NL-KVK-40530467-FGG
Milieudefensie
Fair, Green and Global Alliance
The Fair Green and Global (FGG) alliance is an alliance of six civil society organisations. Both ENDS is the lead agency, and other member organisations are: ActionAid, Clean Clothes Campaign, Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands), SOMO and Transnational Institute. The alliance is in a Strategic Partnership with the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The alliance aims at socially just, inclusive, and environmentally sustainable societies. It addresses governance gaps in corporate conduct, trade and investment and financial systems. Our aim of socially just, inclusive, and environmentally sustainable societies is within reach. Yet a persistent combination of socio-economic and environmental crises threatens to roll back the progress we have made. People across the globe, particularly in low- and lower-middle income countries (LLMICs), especially women, are suffering from rising inequality, food insecurity and financial instability. Their lives and livelihoods are threatened by climate change, declining biodiversity, and scarcity of resources. Human rights are being systematically violated and rights defenders are under severe threat. Governance gaps - described by former UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights John Ruggie as the gap between “the scope and impact of economic forces and actors, and the capacity of societies to manage their adverse consequences” - are a principal cause of these social and environmental crises. People’s ability to claim respect for their human rights, engage in decision making and influence policies and practices that affect them is shrinking. Laws, policies and decision making processes increasingly favour the private sector at the expense of public interest. We, the Fair, Green and Global (FGG) Alliance, have expertise and strategies to help close these governance gaps. We believe that the solution lies in democratic, transparent, equitable and gender-sensitive economic and social structures and practices that respect our natural environment. We focus on three interlinked leverage points, or Theories of Change (ToCs) - corporate conduct, trade and investment, and the financial system - because our joint analysis indicates these as being loci where change is critical and possible in order to achieve inclusive societies in which human rights are respected and global public goods managed sustainably. Since 2009 the FGG Alliance, funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs as part of MFSII, has achieved notable results in these three areas, exceeding the sum of our parts. We believe that the key to achieving transformative change is to inform and mobilise people to engage with relevant decision makers in these three areas. We know that the grassroots social movements we are part of have the power to effect change.
The FGG programme consists of three activities or Theories of Change: ToC 1 - Improved Corporate Conduct; ToC 2 - Improved Trade and Investment; ToC 3 - Improved Financial and Tax Systems
Civil society; Governments; International institutions; Private sector actors.
Both ENDS
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Friends of the Earth International
Friends of the Earth Europe
2324879
2324879
2324879
2324879
2324880
48108
Programme coordination and PME 2016
2324879
Disbursement 2016-2020 3/7
Both ENDS
53000
Disbursement FoEE 2016 1/1 ToC3
Friends of the Earth Europe
179254
Disbursement FoEE 2018 1/1 ToC1
Friends of the Earth Europe
132000
Disbursement FoEE 2018 1/1 ToC2
Friends of the Earth Europe
179254
Disbursement FoEE 2020 1/2 ToC1
Friends of the Earth Europe
1043581
Budget 2019
Friends of the Earth International
365254
Budget 2019
Friends of the Earth Europe
363931
Expenditures MD ToC1 2018
Milieudefensie
366513
Expenditures MD ToC2 2018
Milieudefensie
500000
Disbursement 2020 1/3
Friends of the Earth International
372499
Expenditures MD ToC2 2019
Milieudefensie
40192
Expenditures MD ToC3 2019
Milieudefensie
1043581
Budget 2020
Friends of the Earth International
365254
Budget 2020
Friends of the Earth Europe
1043581
Budget 2017
Friends of the Earth International
365254
Budget 2018
Friends of the Earth Europe
11624396
Budget 2016-2020
365254
Budget 2017
Friends of the Earth Europe
1043581
Budget 2016
Friends of the Earth International
301635
Expenditures MD ToC1 2017
583065
Expenditures MD ToC2 2016
Milieudefensie
115984
Disbursement 2016-2020 7/7
Both ENDS
53000
Disbursement FoEE 2020 1/2 ToC3
Friends of the Earth Europe
132000
Disbursement FoEE 2020 1/2 ToC2
Friends of the Earth Europe
226151
Expenditure MD ToC2 2020
Milieudefensie
1043581
Budget 2018
Friends of the Earth International
2
FoEE expenditure 2016 coord
Friends of the Earth Europe
132000
Disbursement FoEE 2017 1/1 ToC2
Friends of the Earth Europe
21377
Programme coordination and PME 2019
1046
FoEE expenditure 2017 coord
Friends of the Earth Europe
53000
Disbursement FoEE 2017 1/1 ToC3
Friends of the Earth Europe
179254
Disbursement FoEE 2019 1/1 ToC1
Friends of the Earth Europe
0
FoEE expenditure 2018 coord
Friends of the Earth Europe
53000
Disbursement FoEE 2019 1/1 ToC3
Friends of the Earth Europe
2325140
Disbursement 2016-2020 5/7
Both ENDS
500000
Disbursement 2016 1/3
Friends of the Earth International
78683
Expenditures MD ToC1 2016
Milieudefensie
1043581
Disbursement 2017 1/1
Friends of the Earth International
1043581
Disbursement 2018 1/1
Friends of the Earth International
477189
Expenditures MD ToC1 2019
Milieudefensie
132000
Disbursement FoEE 2019 1/1 ToC2
Friends of the Earth Europe
1043581
Disbursement 2019 1/1
Friends of the Earth International
300000
Disbursement 2016 3/3
Friends of the Earth International
243581
Disbursement 2016 2/3
Friends of the Earth International
53000
Disbursement FoEE 2018 1/1 ToC3
Friends of the Earth Europe
132000
Disbursement FoEE 2016 1/1 ToC2
Friends of the Earth Europe
2324879
Disbursement 2016-2020 4/7
Both ENDS
27664
Expenditures MD ToC3 2018
Milieudefensie
179254
Disbursement FoEE 2016 1/1 ToC1
Friends of the Earth Europe
1559419
Disbursement 2016-2020 2/7
Both ENDS
29450
Programme coordination and PME 2017
179254
Disbursement FoEE 2017 1/1 ToC1
Friends of the Earth Europe
1152940
Disbursement 2016-2020 1/7
Both ENDS
19721
Expenditures MD ToC3 2017
523642
Expenditures MD ToC2 2017
29826
Programme coordination and PME 2018
62859
Expenditures MD ToC3 2016
Milieudefensie
365254
Budget 2016
Friends of the Earth Europe
25187
Programme coordination and PME 2020
1452
FoEE expenditure 2019 coord
Friends of the Earth Europe
2500
FoEE expenditure 2020 coord
Friends of the Earth Europe
832447
Expenditure MD ToC1 2020
Milieudefensie
192294
Expenditure MD ToC3 2020
Milieudefensie
543581
Disbursement 2020 2/3
Friends of the Earth International
-14893
Budget 2020 (underspent)
Friends of the Earth International
-14893
Disbursement 2020 3/3
Friends of the Earth International
-17429
Budget 2020 (underspent)
Friends of the Earth Europe
1821155
Disbursement 2016-2020 6/7
Both ENDS
263018
Disbursement FoEE 2020 2/2 ToC2 (over/underspent 2016-2020)
Friends of the Earth Europe
-243229
Disbursement FoEE 2020 2/2 ToC3 (over/underspent 2016-2020)
Friends of the Earth Europe
-37218
Disbursement FoEE 2020 2/2 ToC1 (over/underspent 2016-2020)
Friends of the Earth Europe
Results are not reported here, but under the activities NL-KVK-40530467-FGG-ToC1, NL-KVK-40530467-FGG-ToC2, NL-KVK-40530467-FGG-ToC3; and NL-KVK-FGG-40535338-FGG-TOC1, NL-KVK-FGG-40535338-FGG-TOC2
Results are not reported here, but under the activities NL-KVK-40530467-FGG-ToC1, NL-KVK-40530467-FGG-ToC2, NL-KVK-40530467-FGG-ToC3; and NL-KVK-FGG-40535338-FGG-TOC1, NL-KVK-FGG-40535338-FGG-TOC2
NL-KVK-40530467-FGG-ToC1
Milieudefensie
FGG MD ToC 1: Improved Corporate Conduct
FGG’s goal is to ensure that improved corporate conduct advances social justice and environmental sustainability. Like Minister Ploumen, we believe that corporations, including private banks, have a role in and responsibility for fighting poverty and injustice and promoting inclusive and sustainable development. This includes - but goes beyond - a ‘business-as-usual’ approach to corporate accountability. It requires a fundamental change in corporate conduct, including changes to basic decisions about investment, buying practices and sourcing. Not just on paper, but in practice. Although progress has been made, evidence that corporations are eschewing their social and environmental responsibility is abundant and affirmed by FGG partners. Massive infrastructure and extractives projects have destroyed and damaged ecosystems and the natural resources that communities rely upon, and forced people from their land, as well as emitting climate damaging greenhouse gases. Key sectors responsible include the extractive industry and agribusiness, including their financiers and purchasers. When abuses are revealed, corporations often withdraw, leaving affected communities deprived of livelihoods. Those adversely affected by corporate conduct rarely see remedy. Through globalisation, companies have acquired greater power and legal rights without a parallel increase in accountability. Acting within complex transnational structures, networks of business relationships, financing arrangements, and global supply chains, companies can avoid responsibility for their conduct. We believe this corporate ‘governance gap’ must be closed for social justice, and environmental sustainability to prevail. This requires rules, regulations and enforcement, and improvements in corporate governance, business models and business practices, including the active promotion of sustainability, and fostering local, vibrant, small-scale and sustainable businesses. It also requires creating an enabling environment in which human rights are respected.
A. Enabling environment. Both the rights and the legal and political spaces needed to claim and defend those rights are protected for people, communities and civil society actors, enabling them to address misconduct and grievances successfully, and promote improved corporate conduct and related governmental regulation. B. Capacities strengthened. Increased capacity of civil society actors to research, network and advocate in relation to the conduct of corporations has been increased. C. Alternatives developed. A range of alternative, participatory initiatives and models related to corporate conduct have been developed, piloted and promoted by FGG and civil society actors, from best practices through to enforceable multi-stakeholder agreements. D. Agendas set. Private and public sector decision makers have prioritised improvement measures due to support from influential civil society actors, critical media attention, increased public awareness and effective scrutiny of corporate conduct. E. Policies changed. These include improved government and corporate policies on corporate accountability, including transparency and safeguards policies, conflict resolution mechanisms, and policies promoting social justice, decent work and sustainability. F. Practice changed. Improved corporate policies and government regulations have been put into practice and enforced.
Civil society; Governments; International institutions; Private sector actors.
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
324000
324000
324000
324000
324000
179254
179254
179254
179254
179254
78683
Budget used MD ToC1 2016
Milieudefensie
363931
Budget used MD ToC1 2018
Milieudefensie
301635
Budget used MD ToC1 2017
Milieudefensie
179254
Disbursement FoEE 2018 1/1 ToC1
Milieudefensie
113441
Exp FoEE 2019 ToC1
Friends of the Earth Europe
179254
Disbursement FoEE 2016 1/1 ToC1
Milieudefensie
179254
Disbursement FoEE 2019 1/1 ToC1
Milieudefensie
78343
Exp FoEE 2016 ToC1
Friends of the Earth Europe
132567
Exp FoEE 2017 ToC1
Friends of the Earth Europe
205834
Exp FoEE 2018 ToC1
Friends of the Earth Europe
477189
Exp MD 2019 ToC1
78683
Exp MD 2016 ToC1
301635
Exp MD 2017 ToC1
363931
Exp MD 2018 ToC1
477189
Budget used MD ToC1 2019
Milieudefensie
832447
Budget used MD ToC1 2020
Milieudefensie
179254
Disbursement FoEE 2017 1/1 ToC1
Milieudefensie
328867
Exp FoEE 2020 ToC1
Friends of the Earth Europe
832447
Exp MD 2020 ToC1
179254
Disbursement FoEE 2020 1/2 ToC1
Milieudefensie
-37218
Disbursement FoEE 2020 2/2 ToC1 (over/underspent 2016-2020)
Milieudefensie
Outcome A: Enabling Environment
Both the rights and the legal and political spaces needed to claim and defend those rights are protected for people, communities and civil society actors, enabling them to address misconduct and grievances successfully, and promote improved corporate conduct and related governmental regulation.
1.A.a
# mechanisms put in place or improved by governments that guarantee access for civil society to democratic decision making processes related to corporate conduct, including the right to resist developments.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE/MD1(1):] On 2 June 2016, the Nigerian government launched an initiative to clean up oil pollution in the Niger Delta region Ogoniland, implementing the recommendations from the 2011 UNEP 'Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland' report. For this, a 13-person Governing Council and a 10-person Board of Trustees (BoT) was installed. Mr Nnimmo Bassey, director of the CSO Health of Mother Earth Foundation (and former director of ERA/FoE Nigeria and former chair of Friends of the Earth International), represents the Nigerian CSOs in the BoT. Three representatives of the Ogoni community and of other Niger Delta communities are also members of the BoT. ERA has been advocating the clean-up of the Niger Delta and the effective participation of the affected Niger Delta communities in this for decades. Milieudefensie and FoE Europe have supported ERA's efforts, e.g. the organisation of several meetings in Nigeria for communities, government officials and the media in the past years, including in March 2016.
