land rights, circular economy investments, and a move away from treating energy as a commodity.

The document critiques soil carbon offset programs, asserting they do not reduce global emissions but instead serve as a mechanism for agribusinesses to maintain industrial models. It highlights risks such as the erosion of traditional agricultural knowledge, the promotion of patented seeds and chemicals, and the unreliability of soil carbon measurement. The text specifically identifies companies like Yara and Boomitra as drivers of these markets, expanding from industrial farms in the US, Australia, and Brazil into small-scale farming in Africa, India, and South America.

The report argues that the agrocommodities model is a patriarchal system of production that drives deforestation, water pollution, and land grabbing, disproportionately harming women by increasing their care workloads and exposing them to violence. It documents specific abuses in sectors like oil palm and pineapple plantations across Africa, Latin America, and Asia, and advocates for a transition toward food sovereignty, agroecology, and a feminist care economy.

The document analyzes how the industrial agrocommodity system, driven by transnational corporations and patriarchal logic, causes territorial dispossession, environmental degradation, and systemic violence against women. It details impacts on land access, water quality, health, and food sovereignty, while advocating for a feminist economy of care and agroecology as transformative alternatives.

The report argues that individual human rights frameworks are insufficient to protect Indigenous Peoples, Afrodescendants, and peasants facing systemic threats from corporate extraction and neoliberal globalisation. It defines 'territory' as any socially constructed space—including the human body—and calls for a shift toward recognizing collective rights to land, water, and self-determination to achieve transformative system change.

Friends of the Earth International argues that the neoliberal system drives ecological crises and fuels violence against marginalized communities. The organization advocates for a shift from individual human rights frameworks toward the recognition of collective 'rights of peoples' to protect land, water, and ancestral practices. It defines 'territory' as a socially constructed space—including the human body—and positions the defense of these territories and their defenders as a prerequisite for systemic transformation toward sustainable societies.

Friends of the Earth International argues that the neoliberal capitalist system drives multiple ecological and social crises, leading to the systemic violation of the collective rights of marginalized communities. The organization advocates for a shift from individual human rights frameworks to 'Rights of Peoples' to protect indigenous, Afro-descendant, and peasant communities. It defines 'territory' as a socially constructed space encompassing spiritual, cultural, and physical relationships, including the human body, and positions the defense of these territories and their defenders as essential for achieving a transformative system change toward sustainable societies.

The document argues that carbon markets and offsetting mechanisms are ineffective 'false solutions' that allow major polluters to continue emitting while causing harm to ecosystems and communities, particularly in the Global South. It details the mechanisms of the UNFCCC's Article 6, various regional and national carbon pricing initiatives, and provides strategies for civil society to resist these systems through advocacy, legal action, and community mobilization.

The document argues that carbon markets and emission offsets are ineffective at reducing emissions and instead serve as a distraction for major polluters while enabling extractivism and neocolonialism, particularly in the Global South. It details the mechanisms of the UNFCCC's Article 6, including the cooperative approaches of 6.2 and the UN-managed market of 6.4, as well as various regional and national systems in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The guide concludes by offering strategies for opposition, such as policy advocacy, community awareness, and legal challenges, while providing resources for tracking carbon projects.

The document asserts that big business, a primary driver of biodiversity loss, has significantly increased its influence over the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). It details how corporations use 'green-sounding' coalitions, revolving doors, and the infiltration of national delegations to promote ineffective, market-based solutions like 'Nature-Based Solutions' and 'Nature Positive' while avoiding regulation. The report highlights specific cases of biotech industry influence and the role of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), which includes companies with poor environmental records. It concludes that corporate capture prevents the transformative change needed to stop species extinction and recommends strict limits on business participation in UN negotiations, including a ban on business representatives in national delegations and the end of corporate partnerships.