[FoEE1(1):] The European Commission, Parliament and Council will put an improved EU Transparency Register in place that will give CSOs and citizens more power to scrutinise EU decision-making and hold decision-makers accountable (improved as compared to the current Brussels lobbying power balance between CSOs and the corporate world).
[FoEE1(0)]: In 2018, the negotiations for an EU lobby transparency register continued. A major step forward in 2018 was that now also the Council of the European Union, considered the least transparent EU institution, will be covered by the register. The decision-making process has not yet been finalised in 2018. It stalled when the European Commission deemed the efforts of the European Parliament as insufficient. As a result, in 2018, an amendment to the European Parliament's Rules of Procedures was tabled and voted in the Constitutional Affairs Committee. This improvement is expected to be voted on in plenary in 2019. This new rule introduced an obligation for MEPs who have special roles (namely rapporteur, shadow rapporteur and committee chair) to publish a calendar with their meetings. This will allow citizens to see who influenced the legislation voted on at EU level and fosters scrutiny and accountability of MEPs. FoE Europe has been advocating for this register since many years (see previous reports). [Not counted as outcome not yet achieved]. [FoEE2(0)]: At the occasion of a major public event in November 2018 in Brussels on the future of Europe's energy system, FoE Europe wrote a joint letter with two Nigerian CSOs, and several other European CSOs, to ask the EU Commissioner who was on the speakers list, not to attend the event that also had the CEO of a major European oil company on the speakers list, (i) because of the ongoing criminal prosecution over corruption that this oil company is subject to, (ii) because of this oil company's intent to continue with fossil fuel extraction for decades to come, and (iii) because of the company's heavily polluting activities in Nigeria. The CSOs and their networks in the Global South argue that fossil fuel companies should not determine the world's energy future, and their lobby influence on climate and energy policies should diminish. The CSOs were partly successful: the oil company withdrew its CEO from the event and replaced him by a less controversial employee. [Not counted].
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE/MD1(0):] In 2017 FoE Europe and Milieudefensie continued to support Nigerian CSOs in their efforts to achieve implementation of the recommendations of the 2011 UNEP 'Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland' report. In 2017 the structures to implement the report, including civil society representatives, remained in place. Meanwhile, FoE Europe and Milieudefensie continued to support Nigerian CSOs outside of these structures to monitor the implementation of the report. [Not counted, as it is not a new achievement but ongoing work on an achievement counted in 2016]. [FoEE2(0):] In 2017 as in 2016, FoE Europe co-coordinated many activities to advocate the EU mandatory lobbyist register, such as mobilisation of CSOs on the issue of transparency; advocacy to the European Commission, Parliament and Council; research-based publications to illustrate flaws in the current EU transparency regime; outreach to the media and on social media; and the coordination of a network of NGOs across Europe battling similar issues domestically. However, unexpected and lengthy delays have meant that this process is still ongoing. Negotiations between the Commission, Council and Parliament on the mandatory lobbyist register are now set to start in April 2018. [Not counted as outcome not yet achieved]. [FoEE3(0):] FoE Europe successfully advocated strengthening of the Code of Conduct for EU Commissioners: mobilizing over 60,000 signatures, op-eds, setting up actions, petitions and online actions. The Commission announced a new Code of Conduct at the end of 2017 that would include longer cooling-off periods for Commissioners. [Not counted as outcome, as not yet achieved].
[FoEE/MD1(1):] Nigerian government involves the civil society in Nigeria in discussions on the clean-up in Ogoniland. [FoEE2(1)]: European Commission and European Parliament launch a de-facto mandatory lobby register.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1)]: The European Commission, Parliament and Council will put an improved EU Transparency Register in place that will give CSOs and citizens -including civil society from the Global South addressing at the EU the impact of EU policies on people and the environment in LLMICs- more power to scrutinise EU decision-making and hold decision-makers accountable (improved as compared to the current Brussels lobbying power balance between CSOs and the corporate world).
[FoEE1(1)]: The European Parliament improved its Rules of Procedures and introduced an obligation for MEPs who have special roles (namely Rapporteur, Shadow Rapporteur and Committee Chair) to publish a calendar with their meetings. This will allow EU citizens as well as CSOs anywhere in the world to see who influenced the legislation voted on at EU level and fosters scrutiny and accountability of MEPs. FoE Europe has been advocating for this register since many years in order to limit corporate capture of EU decision-making processes. This in the interest of civil society including CSOs that advocate for the benefit of people and the environment in LLMICs (see the EU processes with a relevance for LLMICs included in this report in ToC1, ToC2 and ToC3), and in line with demands from Southern CSOs participating in FoE International's Economic Justice Programme. [The European Commission, Parliament and Council did not decide on an improved EU Transparency Register in 2019. Negotiations between the parties failed and in the new Commission's priorities there is no mention of a new Transparency Register].
1.A.b
# effective legal and other grievance mechanisms adopted or improved by governments and corporations via which CSOs and communities can resolve grievances with governments and companies, and claim their environmental, human and worker rights.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE3(1):] On 13 December 2016, the European Parliament agreed on new ethics rules in its revised Code of Conduct, including a ban on some lobby-related second jobs for MEPs and a slight improvement of the complaint mechanism. FoE Europe has been advocating measures to prevent conflicts of interest by EU officials and MEPs for many years.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE3(0):] The European Parliament's Code of Conduct, including a ban on MEPs engaging in professional lobbying and a slight improvement of the complaint mechanism, which was revised and strengthened in December 2016, was implemented in January 2017. FoE Europe will test this wording in 2018 to make sure the rules are being enforced properly and are interpreted broadly. [Already counted in 2016].
[FoEE3(1):] Improved complaint mechanism for breaches of code of conduct for MEPs.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
Outcome D: Agendas Set
Private and public sector decision makers have prioritised improvement measures due to support from influential civil society actors, critical media attention, increased public awareness and effective scrutiny of corporate conduct.
1.D
# proposals for improvement of corporate conduct discussed by private and public sector decision makers and/or in academia, public agenda, media and social movements.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1):] In October 2016, the EU and several EU member states including the Netherlands took part in the 2nd meeting of the UN Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) for a UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights, with the aim of making companies accountable for their impacts, including due diligence and better access to remedy. FoE Europe had encouraged the EU and – in collaboration with Milieudefensie and Latin American FoE member groups – the Dutch government to take part in the 2nd IGWG meeting through advocacy work. This included an expert meeting for European decision-makers (European Commission, Council and Parliament) organised with SOMO, and a petition with 90,000 signatures. These efforts were undertaken after the EU had in June 2014 voted against the UN resolution that established the IGWG, and had not fully participated in the 1st negotiation meeting of the IGWG (6 to 10 July 2015). [FoEE2(1):] In November 2016, the European Commission launched its proposal for a de-facto mandatory lobbying register. Such a register creates transparency on corporate lobby influence in Brussels, which will contribute to an improved enabling environment for CSOs. FoE Europe has been advocating this for years. Negotiations with the European Parliament and the Council will be conducted in 2017. [MD4(1):] On 6 December 2016, 18 large Dutch pension funds, banks and insurers adhered to the UN SDGs and have announced that they want to invest more in projects that contribute to solving problems like climate change, poverty and food insecurity. They also requested that the Dutch government solve the practical problems that currently prevent the banks from implementing more sustainable investment policies and contribute to the energy transition. Milieudefensie has likely contributed to this result with the Fair Finance Guide (Eerlijke Geldwijzer). Milieudefensie used this framework to lead the 2010, 2012 and 2015 research studies on the financing of climate change by Dutch financiers, while providing proposals to improve their climate performance. This led to public and political pressure on the banks to improve their policies and practice. [FoEE/MD5(1):] On 15 January 2016, in the final statement of the Dutch OECD National Contact Point (NCP) further to the specific instance submitted by FoE Europe and Milieudefensie on Rabobank's investment in palm oil company Bumitama Agri, Rabobank commited to improve and publish its complaint mechanism related to palm oil. In its statement, the NCP recommended that Rabobank be more transparent with regard to engagement with its clients, specifically on environmental and social issues. FoE Europe and Milieudefensie represented WALHI/FoE Indonesia in this complaint procedure. In 2017 the NCP will organise an evaluation of the agreements.
[FoEE1(1):] Following participation in a strategy and expertise-building meeting organised by FoE Europe, 25 European CSOs will increase their expertise and strategising capacity and alongside with LLMIC CSOs advocate for European countries' support for a strong UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights. Subsequent increased media attention and public support for a strong UN Treaty in Europe will be achieved though promotion of FoE Europe's and LLMIC FoE groups' proposal for the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights with the use of campaign tools such as petitions, advertisements and media actions. Promotional materials and activities will include a case that highlights to decision-makers, media and the public existing barriers to justice for human rights victims in the Global South and illustrate the need for a UN Treaty. [FoEE2(1):] 'Corporate capture' is a well-known term among EU decision-makers and FoE Europe's proposal to address corporate capture is being discussed by them. Furthermore, five CSOs from LLMICs will take part in a training organised by FoE Europe on the corporate capture of governmental decision-making and on researching companies. To these groups, FoE Europe will provide materials on how to expose corporate capture and research lobbying behaviours and interactions between public and private actors. [MD3(1):] Support among Dutch parliamentarians for more stringent regulation of (corporate) lobbying activities. [MD4(1):] Support for the adoption of regulation on corporate accountability for climate change impact. [MD5(1):] Dutch private banks and insurers will discuss proposals to bring their climate and energy finance policies better in line with the Paris Climate Agreement, after continuing engagement of the Dutch Fair Finance Guide in which Milieudefensie takes part. Milieudefensie will lead the 2018 climate and energy investment study.
[FoEE1(3)]: In September 2018 FoE Europe, together with other European NGOs, organised a strategy and capacity building meeting in Brussels in which representatives of twenty-seven European CSOs participated [1], to discuss the strategy for the 4th negotiation round of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights (IGWG). In Geneva in October 2018 during this 4th IGWG session on a UN Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights, European NGOs met every day for an update on the latest developments and to strategize and coordinate the advocacy work with the FoE delegation including representatives of seven FoE groups from LLMICs. European NGOs successfully advocated via (social) media for the EU to participate in this 4th negotiation round. The EU actually decided to send a delegation to Geneva [1]. In May 2018, the Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation in her policy note 'Investeren in perspectief: Goed voor de wereld, goed voor Nederland' expressed her support for the process leading to a binding UN Treaty [1], which constituted a shift in the position of the Dutch government as compared to previous years, relevant in the light of the reluctance of the EU towards the UN Treaty process. In letters and meetings and with other advocacy work, FoE Europe together with Southern CSOs, Milieudefensie and other FGG members for years had been advocating a positive engagement of the Ministry. Further indicators of progress on the dossier are (i) that on 16 July 2018 a zero draft for a 'Legally Binding Instrument to Regulate, in International Human Rights Law, the Activities of Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises' was presented; and (ii) that the governments of 94 countries have been discussing the treaty in Geneva in October. The right to regulate corporations is back on the political agenda, which constitutes a shift in discourse in comparison to some five years ago. [FoEE2(1)]: After the release of the report 'Corporate Capture in Europe: When Big Business Dominates Policy-Making and Threatens Our Rights' (see 1.C FoEE2), FoE Europe organised a civil society gathering for over twenty CSOs during which FoE Europe organised capacity building sessions, skill shares and workshops on the topic. Further capacity building work will take place in 2019. Furthermore, FoE Europe and ALTER EU organised a public debate on corporate capture with 75 participants. [MD3i(1)]: Referring to a publication in Dutch media of research commissioned by Milieudefensie at the request of a CSO from Mozambique, into Dutch government support for a Dutch oil company aiming to participate in gas extraction development in Mozambique, on 6 November 2018 parliamentary questions were asked to the Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation about the Dutch government support for fossil fuel development in Mozambique, which contrasts with the Dutch commitment to the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and which would work against a sustainable development of the country based on the use of renewable energy sources. [MD3ii(1)]: With financial and strategizing support from Milieudefensie, a Latin American CSO conducted research into corporate capture by international oil companies of a national policy making process, and in May 2018 achieved broad media exposure for its findings, indicating that corporate lobby and conflicts of interest in the Latin American country had benefited the international oil companies at the expense of the country's income. [MD4(2)]: Milieudefensie, based on an analysis of the FoE groups including from the Global South participating in FoEI's Climate Justice & Energy Programme on the need for a global 'just energy transition', in collaboration with climate and legal experts developed a proposal on how the Paris Climate Agreement should translate into responsibilities of individual fossil fuel companies to align their business models with the goals of this Agreement [1]. In addition Milieudefensie conducted research into judicial options to achieve policy change in the fossil fuel industry [1]. Milieudefensie throughout 2018 presented its findings at expert meetings and in the media, and found support for its ideas on the responsibility of the fossil fuel industry to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement, and the role that politics and justice could play to limit the impact of the fossil fuel industry on climate change and climate policy development, in academic circles, CSO networks, and in mainstream and expert media, in the Global North as well as the Global South. [MD5(1)]: The previous outcome (1.D MD4) also materialised in further debate in investor circles on their investments in fossil fuel and the related climate impact, likely contributing to the ten biggest Dutch investors ignoring the voting advice of the board of a Dutch oil company and on 22 May 2018 at the shareholder meeting of this company not voting against the climate resolution of activist shareholder group Follow This, but voting in favour of the resolution or abstaining from voting, which showed a further improvement of the engagement of these investors with the climate impact of the oil company, and the related financial risks, as compared to the 2017 shareholder meeting. Milieudefensie together with Greenpeace, Amnesty International and Global Witness prior to the shareholder meeting had produced and published an investor briefing 'Seeking justice: the rising tide of court cases against Shell' and discussed these with shareholders of the oil company. Milieudefensie may have also contributed to the vote on the climate resolution via a press release of the Eerlijke Verzekeringswijzer (Fair Insurance Guide) on 16 August 2017, informing the public on the voting behaviour of the Dutch investors at the oil company's shareholder meeting of May 2017, when the same resolution was on the agenda. [MD6(2)]: After questions in Dutch Parliament on 28 and 29 November 2018, the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation responded on 11 January 2019 that she will continue Dutch engagement with the clean-up of the Niger Delta [1] in conformity with the recommendations in UNEP's 'Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland' from 2011. This happened after Milieudefensie together with a Nigerian CSO and Nigerian citizens living in the Netherlands had once more raised media, public and political attention for the oil pollution in the Niger Delta earlier in November 2018 (for further advocacy work see 1.B FoEE/MD3). The Dutch MP raising questions about the Niger Delta clean-up in the parliamentary debate, mentioning the Dutch oil company's responsibility for the oil pollution, plead for stronger Dutch regulation of corporate due diligence [1], something that Milieudefensie and its Nigerian colleague organisation have been advocating for since decades.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(i)(1):] The continued efforts by FoE Europe and FoE International, together with TNI, SOMO and others, to push for continued negotiation of a UN Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights were also successful in 2017. The UN Treaty has gone from just an idea in the minds of civil society and a few states to a real, negotiated international treaty. Through advocacy in 2016 and 2017, FoE Europe contributed to progress made at the EU level, where several member states became much less negative toward the UN Treaty (including some parliamentary and ministerial support in the Netherlands), contributing to the EU's European External Action Service being more constructive during the 3rd session of the UN's Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with respect to Human Rights, in October 2017 in Geneva. The EU has agreed on a mandate to engage in the UN Treaty meetings, though not yet on a mandate to negotiate on the content, and took part in the discussions on a text for a UN Treaty. In the October 2017 negotiations, elements for a treaty were presented by the IGWG chair, and discussed. This IGWG 'elements paper' includes many of the recommendations made by FoE Europe, FoE International, Southern FoE groups, SOMO and TNI. [FoEE1(ii)(1):] The Gender Working Group of the Treaty Alliance, in which FoE Europe and FoE International participate, commented on the IGWG's 'elements paper' in its 'Statement on the draft elements proposed by the OEIGWG: Integrating a gender perspective into the legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises'. FoE Europe and other members of the working group advocated the working group's gender vision during the 3rd session of the IGWG in October 2017 in Geneva, which resulted in a better integration of gender in the IGWG's report on the 2017 session.
[FoEE1(1):] Proposal for a UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights is discussed at the global level. [FoEE2(1):] EU discusses proposals for mandatory due diligence and improved access to justice. [MD3(1):] The option to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for their climate impact is debated publicly. This contributes to a shift in thinking who is responsible for (preventing) climate change.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1)]: Several hundreds of thousands of citizens will express support for a public petition organised by FoE Europe and other CSOs that asks for EU initiatives to introduce binding measures to stop corporate impunity and end ISDS privileges for investors, thus supporting the pleas of CSOs from the Global South as shared in FoE International's Economic Justice Programme. Media attention and public support for this petition will put the necessity of a strong UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights higher on the European and international political agenda. [FoEE2(1)]: "Corporate capture" is a well-known term among EU decision-makers and FoE Europe's proposal to address corporate capture is being discussed by them (e.g. in European Parliament). Awareness amongst politicians of this phenomenon is relevant a.o. to achieve policy coherence for development. Possibly also LLMIC groups achieve the same in their countries: upon their request made, FoE Europe will assist five CSOs from LLMICs participating in FoE International's Economic Justice Programme with a training on the corporate capture of governmental decision-making and on researching companies. To these groups, FoE Europe will provide materials on how to expose corporate capture and research lobbying behaviours of private actors, and interactions between public and private actors. [FoEE3(1)]: Submission of cases about gas flaring to the ICC and Public Prosecutors in the home countries of oil companies by FoE Europe, a Nigerian CSO and affected Niger Delta communities will bring the issue of lack of access to justice at the international level for victims of corporate abuses higher on the political agenda [for the time being only ICC is counted]. [MD4(+2)]: Dutch politicians in parliament support pleas from Milieudefensie and Southern groups (i) to limit the influence of oil and gas companies on governmental decision-making on energy policies and specific oil and gas operations, and (ii) to revise state support for the fossil fuel industry (through Dutch embassies in LLMICs, government policies, and state subsidies, tax exemptions and the like).
[FoEE1(1)]: 847.000 citizens signed on to a petition 'Rights for People, Rules for Corporations - Stop ISDS' to the EU and its member states to end including investor-state dispute settlement facilities in trade and investment agreements, and establish rights for citizens. These petitions are presented to high level decision makers in Europe (including the European Commission's Vice-President Timmermans) and at EU member states' national level. The signatures illustrate the need and public support for a UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights and on European and national legislation on Human Rights due diligence and liability for harm caused. FoE Europe was one of the core organiser of the petition (https://stopisds.org/). The petition is likely to have contributed to the decision by the EU not to back out of the UN Treaty process, as it intended to do according to leaked documents seen by FoE Europe in March 2019. The UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights is relevant especially for people in LLMICs as the current international system regulating corporate activities is insufficient to protect LLMIC citizens from corporate violations of human rights, as it favours corporate interests over people, of which especially people in LLMICs become victims, as the joint advocacy work of FoE Europe, FoE International, Milieudefensie and many CSOs from LLMICs over the past years has shown. [FoEE2(1)]: In October 2019 FoE Europe launched a Fossil Free Politics campaign. More than 200 CSOs signed on to a call on decision makers 'We Demand Fossil Fuel Politics' to install a firewall between policy and legislative development on climate issues and lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry. This in the interest of global civil society fighting climate change, and in line with demands from Southern CSOs participating in FoE International's Climate Justice & Energy Programme, and Economic Justice Programme. 19 groups from the global south signed up to the statement, covering 12 LLMIC countries (Mongolia, Nepal, India, Mozambique, Kenya, Uganda, DRC, Nigeria, Ghana, Egypt, Guatemala, Bolivia). The launch was massively covered with over 150 media hits, many of them in the global south. Campaigning on the topic proceeds in 2020. [FoEE/MD3(1)]: Recommendations included in an academic study, 'Access to legal remedies for victims of corporate human rights abuses in third countries', published February 2019 and requested for by the European Parliament's (EP) Sub-Committee on Human Rights, are in line with pleas from FoE Europe, Milieudefensie and other FGG members: a.o. "Strengthen due diligence requirements and promote the use of due diligence instruments"; "Strengthen jurisdiction over extraterritorial cases"; "Strengthen access to Member States laws as applicable law"; "Reforming trade policy to address human rights abuses of business" and "Promotion of international mechanisms and cooperation agreements" (p107-120). The recommendations in the academic study for the EP were developed from case studies (included in the study) a.o. on oil pollution in the Niger Delta by two European oil companies that FoE Europe and Milieudefensie have been working on in collaboration with Nigerian CSOs and communities and that involve(d) court cases in two EU Member States (p56-58; p74-82). This EP study is likely to positively contribute to a favourable position of the European Commission towards the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights, and the establishment of EU-wide mandatory due diligence legislation, for which FoE Europe, FoE International, Milieudefensie and Southern CSOs are advocating (see a.o. 1.B FoEE1). [MD4(1)]: The Dutch bank mentioned under 1.E.a MD1 together with the four NGOs mentioned in the same outcome, and including Milieudefensie, who had submitted an OECD complaint against the bank upon which the Dutch OECD NCP in 2019 had demanded that the bank set concrete climate goals for their financial services that are in line with the Paris Climate Agreement, subsequently requested the Dutch government to ask the international energy agency IEA for scenarios that could limit global warming to 1.5 degrees upon which banks can base their climate policy. About this request on 24 April 2019 parliamentary questions were raised in Dutch parliament that encouraged the government to act upon this request.
[FoEE1(1)]: FoE Europe and partners will present close to 750.000 petitions from citizens to EU decision makers with the demand for binding measures to stop corporate impunity and end Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) privileges for investors, thus supporting the pleas of CSOs from the Global South as shared in FoE International's Economic Justice Programme. It is expected that media attention and public support for this petition will lead to European and international politicians discussing the proposal and to an increased commitment of EU and international politicians to a strong UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights, which will put the demand for a strong UN Treaty higher on the European and international political agenda. It will also mobilise support among European decision-makers for EU measures for legally binding human rights due diligence obligations for companies. [FoEE2(1)]: Over 100 CSOs from Europe and LLMIC countries will have developed and publicly promoted a set of proposals for measures for fossil free politics, in order to reduce the negative impact of fossil fuel companies on international climate negotiations. This is in response to a demand from Southern FoE member groups as shared in FoE International's Climate Justice & Energy Programme. Awareness amongst politicians of this phenomenon is relevant a.o. to achieve policy coherence for development. [MD3(1)]: The Dutch MVO Platform proposal for due diligence legislation in the Netherlands will receive broader political and public support as a result of advocacy directed at the Dutch government by LLMIC CSOs defending livelihoods of citizens harmed by Dutch companies' operations.
[FoEE1(3)]: Beginning of 2020, FoE Europe and partners presented 847.000 petitions 'Rights for People, Rules for Corporations' to EU decision makers, calling for an end to corporate impunity and in support of EU and UN legislation on corporate accountability. These petitions were presented to EU Commissioners amongst which Mr. Didier Reynders (Justice) and Mr. Frans Timmermans (European Green Deal), to national decision makers in EU member states, and via an advertisement in the Financial Times of 3 February 2020 signed by a.o. FoE Europe, Milieudefensie and TNI: "847.000 citizens demand action in 2020 from EU leaders and President Von der Leyen: Enact new rules for corporations to respect human rights and environment; Promote a strong UN Treaty to end transnational corporate impunity; Withdraw proposal for Multilateral Investment Court and end ISDS privileges for investors". Several months later, the European Commission announced that it will present a legislative proposal on mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence (Euro Commissioner Mr. Didier Reynders, 30 April 2020) and the European Parliament agreed to draft a resolution on corporate accountability (Draft Report with recommendations to the Commission on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability by Rapporteur Lara Wolters, Committe on legal Affairs, 11 September 2020). FoE Europe's petition has contributed to a political climate where it was no longer opportune to argue that voluntary action of business was sufficient to address severe human rights violations of companies and that legislation is needed. This is what Southern CSOs have been calling for a long time. Cases from Southern CSOs contributed to the result. The case on oil pollution in Nigeria by the subsidiary of a Dutch oil company (see 1.E MD1) was for instance used in the 'Study on due diligence requirements through the supply chain' commissioned by the European Commission and published in January 2020. The study recommends mandatory rules to deliver on the EU’s commitments on human rights, social justice, the climate crisis and the environment. December 2020, FoE Europe, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), Arbeiterkammer Europa (AK Europa), Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund (OGB) and the European Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ) launched a tool that was used by 145.000 EU citizens to participate in the European Commission's public consultation on the EU due diligence legislative proposal (in total, 500.000 citizens globally took part). 10 March 2021, European Parliament adopted with a large majority, the legislative own-initiative report by Lara Wolters on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability with recommendations for the European Commission on necessary next steps to be taken. With this report, the European Parliament has shown its encouragement and strong support for the ongoing legislative initiative on sustainable corporate governance launched in 2020 by the European Commission. This proposal, which is expected to be tabled in June 2021, aims to require businesses to conduct due diligence in order to prevent and address human rights and environmental risks and impacts within their own operations and value chains; as well as provide access to judicial remedy when harm occurs. The report also calls on EU Member States to ensure that they have a civil liability regime in place in order for companies to be held liable and provide remediation for harm to people and the planet. FoE Europe will continue to contribute to the decision making process in order to achieve the most ambitious legislation to protect people and the planet.
[FoEE2(1)]: The Fossil Free Politics coalition (founded by Corporate Europe Observatory, FoE Europe, Food & Water Europe and Greenpeace, that also includes ActionAid, Both ENDS, Milieudefensie, TNI) in 2020 organised a letter 'We demand fossil free politics' directed at decision makers in the EU and EU member states, which was supported by almost 200 CSOs (including from Mozambique, Uganda, Ghana, Bolivia). The CSOs propose to institute a firewall to end fossil fuel industry access to decision-making; to avoid conflicts of interest of decision makers; to end preferential treatment of the fossil fuel industry; and to reject partnerships with the fossil fuel industry (See also 1.C FoEE3). The support for the letter shows the growing awareness amongst CSOs globally of the negative impact of the industry lobby aiming at delaying the energy transition, and the relevance of counteracting this lobby in the interest of civil society.