The report argues that corporate interests have systematically captured CBD processes to avoid stringent regulation and protect profits. It details how business lobby groups, such as Business for Nature and the WBCSD, use tactics like 'multistakeholderism', the promotion of vague terms like 'Nature Positive', and the advocacy for voluntary reporting over mandatory impact reductions to shape the Global Biodiversity Framework. The document highlights the role of the CBD Secretariat in facilitating this access and warns that the resulting framework fails to address the underlying economic drivers of biodiversity loss.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) based on environmental integrity, human rights, and binding government regulation of business. The organization rejects 'false solutions' such as offsetting, 'Nature Positive' concepts, and corporate self-regulation, arguing that these facilitate continued biodiversity loss. Key demands include the recognition of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) as primary guardians of biodiversity, a transition from industrial agriculture to agroecology, and the provision of new, additional public financial resources for developing countries based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

The report argues that large corporations, which are primary drivers of biodiversity loss, have systematically infiltrated the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) through lobbying, 'green' coalitions, and partnerships. It details how these entities use tactics such as inserting representatives into national delegations and promoting voluntary, market-based 'solutions' like 'nature-positive' concepts to avoid binding regulations. The document highlights the role of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and biotechnology firms in manipulating processes and calls for a total separation of corporate interests from UN decision-making to achieve a 'transformative change' in biodiversity conservation.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a Global Biodiversity Framework based on environmental integrity and human rights, rejecting corporate self-regulation and 'false solutions' like nature-based offsets. The organization advocates for the recognition of indigenous peoples' land rights, a transition to agroecology, and the provision of new, public international financial resources for developing countries to implement biodiversity goals.

The report argues that large corporations and their lobbying groups have systematically co-opted the CBD and the GBF process. It details strategies such as 'revolving doors', privileged access to the CBD Secretariat, and the promotion of ambiguous terms like 'nature positive' and 'nature-based solutions' to replace binding regulations with voluntary reporting and self-certification. The document highlights the role of groups like Business for Nature and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in steering the GBF away from addressing structural drivers of biodiversity loss.

The report argues that large corporations, despite being primary drivers of biodiversity loss, have infiltrated UN processes and the CBD to promote 'green' coalitions and non-binding solutions. It details lobbying tactics such as the use of 'revolving doors', the co-optation of NGOs, and the infiltration of national delegations. The document highlights the contradiction of organizations like the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) representing companies with severe environmental records. It concludes that corporate capture of the CBD prevents the 'transformative change' needed to halt biodiversity loss and recommends strict limits on corporate influence, including banning corporate representatives from national delegations and ending UN partnerships with business associations.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) that prioritizes absolute biodiversity loss reversal, the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and strict government regulation of corporations. The organization rejects 'false solutions' such as biodiversity offsets, nature-based solutions used for carbon capture, and corporate self-regulation, while advocating for a transition to agroecology and the provision of new, additional public financial resources for developing countries.

The report analyzes the 'Nature Positive' concept, which aims to stop and reverse biodiversity loss. It argues that the term is vaguely defined and relies on 'net gain' accounting, which allows for the continued destruction of ecosystems if compensated elsewhere. The authors contend that such offsetting is often technically impossible, particularly in forest and marine ecosystems, and frequently leads to human rights violations against Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The document further asserts that the concept is pushed by the private sector to avoid strong regulations and to create new business opportunities, while failing to integrate the rights and knowledge of those who protect 80% of existing biodiversity.

The document argues that 'net zero' targets are a 'smoke screen' allowing corporations to maintain fossil fuel and industrial agriculture business models. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' (NbS) and carbon offsets as mechanisms that lead to land grabbing, the displacement of Indigenous and peasant communities, and the co-optation of agroecology. The report highlights the technical failures of carbon offsets, the volatility of biological carbon storage compared to fossil carbon, and the risks of 'digital soil carbon' platforms that allow agribusinesses to control farmer data and land use.

The document argues that 'net zero' strategies serve as a 'smoke screen' for large corporations to continue fossil fuel extraction and industrial agriculture. It specifically critiques 'nature-based solutions' and soil carbon sequestration as mechanisms that facilitate land grabbing, data appropriation, and the co-optation of agroecology, ultimately benefiting agribusiness and tech firms while undermining the rights of small-scale producers and Indigenous peoples.