[MD3(3)]: 16 October 2020 the Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Ms. Sigrid Kaag, presented to Dutch parliament a policy note that outlines the main points of a new government policy on corporate social responsibility (CSR): 'Van voorlichten tot verplichten: een nieuwe impuls voor internationaal maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemerschap', in which the Dutch government expresses itself in favour of the introduction of broad CSR legislation in the EU, and sees this legislation "as a core element of the new policy [on international CSR]". Milieudefensie, in the framework of the Dutch CSOs' MVO Platform (as a member of the platform's Steering Group and Working Group on Legislation) for many years had called upon the Dutch government to support EU as well as Dutch mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence (EHRDD) legislation. Support for EHRDD legislation was also achieved from the Dutch Socio-Economic Council (SER) in its advisory 'Samen naar duurzame ketenimpact - Toekomstbestendig beleid voor internationaal MVO' from September 2020, to which MVO Platform gave input. There is now a broad plea for due diligence legislation in the Netherlands. The question therefore no longer seems to be whether due diligence legislation should be introduced, but at what level (national/EU), and how ambitious it should be. 11 March 2021 four political parties presented to Dutch Parliament a Dutch Bill for Responsible and Sustainable International Business Conduct (Wet verantwoord en duurzaam internationaal ondernemen). The law imposes a duty of care to prevent negative impacts on people and the environment of all companies in all economic sectors that are registered in the Netherlands or sell products or services on the Dutch market. This duty of care also applies to negative impacts in companies’ global value chains. The bill furthermore imposes a due diligence obligation on all companies over a certain size, and also applies to letterbox companies. The bill arranges that companies are obliged to provide remedy to affected rights-holders and explicitly states that failure to do so is considered violation of the law. The bill includes administrative, civil and criminal liability and enforcement. Milieudefensie contributed to the development of this bill via the Dutch CSOs' MVO Platform (as a member of the platform's Steering Group and Working Group on Legislation), and successfully proposed that the bill explicitly states that the arrangements for environmental harm also hold for greenhouse gas emissions and the climate. Milieudefensie based its inputs on the positions and findings of Southern CSOs represented in FoE International's Economic Justice Programme, Climate Justice & Energy Programme, and Forests & Biodiversity Programme. Milieudefensie contributed to public and political support in the Netherlands for mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence (EHRDD) legislation with research, conducted in collaboration with a Nigerian CSO, on the responsibility of a Dutch oil company for environmental damage in Nigeria, and with research on the judicial responsibility of the company for its climate impact.
Outcome C: Alternatives Developed
A range of alternative, participatory initiatives and models related to corporate conduct have been developed, piloted and promoted by FGG and civil society actors, from best practices through to enforceable multi-stakeholder agreements.
1.C
# alternative, participatory initiatives and models related to corporate conduct meeting core criteria including sustainability, participation (m/f), transparency and equity (m/f), that have been developed, piloted and/or promoted.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1):] FoE Europe, in collaboration with LLMIC and European CSOs, have developed a policy paper that proposes key rights that need to be included in the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights, as well as effective mechanisms (including sanctions in case of violations) that will ensure proper enforcement and impact of the Treaty. [FoEE2(1):] FoE Europe has produced a statement on corporate capture and colleague CSOs have signed on to it. The CSOs have met to elaborate alternatives to corporate capture that improve the enabling environment for CSOs and citizens.
[FoEE1(2)]: Based on the input of FoE groups from the Global South as well as the Global North, on 15 October 2018 FoE Europe published the study - 'The EU’s double agenda on globalisation: Corporate rights vs people’s rights'. This study was used by FoE member groups to highlight the negative role of the EU in the negotiation process for a UN Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights, and contains proposals for a review of the EU's position in the UN Treaty negotiations as well as in negotiations on trade and investment treaties [1]. FoE Africa (with financial and content support from FoE Europe) in October 2018 published and in Geneva at the 4th IGWG negotiation round [see FoEE1&2] presented a proposal for a jurisdictional mechanism as part of the UN Treaty with the aim of better protecting the rights of communities and populations who fall victim to rights violations by transnational corporations: 'A tribunal to live' [2]. Furthermore, FoE Asia Pacific published a leaflet with specific demands to Asian governments on the UN Treaty. [FoEE2(1)]: FoE Europe took the lead in a publication from ALTER EU on corporate capture in Europe published on 24 September 2018, with proposals to end the corporate capture of EU policy processes. In the publication 'Corporate Capture in Europe: When Big Business Dominates Policy-Making and Threatens Our Rights', FoE Europe in the book presented a definition of corporate capture with ten elements that help to identify the phenomena, and wrote two case studies, concerning processes on EU trade and investment treaties, and on the EU gas infrastructure, highlighting the way corporations influence democratic decision-making process and how that affects the public interest.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1):] In August 2017, SOMO, FoE Europe, ActionAid and several other CSOs presented recommendations to the UN, and to UN member states including the EU, in the report 'Removing Barriers to Justice: How a treaty on business and human rights could improve access to remedy for victims' for the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights process, especially focused on the 3rd meeting of the UN's Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with respect to Human Rights in October 2017. The CSOs' recommendations are: use the Treaty to make it easier to overcome jurisdiction barriers; use the Treaty to remove legal barriers to corporate liability and to place upon corporations a broad duty of care; use the Treaty to promote convergence of criminal law around basic modern approaches to corporate liability; use the Treaty to improve corporate responsibility by giving binding legal force to the due diligence framework from the UNGPs; use the Treaty to affirm and extend protection for human rights defenders; and use the Treaty to improve access to courts.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1)]: FoE Europe, in collaboration with LLMIC and European CSOs, have developed concrete recommendations to be included in the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights, including effective mechanisms (amongst which sanctions in case of violations) that will ensure proper enforcement and impact of the Treaty. [FoEE2(1)]: Based amongst others on opinions and experiences from CSOs in the Global South as shared within FoE International's Climate Justice and Energy Programme, FoE Europe and ALTER EU will have developed concrete recommendations to address excessive corporate influence in relation to international climate and energy policies. [FoEE3(1)]: FoE Europe and LLMIC groups in 2 countries that campaign together on specific oil and gas projects will launch concrete proposals for reducing the impacts of such projects.
[FoEE1(1)]: FoE Europe contributed, through the 'Global campaign to reclaim peoples sovereignty, dismantle corporate power and stop impunity' of which FoE Europe is a member, and of which many LLMIC CSOs, trade unions etc. are members, to written comments on the draft text for a UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights: 'Comments and amendmends on the revised draft Legally Binding Instrument on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights' (16 July 2020). Furthermore, FoE Europe contributed to the 'Friends of the Earth International’s written contribution to the open-ended working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights. Analysis of the Zero Draft discussed at the IGWG 4th session (October 2018) and towards the UN Treaty reviewed version and the IGWG 5th session (October 2019)' (June 2019). In these advocacy documents FoE Europe and LLMIC CSOs call a.o. on the EU: (i) to prioritise human rights over investment rights, (ii) to stop relying on ineffective voluntary mechanisms to stop corporate human rights violations, and (iii) to support direct obligations derived from international Human Rights law to transnational corporations. This constitutes an alternative to the current (lack) of international system regulating corporate activities that, e.g. in the form of ISDS provisions in trade and investment agreements, favours corporations over people, of which especially people in LLMICs become victims. [FoEE2(1)]: Under the title "We demand Fossil Free Politics" FoE Europe, together with CEO, Greenpeace and Food & Water Europe, developed a set of concrete steps that decision-makers at national, EU and international level can take to reduce the corporate influence of fossil fuel companies on climate policies. The main demand to the decision-makers is to ensure that climate and energy policy is conducted entirely in the public interest. The proposal (Institute a firewall to end fossil fuel industry access to decision; avoid conflicts of interest; end preferential treatment of the fossil fuel industry; reject partnerships with the fossil fuel industry) was supported by 19 groups from the Global South of which 12 from LLMICs (Mongolia, Nepal, India, Mozambique, Kenya, Uganda, DRC, Nigeria, Ghana, Egypt, Guatemala, Bolivia), launched 23 October 2019, and based on the research report 'Big Oil and gas buying influence in Brussels. With money and meetings, subsidies and sponsorships, the oil and gas lobby is fuelling the climate disaster' (FoE Europe et al.). [MD3(1)]: May 2019, Milieudefensie issued the research report 'Schone Schijn: Waarom Shell’s klimaatplannen misleidend zijn' in which it analyses the climate ambition of a Dutch oil company as presented in November 2017: "Shell aims to cut the net carbon footprint of its energy products – expressed in grams of CO2 per megajoule consumed – by around half by 2050. As an interim step, by 2035, we aim to reduce it by around 20%." While with this ambition the oil company takes responsibility for the first time for the emissions caused by the combustion of its products by consumers (the so-called 'scope 3' emissions), which is an encouraging and appropriate step, its climate ambitions nevertheless deviate strongly from the Paris Climate Agreement. Milieudefensie's report revealed that the oil company's climate ambition does not offer any guarantee for the reduction of its CO2 emissions: the company could emit 31% more CO2 in the next 30 years than in 2010 and still achieve its climate goals. The problem is caused by the company's climate ambition being a relative and not an absolute reduction in CO2 emissions. The ambition therefore says nothing about the actual emission reduction that the company will achieve. Based on figures from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the report states that the company should reduce its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 and return to net zero by 2050. The alternative proposed is that oil companies set fixed carbon emission reduction targets that guarantee a reduction in absolute sense. Despite acknowledging that the fossil fuel industry has a responsibility to act on climate change, and claiming to “strongly support” the Paris Agreement, the company continues to lobby against climate policy and to invest billions in further oil and gas extraction. This is incompatible with global climate goals. Milieudefensie advocates climate resposibility among Northern oil companies based on the position of Southern CSOs in FoE International's Climate Justice & Energy Programme. [MD4(1)]: December 2019, Oil Change International, ODI, Milieudefensie and 13 other CSOs jointly issued the research report 'Oil, Gas and the Climate: An Analysis of Oil and Gas Industry Plans for Expansion and Compatibility with Global Emission Limits'. The organisations urge that investors must acknowledge their responsibility to align their work with the Paris Climate Agreement, in accordance with article 2.1.C, which states the need to make “finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”. Oil and gas companies are set to invest USD 1.4 trillion into new oil and gas extraction over the next five years, while carbon emissions from already operating fields and mines alone would make it impossible to meet our global obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement. Banks, debt and equity investors will be key enablers of expansion. Banks must act now to ensure their current and near term investments do not enable the oil and gas industry to build the new projects detailed in the report. Milieudefensie advocates climate resposibility among the financiers of oil companies in line with the position of Southern CSOs in FoE International's Climate Justice & Energy Programme. [This report is also mentioned in 3.C MD #, for its recommendations to governments].
[FoEE1(1)]: In collaboration with and supported by FoE Europe (providing/hiring expertise, strategizing, communication), LLMIC and European CSOs will have developed concrete recommendations to be included in the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights, including effective mechanisms (amongst which sanctions in case of violations) that will ensure proper enforcement and impact of the Treaty. [FoEE2(1)]: In collaboration with and supported by FoE Europe (providing/hiring expertise, strategizing, communication), LLMIC and European CSOs will have developed and promoted concrete recommendations to be included in an EU directive on Environmental and Human Rights Due Diligence and Access to Justice for Victims of Corporate Crimes. [FoEE3(1)]: Based amongst others on opinions and experiences from CSOs in the Global South as shared within FoE International's Climate Justice and Energy Programme, FoE Europe and partners are promoting with EU decision makers a set of concrete measures to address excessive corporate influence in relation to international climate and energy policies.
[FoEE1(1)]: FoE Europe and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) prepared a 'Policy Brief: analysis of EU Competences regarding the UN Legally Binding Instrument on Transnational Corporations, Other Business Enterprises and Human Rights'. The paper explains how UN Treaty articles (Prevention; Adjudicative Jurisdiction; Applicable Law; Mutual Legal Assistance) relate to EU exclusive, shared, supporting or complementary, and implied competences, and based on that proposes that reasons of consistency and a symmetrical coverage of policy powers plead in favour of participation in the UN Treaty of both the EU and the EU member states. The paper was used by European CSOs to advocate for support from EU member states for the Treaty. In the European Council's Working Party on Human Rights (COHOM), EU member stateshave now asked the European Commission to draft an EU mandate for the UN Treaty negotiations, which is needed for formal EU involvement. Ecuador presented a second revised draft of the Treaty in August 2020, which was discussed during the virtual October negotiation round. The new draft shows progress on various topics, which were further progressed on by states during the negotiation, and new modalities were agreed at the session conclusion to ensure inter-sessional progress on the draft. FoE Europe and LLMIC CSOs took part in the on-line 2020 negotiation round (see also 1.B FoEE/MD1).
[FoEE2(1)]: </Titre>FoE Europe, in collaboration with Amnesty International, Global Witness, ECCJ, ActionAid and Clean Clothes Campaign and others, and based on the inputs from LLMIC groups in FoE International's Economic Justice Programme, have developed proposals for key elements of an EU law on corporate accountability and due diligence, published in September 2020: 'An EU mandatory due diligence legislation to promote businesses’ respect for human rights and the environment': (1) Business enterprises must have an obligation to respect human rights and the environment in their own operations, in their global value chains and within their business relationships; (2) Business enterprises must have an obligation to identify, cease, prevent, mitigate, monitor and account for potential and actual human rights and environmental adverse impacts through an ongoing due diligence process, in accordance with existing international due diligence standards; (3) Business enterprises must provide for or cooperate in the remediation of adverse impacts in their global value chains and within their operations and business relationships; (4) Business enterprises must be liable for human rights and environmental adverse impacts in their global value chains and within their operations and business relationships; (5) EU Member States must ensure robust enforcement of all the above obligations and ensure the right to an effective remedy; (6) The above provisions must apply irrespective of the law otherwise applicable to the resolution of the conflict, as described in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II); and (7) This legislation must be cross-sectoral, covering all business enterprises, including financial institutions. These recommendations have been shared and discussed extensively with MEPs and members of the European Commission, responsible for the development of an EU law. FoE Europe in December 2020 also coordinated, with ECCJ and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), Arbeiterkammer Europa (AK Europa), and Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund (OGB), an action to mobilise public participation in the European Commission's public consultation for a legislative proposal (see also 1.D FoEE1). The action highlighted issues that are key for FoE Europe's partners from LLMIC countries. For this law to work, it must: (1) Cover human rights, environmental and social impacts throughout the whole supply chain; (2) Have teeth: companies must face strong penalties if they break the rules; (3) Make companies liable for bad practices at home and abroad; (4) Involve trade unions in the preparation of due diligence plans every step of the way; (5) Make sure companies always consult with (potentially) affected communities and individuals – and in some cases get their consent; and (6) Make it easier for all victims of corporate abuse, trade unions, and civil society to seek justice in EU courts.
[FoEE3(1)]: Partners in the Global South, a.o. in the framework of FoE International's Climate Justice and Energy Programme, and Economic Justice Programme, have argued that strong links between fossil fuel companies and EU decision makers should be broken. In 2020 FoE Europe has therefore further promoted the demands of the Fossil Free Politics coalition (founded by Corporate Europe Observatory, FoE Europe, Food & Water Europe and Greenpeace, that also includes ActionAid, Both ENDS, Milieudefensie, TNI). This coalition proposes to set up a firewall between fossil fuel companies and governments, similar to what exists in relation to the tobacco industry. FoE Europe has addressed the coalition's demands to EU decision makers and members of the European Parliament. Organisations in the Green 10 (all major environmental groups at the EU level) and other CSOs have agreed not to speak at media events sponsored by fossil fuel companies anymore, in order not to give legitimacy to such events. The coalition has launched the report 'Polluters profiting from pandemic bailouts: How the fossil fuel industry is using the COVID-19 crisis to capture public funds and lock in dirty energy' (October 2020) highlighting how fossil fuel companies have used the pandemic crisis to capture public funds and lock in dirty energy. Besides the aforementioned firewall to end fossil fuel industry access to decision-making, the report also proposes to address vested interests; to end preferential treatment of the fossil fuel industry; and to reject partnerships with the fossil fuel industry.
Outcome E: Policies Changed
These include improved government and corporate policies on corporate accountability, including transparency and safeguards policies, conflict resolution mechanisms, and policies promoting social justice, decent work and sustainability.
1.E.a
# mechanisms, policies and regulations improved or introduced by national, regional and international government bodies to ensure companies promote more sustainable practices and are held accountable for respecting human rights and the environment and providing adequate remedy to victims of adverse impacts.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[MD2(1):] On 22 November 2016, the European Commission, Council and Parliament agreed on an EU regulation for conflict minerals. The regulation is set to ensure sustainable sourcing for more than 95% of all EU imports of tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold, which will be covered by due diligence provisions as of 1 January 2021. A strength is that the regulation is binding (rather than voluntary), while weak points are that metals in semimanufactured and consumer products are not included for the time being, that a problematic metal like cobalt is not included and that the regulation only holds for the biggest companies. FGG members Milieudefensie, FoE Europe, SOMO and ActionAid have been advocating this regulation for many years. Milieudefensie's advocacy work was in part based on problematic mining cases in the DRC that were studied and exposed together with the DRC CSO PremiCongo. [MD3(1):] Tin is included in the EU Partnership on Responsible Minerals (EPRM) that was launched on 12 May 2016 by the European Commission and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, among others. Milieudefensie has been advocating this together with the Dutch Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH). Herein, Milieudefensie made use of the tin mining case in Bangka Belitung (Indonesia) on which Milieudefensie has been cooperating with WALHI/FoE Indonesia since 2011. The EPRM will take over the work of the Tin Working Group of IDH and is partly a response to the weaknesses in the EU regulation on conflict minerals.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[MD1(1)]: In 2019 Milieudefensie was invited by international organisations to provide input to a formal proces concerning the UN Human Rights Treaty system, resulting in the 'Joint Statement on "Human Rights and Climate Change"' from the UNCESCR (UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) and other bodies, issued 16 September 2019, with content based on Milieudefensie's pleas on climate obligations related to the corporate world (oil and gas companies and their public and private financiers). Citations from the UN report that are in line with Milieudefensie's pleas: "In order for States to comply with their human rights obligations, and to realize the objectives of the Paris Agreement, they must [...] ensure that public and private investments are consistent with a pathway towards low carbon emissions and climate resilient development."; "In relation to efforts to reduce emissions, States parties should effectively contribute to phasing out fossils fuels [...], States must regulate private actors, including by holding them accountable for harm they generate both domestically and extraterritorially. States should also discontinue financial incentives or investments in activities and infrastructure which are not consistent with low greenhouse gas emissions pathways, whether undertaken by public or private actors as a mitigation measure to prevent further damage and risk." Such statements are relevant for the interpretation of international law (see also 1.B MD4). [FoEE/MD2(1)]: In April 2019 the Nigerian Senate adopted a bill for an Act to Prohibit Gas Flaring in Nigeria. The bill seeks to ensure that natural gas is not flared or vented in any oil and gas production operation, bloc or field, or onshore or gas facility. Milieudefensie and FoE Europe together with a Nigerian CSO have been advocating for an end to gas flaring in the country for decades. The CSOs find gas flaring a violation of human rights. Gas flaring exposes communities within the surroundings of the flares to toxins that poison them, their animals and their sources of livelihood. Furthemore, it is climate damaging. [MD3(1)]: On 19 April 2019, the Dutch OECD NCP issued its final statement in the case submitted in 2017 by Oxfam Novib, Greenpeace Netherlands, BankTrack and Milieudefensie, with the support of SOMO, against a large Dutch bank for its for failing to sufficiently commit and contribute to the targets set in the Paris Climate Agreement. The climate relevance of the bank's investment policy was exposed a.o. in Fair Finance Guide (Eerlijke Geldwijzer) studies lead by Milieudefensie on energy investments of Dutch banks (see reports on previous years). In its final statement the Dutch OECD NCP concluded that the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises demand that banks set concrete climate goals for their financial services that are in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. This decision is significant because it represents the first time an NCP has determined that the OECD Guidelines include a corporate responsibility for mitigating climate change. It provides opportunities for CSOs worldwide to improve banks' energy investment policies, e.g. for the Brazil, Indian, Indonesian and Thai members of the Fair Finance International network.
[MD1(1)]: Milieudefensie in collaboration with three Nigerian communities and a Nigerian CSO, in a civil court case in the Netherlands over environmental pollution in Nigeria resulting from operations of a Nigerian subsidiary of a Dutch oil company, in January 2021 achieved that the Dutch court established a duty of care, mandatory due diligence, and corporate responsibility in a broader sense, for parent companies, and with that parent company liability for the operations of their subsidiaries abroad. It was the first time a Dutch court decided such. The verdict is relevant for the development of mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence (EHRDD) legislation in the Netherlands and Europe. The findings, also in earlier stages of the judicial process that started in 2008, have been used in inputs from CSOs, scientists, civil servants and politicians to EHRDD law-making processes at the Dutch national, EU and UN levels, in 2020 for instance in the study commissioned by the European Commission 'Study on due diligence requirements through the supply chain' (January 2020). The impact of the verdict in Nigeria is that the parent oil company will have to see that its subsidiary will install state-of-the-art leak detection systems, which will limit the damage to the environment and to the livelihood resources of Niger Delta citizens (fields, fishing waters, drinking water) in the frequently occurring event of an oil spill, whether its cause is equipment failure such as corrosion, or sabotage. [The court case itself is not part of the FGG programme, while capacity development of the Nigerian communities and CSO, as well as connecting the findings in the judicial process to research and advocacy for EHRDD legislation development processes, are].
1.E.b
# policies improved or introduced by companies on transparency and safeguards, conflict resolution mechanisms, and policies promoting social justice, decent work and sustainability.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[MD1(1):] Within the framework of the Fair Finance Guide, in 2017 Milieudefensie wrote a report on deforestation and land grabbing in the palm oil sector, which aimed at policy change of the ten largest insurance companies in the Netherlands. One of these companies committed to a portfolio that does not contribute to deforestation, and set out to propagate deforestation-free investment policies in the sector.
[MD1(1)]: On 30 September 2018, a Dutch insurance company announced that it had sold its investments in palm oil companies, and included fourteen palm oil companies on its exclusion list, publicly stating that the sector “in the past 15 years has not yet been able to improve, to enforce existing rules, and to sanction adequately.” Milieudefensie in the framework of the Eerlijke Verzekeringswijzer (part of the Dutch Fair Finance Guide) on 30 May 2017 had published a case study on deforestation and landgrabbing in the palm oil sector, in which the insurance company in question was given a low score for (its transparancy about) the way it influences the behaviour of palm oil companies it invests in. Milieudefensie has been addressing the deforestation and land rights violation impacts of the palm oil sector together with CSOs from LLMIC production countries for many years, in the private as well as the public sectors.
[FoEE1(1):] Palm oil company strengthens its policies to reduce its negative impacts.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
Outcome F: Practice Changed
Improved corporate policies and government regulations have been put into practice and enforced.
1.F.a
# concrete steps taken by governments to actively identify, prevent and mitigate adverse social, gender and environmental impacts of corporate activities and those in corporations' value chains.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE/MD3(1):] On 2 June 2016, the Nigerian government launched its initiative to clean up oil pollution in the Niger Delta region Ogoniland, following the recommendations from UNEP, and installed a Governing Council and a Board of Trustees for this. A budget of 1 billion USD has been made available, of which the Nigerian state oil company will pay 55%, Shell Nigeria 30%, Total Nigeria 10% and Agip 5%. Since August 2011, when UNEP released its report 'Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland', ERA/FoE Nigeria, Milieudefensie and FoE Europe have focussed their existing joint advocacy work with regard to the Niger Delta oil pollution problems specifically on this UNEP report, so that the UNEP recommendations would not be forgotten.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[MD4(1):] In 2017 the Dutch Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport, ILT) started supervising the illegal practice of blending wastes in the production of fuels for the African market. In 2017 it also included this commitment in its policy plan for 2018-2022, and it applied this policy in its advice to the regional Dutch authority concerning its decision on the permit request of a fuel terminal company in the Amsterdam harbour. This happened after Milieudefensie achieved massive media coverage in the Netherlands in September 2016 for the report 'Dirty Diesel' written by a Swiss CSO, and attention from politicians in the Netherlands (parliamentary questions, and support from several parties) as well as from the Municipal Council of Amsterdam (which adopted a motion that calls for the Port of Amsterdam to come to an agreement with the oil exporting companies to end the practice of exporting fuels containing higher levels of contaminants than allowed in the EU). The Swiss report revealed that this production and export practice, which mainly takes place in the large harbours of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp, causes severe air pollution in African cities. In November 2016 Dutch Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation,Lilianne Ploumen, promised the Dutch parliament to address the problem at the Dutch OECD NCP, and to raise the issue of supply chain responsibility in consultations of the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (as it was called in 2016), the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the harbour companies. Furthermore, Minister Ploumen together with the Nigerian Minister for the Environment organised a ‘Clean Fuels for West Africa’ conference on 5 December 2016, with the participation of EU member states, West African states, UNEP, OECD, the ports, companies and CSOs, in which the Swiss CSO, West African CSOs (see 1.B) and Milieudefensie also took part.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE/MD1(1)]: Eight years after the publication in 2011 of the UNEP report 'Environmental assessment of Ogoniland', with recommendations for cleaning up Ogoniland, HYPREP (Nigerian authority in charge) and the relevant oil companies started pilot projects in 2019 to address the oil pollution in the Niger Delta of land and waters. FoE Europe, Milieudefensie, Amnesty International and Nigerian partner organisations have been advocating for clean-up ever since the UNEP report was released. In 2019 FoE Europe, two Nigerian CSOs, Amnesty International and Milieudefensie released a statement highlighting additional steps that need to be taken to make the clean-up successful. In November 2019 NOSDRA (the official oil pollution monitoring agency) in a meeting of the Nigerian CSO with Nigerian government officials and parliamentarians pledged to work with the CSO and use the key performance indicators as proposed by the CSOs in August. The CSOs had demanded that HYPREP should engage experts with local technical knowledge of Ogoniland to develop a region-specific target value for the Ogoni cleanup, develop proper key performance indicators and feasible plan that indicate short, mid and long-term goals of the project’s lifecycle”. The Ogoni clean-up is relevant for the people in the Niger Delta as the oil spills devastate their natural livelihood resources (agriculture and fishing). [MD2(1)]: 18 April 2019 Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Ms. Kaag, informed parliament that the government requires the Dutch oil and gas sector to implement an action plan to bring itself into alignment with the OECD Guidelines. This is the outcome of a study requested for by the Dutch government to the Dutch OECD NCP in October 2016. In the study the Dutch oil and gas sector's compliance with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises was assessed, and negatively evaluated. The NCP detected “shortcomings among specific companies as well as specific sub-sectors within the industry.” Given these conclusions, the Dutch NCP insists that it is “imperative” that Dutch oil and gas companies take urgent action and develop a concrete plan of action to improve their performance and bring themselves into compliance with the OECD Guidelines. Two of the cases that gave Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Ms. Ploumen, cause for this request to the NCP were matters (1) relating to the production and trading of motor fuels for the West African market (known as ‘dirty diesel’), and (2) relating to how the sector has responded to earlier notifications handled by the NCP concerning companies in the oil and gas sector. Milieudefensie has contributed to both these cases. As regards the 2nd case: Milieudefensie has, together with organisations like FoE International and Amnesty International, and in collaboration with Southern CSOs (from Nigeria, Philippines and Brazil) filed four OECD complaints over violations of the OECD Guidelines by a Dutch oil company (in 2005, 2006, 2011 (two different complaints in that year)). As regards the 1st case: in 2016 and 2017 Milieudefensie had supported the Swiss NGO Public Eye and six CSOs in four West African countries by addressing in the Netherlands and Belgium the export of poor quality fuels that cause severe air pollution in West African cities (these refined fuels, which have a high sulphur content, mainly originate from Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp). Milieudefensie's press and advocacy work resulted in massive media attention in the Netherlands in September 2016, and support for the Swiss and West African CSOs' pleas from Dutch MPs, the Dutch Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Ms. Ploumen (who called the practice ‘a crying shame’ on Dutch public television), and the Municipality of Amsterdam (the owner of the city's large port). On 5 December 2016, Minister Ploumen, together with the Nigerian Minister for the Environment, organised the conference ‘Clean Fuels for West Africa’ with the participation of EU member states, West African states, UNEP, OECD, the Dutch ports, fuel companies, West African CSOs and Milieudefensie. After the Dutch government took measures to prevent the illegal act of blending wastes into export diesel, Milieudefensie and the Swiss CSO commissioned a research study from the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) on the relevance of two international conventions with the aim of also preventing the export of high-sulphuric fuels that are not produced through waste blending practices. CIEL showed that the 'Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal' in combination with the 'Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa' can be used to prevent dirty diesel export to West Africa. Press work and advocacy by Milieudefensie around the publication of this report in February 2017 again gained media attention and the engagement of Dutch MPs. (See report 2017, B.1 MD1). [MD3(1)]: Milieudefensie's support to the Swiss NGO Public Eye and six CSOs in four West African countries, and the engagement of the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation since 2016 for the 'dirty diesel' case (export of high sulfuric diesel from the Netherlands to West Africa, causing air pollution and related health problems for the population mainly in cities), a.o. by organising on 5 December 2016 together with the Nigerian Minister for the Environment the conference ‘Clean Fuels for West Africa’ with the participation of EU member states, West African states, UNEP, OECD, the Dutch ports, fuel companies, West African CSOs and Milieudefensie (see above under 1.F.a MD2, and see report 2017, 1.B MD1 and 1.F.a MD4) and subsequent attention in Dutch parliament in 2018 and 2019 (in some cases informed by Milieudefensie) lead to the decision in February 2020 in Ouagadougou by the environment and energy ministers of all the 15 countries of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), to adopt a comprehensive set of regulations for introducing cleaner fuels and vehicles in the region.
[FoEE1(1)]: On at least one occasion as a result of a joint advocacy effort of FoE Europe and one or more LLMIC and/or international CSOs a government will have adapted its practice in relation to a case of an Environmental and Human Rights Defender (EHRD) from an LLMIC community or an LLMIC CSO. The government will act to protect the EHRD in question against violation of its rights and/or take concrete measures to prevent similar future cases of violation of EHRD rights.
[FoEE1(0)]: No result achieved yet. Advocacy towards the government of Honduras regarding violence against EHRDs in the country is still ongoing (see 1.B FoEE2b). [Not counted].
1.F.b
# concrete steps taken by companies to actively identify, prevent and mitigate adverse social, gender and environmental impacts of their activities and those in their value chains.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE/MD1(0):] The fossil fuel companies involved in polluting the Niger Delta have committed to partially finance a start-up fund to clean up the Niger Delta. The cleanup has yet to commence. There are not yet commitments to fully fund the cleanup of the Niger Delta by the companies involved. [Not counted, as the cleanup has yet to commence]. [FoEE2(1):] FoE Europe has provided assistance, knowledge and intelligence to European groups pushing banks to stop financing fossil fuels projects throughout the world (gas infrastructure and LNG more specifically). FoE Europe co-authored advocacy briefings and took part in a series of meetings with European private banks in 2017. A first significant success happened in late 2017 when a large European bank stopped financing new exploration, production, transportation and export projects related to tar sands/shale gas.
[FoEE/MD1(1):] Companies start clean up Ogoniland. [FoEE2(2):] At least 2 investors or fossil fuel companies take decisions that result in lowering their contribution to climate change and that are in line with proposals made by FoEE.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1)]: After advocacy work of FoE Europe and LLMIC CSOs, in at least 1 case a company takes measures that reduce negative environmental and/or human rights impacts of its operations in oil and gas production.
[MD1(1)]: In April a Dutch oil company announced it quitted a US lobby group because of differences of opinion over climate policy. Although this step could be regarded a matter of PR or greenwashing (as the oil company remains a member of other lobby groups that also actively lobby against sound governmental climate policy development), still it is significant. The decision is linked to a first-of-its-kind report by the company stating that the company’s association with lobbying groups is undermining its work on climate change. This action may eventually influence the industry and contribute somewhat to improving the balance between civil and corporate influence on governmental policy making on climate policy. FoE Europe and Milieudefensie have been campaigning on corporate capture of governmental decision-making processes in the past years, especially focused on climate policy. Also Milieudefensie's research work in the Fair Finance Guide on the energy investments of Dutch banks, insurers and pension funds, combined with advocacy work aimed at the financiers of the company, leading to pressure from these financiers, e.g. as shareholders of the company, may have contributed to the company's decision.
[FoEE1(1)]: After advocacy work of FoE Europe and LLMIC CSOs, in at least one case a company takes measures that reduce negative environmental and/or human rights impacts of its operations in oil and gas production. [FoEE2(1)]: In at least one case of an Environmental and Human Rights Defender (EHRD) from an LLMIC community or an LLMIC CSO, as a result of a joint advocacy effort of FoE Europe and one or more LLMIC and/or international CSOs, a company or an investor will have improved its practice in dealing with such a case. The company or investor will stop violating the rights of the EHRD in question and/or take concrete measures to prevent similar future cases of violation of EHRD rights.
[FoEE1a(0)]: In June 2020, FoE Europe, Milieudefensie, Amnesty International and a Nigerian CSO, published an evaluation of the state of affairs in the clean-up of the Niger Delta from oil pollution (see 1.B FoEE/MD2c). The report concluded that nine years after the UNEP in its 2011 report 'Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland' documented the devastating impact of the oil industry in Ogoniland, and set out urgent recommendations for clean-up, in only 11% of polluted sites clean-up has started. Many other failures were highlighted. The Nigerian agency responsible (and that involves oil companies), has committed to accelerate their clean-up activities. [Not counted].
[MD1b(2)]: Two Dutch investors (a pension fund and an insurance company) announced in 2020 that they have quitted investments in oil or in companies whose turnover originates for more than a certain percentage from coal, tar sands oil and/or shale gas. More improvements can be expected since on 2 September, Dutch parliament debated the initiative memorandum 'Van oliedom naar gezond verstand: verduurzaming van de financiële sector' that urges the financial sector to commit to aligning their investments to a maximum temperature increase of 1.5 degrees, upon which Minister for Finance, Mr. Hoekstra, promised parliament that he will talk with the financial sector to do more and not to limit themselves to efforts aimed at a 2-degree temperature rise only. The Eerlijke Geldwijzer, of which Milieudefensie is the member responsible for research and publications on the energy portfolios of investors provided input for the memorandum. 28 September a parliamentary question was raised to the Minister for Economic Affairs about the finding of the Eerlijke Geldwijzer that no major Dutch insurer, pension fund and most banks have a concrete public policy stating that they exclude or phase out investments in fossil energy companies. Milieudefensie is involved in the Eerlijke Geldwijzer to improve the investment policies of the financial sector in line with the demands from LLMIC CSOs in FoE International's Programmes on Economic Justice; Climate Justice & Energy; Forests & Biodiversity; and Food Sovereignty.
[FoEE2(0)]: No result achieved yet. Advocacy with CSOs in Honduras, Indonesia and Mozambique (in their countries as well as in the Netherlands and the EU) regarding to violence against EHRDs in their countries is still ongoing and will hopefully lead to improvement of the situation of EHRD’s on the ground in the near future (see 1.B FoEE2a, FoEE2b, MD/FoEE3a).
Outcome B: Capacities Strengthened
Increased capacity of civil society actors to research, network and advocate in relation to the conduct of corporations.
1.B
# CSOs in LLMICs that lobby and advocate for responsible corporate conduct based on increased skills, knowledge or network contacts.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE/MD1(i)(1):] As a continuation of FoE Europe's and Milieudefensie's support to ERA/FoE Nigeria in addressing at the national and international levels the need for effective implementation of UNEP recommendations for the clean-up of oil pollution in the Niger Delta as presented in the 2011 UNEP 'Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland' report, on 24 March 2016 these organisations organised a media advocacy meeting in Abuja, Nigeria. Niger Delta communities, CSOs, journalists and FoE Europe and Milieudefensie participated in the meeting, during which the delay in the implementation of the UNEP recommendations was discussed and a public statement from the communities on the need for a rapid start with the clean-up was presented and in which the government was requested to extend the clean-up to Niger Delta regions beyond Ogoniland. [FoEE/MD1(ii)(2):] NAPE/FoE Uganda and FoE Europe are providing legal, strategic and financial support to a local community in Kalangala (Victoria Lake) to bring palm oil company Bidco to court over their environmental and human rights impacts; FoE Europe is assisting SDI/FoE Liberia in empowering a local community to reclaim their land rights. [FoEE/MD1(iii)(1):] As with the 2015 Fair Finance Guide International (FFGI) research on investments in fossil and sustainable energy, in 2016 Milieudefensie supported ResponsiBank, the Indonesian Fair Finance Guide, of which WALHI/FoE Indonesia and several other Indonesian CSOs are members. Milieudefensie’s role included participation in the 2016 international FFGI research study on agro commodities. In both cases (2015 and 2016), this was part of Milieudefensie's task in the research advisory group, dealing with adapting the FFGI research method to the national contexts and needs of the participating Fair Finance Guides in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Sweden, Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, Germany and Norway.
FoEE1(10): Based on materials provided by FoE Europe, 10 CSOs in LLMIC countries will advocate their governments to develop and support a strong UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights that addresses human rights violations by companies. FoEE2(+5): 15 FoE groups from LLMICs will take part in the 2018 negotiation round of the UN Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) for a UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights, and advocate the treaty among UN decision-makers, making use of the expertise and strategising capacity built at meetings organised by FoE Europe and FoE international. FoEE/MD3(+0): FoE International, FoE Europe, Milieudefensie and Southern FoE groups will pursue and/or support legal actions in relation to climate change and fossil energy with research, sharing of information, strategising and coordination, international communications work and litigation. MD4(+2): In three to five Southern countries with the support of Milieudefensie and in some cases also FoE Europe (joint research, strategising, sharing of information, development of alternatives, advocacy, awareness-raising and communication), Southern groups will advocate in their home countries and where relevant also in the Netherlands and/or Brussels (i) energy policies that are in line with the Paris Climate Agreement and/or (ii) binding regulation for oil and gas companies that will ensure that (a) these companies do not violate the Paris Climate Agreement and/or (b) the influence of oil and gas companies on governmental decision-making on energy policies and specific oil and gas operations is lessened as compared to civil society's influence (which aims at future outcomes under A (improved enabling environment) in Southern countries as well as in the home countries of internationally operating oil and gas companies), and/or (iii) by bringing specific investments and operations up for discussion, an improved performance of fossil fuel companies with respect to (planned) operations, which could involve the cancellation of these operations for the benefit of the climate, the environment and the people (potentially) affected by them. This will also strengthen the capacity of international networks of CSOs working on climate and energy.
[FoEE1&2(8)]: FoE Europe contributed to strategizing, coordination and communication of a delegation of more than thirty representatives from FoE groups from twenty different countries (of which 8 LLMICs: Mozambique, Liberia, Uganda, Togo, Palestine/West Bank and Gaza Strip, Bangladesh, Philippines and Indonesia) prior to and during the 4th negotiation round of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights (IGWG), on the UN Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights in Geneva from 15 to 19 October 2018. Members of the delegation held lobby meetings with representatives from their home countries and with other relevant country delegations, like South Africa and Ecuador, the two countries leading the process for a UN treaty. FoE representatives delivered nine oral statements during the negotiation rounds and took part as speakers in three official side events. The activities around the 4th IGWG session contributed to a further strengthening of the global civil society movement for the UN Treaty. The FoE network allies with women organisations and ensures a gender balance in its representation. Furthermore, the CSO coalition in 2018 started preparations for an EU-wide petition, based also on demands of LLMIC FoE groups, in favour of corporate accountability measures at EU and UN level and to stop ISDS, launched in January 2019. [MD3i(0)]: Milieudefensie contributed to the capacity of CSOs in the Global South on climate justice and litigation matters, amongst others by participating in the Climate Justice Programme, an independent network of lawyers, academics and campaigners that aim at climate justice, through the development of climate law, that held its 2018 meeting in Kenya, with the participation of CSOs from many LLMICs. [Not counted as no data are (yet) available on the application of the specific capacities by the LLMIC CSOs in question]. [FoEE/MD3ii(7)]: FoE Europe, Milieudefensie, Amnesty International and Cordaid supported 7 Nigerian CSOs in preparing and co-issuing on 2 June 2018 a statement 'Decades of neglect, years of waiting: It's time to clean up Ogoniland's oil pollution' demanding from the Nigerian government an immediate start to the clean-up of the Niger Delta in conformity with the recommendations in UNEP's 2011 'Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland'. Furthermore, Milieudefensie facilitated the presence of the director of a Nigerian CSO at the shareholder meeting of an oil company, where this director asked questions about the ongoing oil spills and gasflaring in the Niger Delta. [MD4i(+2)]: In May 2018 Milieudefensie together with a Mozambican CSO organised a meeting in Mozambique for African CSOs working on the oil and gas industry. This contributed to learning and exchange between CSOs from 9 LLMICs (Mozambique, Tanzania [1], Ghana [1], Togo, Uganda, Nigeria, Swaziland, Kenya, Zimbabwe) and from South Africa. Milieudefensie and a Nigerian CSO contributed to a better understanding among the African CSOs of the negative development impact of fossil fuel extraction in LLMICs, and about the tactics of Northern oil and gas companies and the governments in the home countries of these companies to influence decision-making in LLMICs on fossil fuel development. Several groups started or intensified collaboration. [Groups from Mozambique, Uganda, Togo and Nigeria already counted above; groups from Swaziland, Kenya and Zimbabwe not counted]. [MD4ii(+0)]: At the request of a Mozambican CSO engaging with communities suffering from the development of gas exploitation in a large gas field in the country, Milieudefensie supported this CSO by commissioning research into the international stakeholders in this development, and publishing the findings in April and October 2018. These findings include (i) that it’s doubtful that the gas exploitation will benefit Mozambicans; (ii) that the Dutch government is supporting a Dutch oil company in obtaining contracts for the construction and operation of gas facilities in the country; and (iii) that the Dutch government pursues a tax treaty with Mozambique that would benefit the Dutch oil company. Furthermore, Milieudefensie supported the CSO with providing video footage of local farmers and fishermen that the CSO used in its local and national advocacy work in support of the communities living in the vicinity of the gas field. FoE Europe supported the CSO by revealing links between the gas developments in Mozambique and the build-up of gas infrastructure in Europe. [CSO in question already counted in previous result]. [MD4iii(+0)]: Milieudefensie financially supported a Togolese CSO organising an exchange visit between fisher communities from Togo, Ghana and Nigeria. The exchange visit took place in Togo and in Nigeria, and helped Togolese fisher communities to gather support from CSOs and fishers from neighbouring countries Nigeria and Ghana for their public campaign on oil exploitation in the country. An advocacy training was part of the exchange. The fishermen participated in a public seminar with representatives from the Togolese Ministry for the Environment, and from the Togolese Ministry of Mining. A draft bill aiming at a revision of the Togolese Mining Law developed by the Togolese CSO was presented to advocate for the non-exploitation of oil in the country. The draft was later submitted to parliament. [Togolese CSO already counted above]. [MD4iv(2)]: Milieudefensie continued its support to a network of CSOs and communities in Latin America (from Argentina, Bolivia [1], Brazil, Colombia, and Honduras [1]) dealing with the expansion of the fossil fuel industry in Latin America. With the financial support of Milieudefensie, the groups carried out a mapping of the fossil fuel industry seeking to extend the extraction frontier to new areas inland and in deep sea waters, conducted participatory research on the impacts on and resistance of local communities, and conducted research on corporate capture of governmental decision-making processes around this expansion. The research and publications were used for strategizing and increasing collaboration within the existing network and beyond (with trade unions and local authorities), in advocacy work on the fossil fuel developments, to create media attention, and/or as input used by the groups in their advocacy work around the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights process (see 1.B FoEE1&2). The CSOs enhanced their knowledge through the exchange of experiences in two regional workshops financed by Milieudefensie, held in the territories of the communities affected and/or threatened by oil and gas extraction on land and offshore. In Bolivia, in September, 150 people from communities affected by gas extraction in the Tariquia National Reserve gathered with indigenous communities from different regions of Bolivia and Argentina, and CSOs from five Latin American countries, and signed a statement to refuse any attempt to extract gas within the natural reserve. The three-day meeting led to the creation in December of a National Coordinating Committee for the Defense of Indigenous and Peasant Territories (Coordinadora en Defensa de las Áreas Protegidas y Territorios), aiming at resisting the advance of the oil companies. In Colombia, in November, in a five-day meeting fishermen, fisherwomen and peasants from five Latin American countries, and representatives of CSOs (40 persons in total) learned from each other’s realities in the face of oil and gas extraction, and (new) ways of organizing and strategizing in order to respond to the threats. [For advocacy outomes of this work see 2.D MD4 and MD5].
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE/MD1(i)(2):] As a continuation of the support to two Nigerian CSOs in addressing the need for effective implementation of UNEP recommendations for the clean-up of oil pollution in the Niger Delta at the national and international levels, FoE Europe, Milieudefensie and Amnesty International participated in advocacy work including a joint letter with the Nigerian CSOs to HYPREP (Hydrocarbon Pollution Remediation Project), the implementation agency for the Ogoniland clean-up, with common demands to improve the clean-up process. [FoEE1(iv)(1):] FoE Europe and an African CSO supported a community with research and logistics that the community used to file a lawsuit against an oil company over an oil spill that damaged the fishing grounds and farmland of the community. [MD1(v)(6):] In 2016 and 2017 Milieudefensie and a Swiss CSO supported six CSOs in four West African countries by addressing in the Netherlands and Belgium the export of poor quality fuels that cause severe air pollution in West African cities (these refined fuels, which have a high sulphur content, mainly originate from Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp). Milieudefensie's press and advocacy work resulted in massive media attention in the Netherlands in September 2016, and support for the Swiss and West African CSOs' pleas from Dutch MPs, the Dutch Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Lilianne Ploumen (who called the practice ‘a crying shame’ on Dutch public television), and the Municipality of Amsterdam (the owner of the city's large port). On 5 December 2016, Minister Ploumen, together with the Nigerian Minister for the Environment, organised the conference ‘Clean Fuels for West Africa’ with the participation of EU member states, West African states, UNEP, OECD, the Dutch ports, fuel companies, West African CSOs and Milieudefensie. After the Dutch government took measures to prevent the illegal act of blending wastes into export diesel (see 1.F.a), Milieudefensie and the Swiss CSO commissioned a research study from the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) on the relevance of two international conventions with the aim of also preventing the export of high-sulphuric fuels that are not produced through waste blending practices. CIEL showed that the 'Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal' in combination with the 'Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa' can be used to prevent dirty diesel export to West Africa. Press work and advocacy by Milieudefensie around the publication of this report in February 2017 again gained media attention and the engagement of Dutch MPs. [FoEE2(9):] In preparation for and during the 3rd session of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with respect to Human Rights (UN IGWG on Business and Human Rights) in October 2017, FoE Europe and FoE International jointly supported CSOs from Europe and abroad (and specifically the representatives of 9 CSOs from 7 LLMICs that were part of the FoE delegation) in coordination, strategizing, media outreach and advocacy (including presenting LLMIC case studies that illustrate the need for a UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights), aimed at constructive participation in the process of the UN member states and the EU, and the development of an effective, binding UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights.
[FoEE/MD1(4):] 4 CSOs in Nigeria (oil), Indonesia, Liberia, Uganda and/or Nigeria (palm oil) lobby and advocate to stop harmful projects and for better government policies based on increased skills, knowledge and contacts.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(10):] With the support of FoE Europe (strategy development, communication), 10 CSOs in LLMICs will advocate their governments to develop and support a strong UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights that addresses human rights violations by companies. 10 FoE groups from LLMICs will take part in the 2019 negotiation round of the UN Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) for a UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights, and advocate the treaty among UN decision-makers, making use of the expertise and strategising capacity strengthened at meetings organised by FoE Europe and FoE international. [FoEE2(+1)]: FoE Europe will strengthen capacity of Environmental and Human Rights Defenders and CSOs working with people affected by corporate crimes in one to two cases by providing them with expertise and contacts, highlighting the role of European companies in environmental and human rights crimes and by supporting Defenders/CSO pressure on these companies. Capacities of these groups will also be strengthened by FoE Europe through joint work in relation to the negative impacts of oil and gas exploration. FoE Europe provides expertise and research, access to European media, campaign support, financial support. As a result, these groups will use the strengthened capacities in advocacy work aimed at securing their environmental and human rights. [FoEE3(+0)]: With the expertise, financial and campaign support of FoE Europe, 10 local Nigerian communities and a Nigerian CSO will be able to submit a case about the negative health impacts of gas flaring in Nigeria to the International Criminal Court and possibly Public Prosecutors in the home countries of oil companies. [FoEE/MD4(+0)]: FoE Europe, FoE International and Milieudefensie with research and sharing of information, will contribute to an increased knowledge within global CSO networks working on climate justice (such as FoE International's Climate Justice and Energy Programme) and amongst the LLMIC groups that are part of these networks, about possible economic pathways for the fossil fuel industry towards operating in conformity with the Paris Climate Agreement, and about judicial and other strategies to stimulate that the fossil fuel industry will follow such pathways. This will strengthen the position of these CSO networks vis à vis the fossil fuel industry in their advocacy work aiming at climate justice, directed at corporations and governments at the national and international levels. [MD5(+2)]: In two to four LLMIC countries and where relevant also in the Netherlands and/or Brussels, with the support of Milieudefensie and in some cases also FoE Europe, and based on improved capacity as a result of joint research, strategising, sharing of information, development of alternatives, advocacy, awareness-raising and communication, Southern groups with their networks of CBOs will advocate (i) binding regulation for oil and gas companies that will ensure that (a) these companies do not violate the Paris Climate Agreement and/or (b) the influence of oil and gas companies on governmental decision-making on energy policies and specific oil and gas operations is lessened as compared to civil society's influence (which aims at future outcomes under A (improved enabling environment) in Southern countries as well as in the home countries of internationally operating oil and gas companies), and/or (ii) by bringing specific investments and operations up for discussion, an improved performance of fossil fuel companies with respect to (planned) operations, which could involve the cancellation of these operations for the benefit of the climate, the environment and the people (potentially) affected by them, and/or (iii) a revision of state support for the fossil fuel industry (e.g. through Dutch embassies in LLMICs, government policies, and state subsidies, tax exemptions and the like). This will also strengthen the capacity of international networks of CSOs working on fossil fuel exploitation.
[FoEE1(5)]: With the support (logistic, strategizing, coordination, communication) of FoE Europe and FoE International, 5 LLMIC groups (from Indonesia, Philippines, Mozambique, Uganda, Togo) took part in the 2019 negotiation round of the UN Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) for a UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights. The groups took part in advocacy towards their own and other governments, awareness raising activities, media work and developing joint strategies and messages. [FoEE2(+1)]: FoE Europe strengthened the capacity of a Mozambican CSO (providing a platform by inviting a representative to join a speaker tour organised by FoE Europe through Europe, strategizing and communication). During this tour the CSO had the opportunity to directly address concerns to shareholders and the board of a large EU-based oil company during its Annual General Meeting of shareholders. The oil company is violating human rights in Mozambique while extracting gas. The CSO representative also met the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and a major financier of the gas project. Another goal of the tour was to push in favor of a UN Binding Treaty for Business and Human Rights as this will allow affected communities to take remedy against abuses by corporations. FoE Europe also strengthened the capacity of a Ugandan CSO (providing a platform by inviting a representative to join a speaker tour organised by FoE Europe through Europe, strategizing, communication). The CSO had the opportunity to talk to various audiences about HR violations in Uganda by the aforementioned oil company, as well as by palm oil producing companies. The speaker tour connected the CSO also to various European NGOs that in the future might support the CSO in its work on environmental and HR violations in Uganda by (other) European corporations [the Mozambican CSO was already counted above]. [FoEE/MD3(3)]: August 2019 FoE Europe and Milieudefensie together with Amnesty International supported two Nigerian CSOs by jointly launching a statement with recommendations to the Nigerian government and the corporations involved on the clean-up of the Niger Delta, on the occasion of the start in 2019 of the implementation of the clean-up of Ogoniland from oil spills in response to the recommendations from UNEP, and in order to ensure that the clean-up is being done effectively: 'Still no clean-up. Civil Society statement on lack of implementation of UNEP report' (see also 1.F.a). Furthermore, FoE Europe supported a Nigerian community in its court case in Italy against an Italian oil company that had polluted their land and waters. In 2019 the court case came to a settlement. [MD4(+3)]: In 2019 Milieudefensie (co-)organised several seminars and workshops on the judicial responsibility of corporations for climate change, a.o. a seminar together with Nederlandse Juristen Comité voor de Mensenrechten (January); the annual Climate Justice Legal Expert Meeting (Mexico, April; Milieudefensie was in the steering group); and the Climate Litigation Expert Meeting (September, hosted by Milieudefensie), and co-organised and participated in several public events on the topic, a.o. at Nyenrode Business Universiteit (January), in Pakhuis De Zwijger (September) and at several side events at the UNFCCC COP (Madrid, December). In these meetings academics and judicial experts participated. Representatives of Northern and Southern CSOs, the latter group a.o. from LLMICs Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Mozambique and Uganda, were present in several of the seminars and workshops, and have been using the knowledge and contacts acquired during the meetings in their assessment of the potential of climate litigation in or for their countries. The groups' capacities were raised with respect to knowledge on matters such as the international legal framework at the interface of liability law, climate law and human rights, and the developments in this area; and the extent to which fossil fuel companies can be held liable for climate change and the human rights violations that result from it. Northern and Southern CSOs shared strategies and experiences. Furthermore, Milieudefensie contributed to literature on the topic, such as from the Business & Human Resource Centre, and saw its contribution to knowledge building reflected in reports written by and for the corporate sector in which the financial and other business risks of climate change liability and climate litigation are assessed, contributing to capacity building of corporations with the use of financial rather than environmental and human rights arguments. [See also 1.C MD3, MD4 and 3.C MD2. 2 CSOs already counted above]. [MD5(+0)]: Milieudefensie supported a CSO from Mozambique (facilitation, strategising and coordination, communication) to attend the shareholder meeting of a Dutch oil company and raise questions about the impact of a gas extraction project in their country in which the oil company is involved. [CSO already counted above]. [MD6(0)]: Milieudefensie's cooperation with CSOs in West Africa and Latin America on fossil fuel expansion relates to ToC1, ToC2 as well as ToC3, and is reported upon under 2.B MD3a, MD3b. [Counted under 2.B].
[FoEE1(8)]: With the support of FoE Europe (strategy development, communication), eight CSOs in LLMICs will urge their governments to develop and support a strong UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights that addresses human rights violations by companies. The eight FoE groups from LLMICs will take part in the 2020 negotiation round of the UN Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) for a UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights, and advocate for the treaty among UN decision-makers, making use of the expertise and strategising capacity strengthened at meetings organised by FoE Europe and FoE international. [FoEE2(+1)]: FoE Europe will strengthen the capacity of Environmental and Human Rights Defenders and CSOs in LLMICs working with people affected by corporate crimes in one to two cases by providing them with expertise and contacts, highlighting the role of European companies in environmental and human rights crimes and by supporting Defenders/CSO pressure on these companies. Capacities of these groups will also be strengthened by FoE Europe through joint work in relation to the negative impacts of oil and gas exploration. FoE Europe provides expertise and research, access to European media, campaign support, and financial support. As a result, these groups will use the strengthened capacities in advocacy work aimed at securing their environmental and human rights. [One LLMIC CSO counted that is not already counted under other 1.B outcomes]. [MD/FoEE3(2)]: As a result of Milieudefensie’s and FoE Europe’s contribution to knowledge sharing, networking and global strategizing within the FoE network and beyond on the topics of climate litigation and litigation on corporate liability/duty of care, a number of CSOs in LLMICs will increase their capacity with respect to climate litigation as a means to transform the fossil fuel industry so that it operates in conformity with the Paris Climate Agreement, and their capacity with respect to litigation on corporate liability/duty of care as a means to achieve that corporations respect the environment and human rights in LLMICs. It is expected that at least two LLMIC CSOs will use knowledge, expertise, contacts etc. shared by Milieudefensie/FoE Europe in their efforts to develop/file a climate litigation or environmental/human rights case. [MD4(+9)]: Milieudefensie supports 15 CSOs in Africa and Latin America (of which 12 in LLMICs Togo, Nigeria, Senegal, Benin, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Honduras and Bolivia) in their efforts to connect communities threatened by existing or planned onshore and offshore oil and gas exploitation, and in their efforts to mobilise these communities in the defence of their livelihoods. Milieudefensie will provide financial support for research and exchange visits and other activities, and will collaborate in research, strategizing and international communication and advocacy. [Only CSOs counted that are not already counted under other 1.B outcomes].
[FoEE/MD1(6)]: The 6th session of the OEIGWG (open-ended intergovernmental working group) for a UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights took place in October 2020. Due to covid-19 restrictions travel to Geneva was not possible and so there were no in person lobby meetings. Virtual meetings did take place between the Chair of the OEIGWG and civil society on 28 October, and several FoE groups (national as well as regional) were in attendance. The CSOs delivered virtual interventions as part of the Global Campaign to Reclaim Peoples Sovereignty, Dismantle Corporate Power and Stop Impunity during most sessions of the 2020 treaty negotiations, with specific expertise on the different treaty provisions in support of a strong treaty. FoE Europe, FoE International and Milieudefensie (of whom a representative, for the preparation of the FoE network for the OEIGWG session, was installed as a temporary member of the Steering Group of FoE International's Economic Justice Programme) supported FoE groups from many LLMICs (strategy development, communication) to prepare the FoE network's input. Based upon the joint strategizing, direct video interventions in the official negotiations were given by CSOs including from Mozambique, Togo, Africa (regional), Indonesia, Asia Pacific (regional), and Latin America (regional). In order to support the LLMIC CSOs who demand a positive stance of the EU towards the UN Treaty process, FoE Europe and Milieudefensie and several other European CSOs formed a coalition that analyzed the new draft for the Treaty and advocated for an EU Commission negotiation mandate and a position on the draft Treaty. Also, Milieudefensie together with SOMO, ActionAid, Wo=Men and IUCN NL formed an unofficial Dutch alliance that analyzed the new draft for the Treaty, and advocated at the Dutch government for an EU negotiation mandate, active participation during the Treaty negotiations and a Dutch appreciation of the draft Treaty (see 1.C FoEE1).
[FoEE2a(+3)]: In October 2020, FoE Europe in collaboration with CSOs from Brazil, Mozambique, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Indonesia published the report ‘Do No Harm: The Case for an EU Law to Hold Business Accountable’ in which five emblematic cases of environmental destruction and human rights violations by (subsidiaries of) European companies in the Global South were described, in Brazil (neighbourhood destruction by a German airport operator), Nigeria (oil pollution by several EU and US oil companies), Mozambique (eviction of communities for the development of a gas field by a French oil company, also involving a Dutch dredger and a Belgian construction company), Sierra Leone (violation of land rights by a Luxemburgish-French-Belgian agro-industrial company), and Indonesia (damage to fishing grounds by a Dutch dredging company). FoE Europe organised a webinar to promote this report among EU politicians and policy makers and provided a platform for the CSOs to voice their stories of environmental and human rights violations by European corporations, pleading for EU mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence legislation, as well as EU support for a UN Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights. FoE Europe continued to work with and support the CSOs in Brazil, Mozambique, Nigeria and Indonesia. [CSO from Mozambique already counted above].
[FoEE2b(2)]: In 2020 FoE Europe has supported two Honduran CSOs in getting access to EU politicians and policy makers. This resulted in a meeting with the European External Action Service and the Ambassador of the EU to Honduras and a webinar on 8 December 2020 'Human Rights Violations in Honduras and the Role of the EU' attended by Members of European Parliament and representatives of the government of Honduras. The Honduran CSOs address environmental and human rights violations that come with various economic developments on the lands of a Honduran people, including by companies with European ties, and the CSOs are seeking justice for disappeared leaders of this Honduran community.
[FoEE/MD2c(+0)]: FoE Europe and Milieudefensie have worked closely with a Nigerian CSO and Amnesty International in research and jointly launching a report assessing the clean-up of Ogoniland in the Niger Delta from oil pollution. The report ‘No Clean Up, No Justice. An Evaluation of the Implementation of UNEP’s Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland, Nine Years On’, issued in June 2020, investigates to what extent Nigeria’s government and an Anglo-Dutch oil company have implemented the recommendations from UNEP’s 'Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland' report from 2011 (that documented the devastating impact of the oil industry in Ogoniland, and set out urgent recommendations for clean-up); why progress has been slow and why the clean-up operations have so far failed to deliver. The CSOs' report concludes that emergency measures proposed by UNEP have not been properly implemented and that the billion-dollar clean-up project launched by the Nigerian government in 2016 has been ineffective. FoE Europe and Milieudefensie provided content, financial, and media support resulting in media coverage in the Netherlands, Nigeria and the UK. The Nigerian CSO uses the report in its dialogue with Nigerian MPs to reform the clean-up process. FoE Europe facilitated in two occasions that staff of the Nigerian CSO presented the Nigerian case to Mr. Didier Reynders (EU Commissioner for Justice), and to a member of the cabinet of Commissioner Reynders. The report led to parliamentary questions in the Netherlands on 29 June 2020, answered by Minister Sigrid Kaag (Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation) on 17 August 2020, in which the Dutch Ministry's commitment to a proper Niger Delta clean-up process was reconfirmed. Milieudefensie furthermore provided a platform in Dutch media for Niger Delta communities who suffer from oil pollution from an Anglo-Dutch oil company, and who call upon the Dutch government and the Dutch embassy in Nigeria for help. In one occasion this led to questions raised in Dutch parliament, on 16 December 2020, that were answered by the Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs on 18 January 2021. [Nigerian CSO already counted above].
[MD/FoEE3a(0)]: FoE Europe and Milieudefensie in collaboration with FoE International and CSOs in the UK and France have been working with a CSO in Mozambique to increase its capacity to produce materials and evidence, and to address in the home countries of the companies involved (amongst media, policy-makers a.o.) the impacts of the development of a large gas field in the Mozambique, and to challenge the (expected) financial support for this development via Export Credit Agencies in Europe. [CSO counted under 3.B MD1].
[MD3b(0)]: Milieudefensie contributed to the development of thinking amongst CSOs and experts about the subject of a duty of care for fossil fuel companies as regards their climate impact, a topic considered relevant for combating climate change, a.o. by LLMIC CSOs participating in FoE International's Climate Justice and Energy Programme. Milieudefensie contributed to the subject through research connecting the Paris Climate Accord; the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; the SDGs; other international treaties, agreements and policies related to human rights and the environment; climate science; international law and judicial developments on issues like parent company liability, and causality; and international economics and phenomena such as the so-called 'production gap' (the disconnect between climate targets and commitments on the one hand, and fossil fuel development plans on the other). Based on this research a.o. (i) the role of non-party stakeholders in implementing the Paris Climate Accord was determined; (ii) the 1,5 degrees Paris target (necessary for Southern countries in particular) was translated into a methodology to determine company-specific climate impact reduction requirements; and (iii) corporate lobby and corporate public relations activities aiming at counteracting the development of governmental climate policies in line with the Paris Climate Accord were interpreted. The knowledge and insights were shared with CSOs and experts worldwide, in webinars (such as FGG's strategic litigation workshop in November 2020, with CSO participants from a.o. Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Philippines, Bangladesh, Pakistan, West Bank and Gaza Strip, Mexico, Brazil, and Uruguay); and webinars organised by other CSOs (international, Northern, and Southern) during 2020; in publications; and with the media, for instance in reaction to the publication by a Dutch oil company 16 April 2020 of its CO2 emission reduction plans. Milieudefensie explained to the press that these plans wouldn't lead to an absolute CO2 emission reduction by the oil company. [CSOs not counted as in 2020 Milieudefensie was not involved in follow-up activities].
[MD4(+5)]: Milieudefensie continued its support (financial, networking, communication) to a network of CSOs in Latin America, from Honduras (4 CSOs and networks), Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia (1 CSO) and Argentina, and a regional CSO (1), all dealing with the expansion of the fossil fuel industry in Latin America. In 2020 with financial support from Milieudefensie, the groups continued mapping of the fossil fuel industry seeking to extend the extraction frontier to new areas inland and in deep sea waters, conducted participatory research on the impacts on and resistance of local communities (such as against oil spills affecting marine and terrestrial ecosystems, employment, local income, food security and the livelihoods of fisher and peasants communities, and the disappearance and murder of EHRDs from these communities), and conducted research on corporate capture of governmental decision-making processes around this expansion, and corporate lobby aiming at a.o. obtaining concessions, deregulation and tax advantages. The CSOs published research reports on the oil and gas expansion in the region: 'El costo de la riqueza ajena. La exploración de petróleo y gas en la Muskitia hondureña' (August 2020); 'Situación de la Exploración de Petróleo y Gas en Honduras en el Año 2020. Pescadoras, Pescadores y el Sistema Arrecifal Mesoamericano en Alto Riesgo' (December 2020); 'Report on Shell and the Extension of the Deepwater Extraction Frontier. Colombia' (February 2020); 'Pre-salt reserves in Brazil: Shell’s new frontier' (February 2020); 'La presencia de Shell en Bolivia y su proyección en el mercado regional de gas' (January 2020); 'Bolivia y su marcha hacia el fracking' (December 2020); and 'Exporting Vaca Muerta. Extreme energy, infrastructure and markets' (February 2020). The CSOs used the research and publications for strategizing and increasing collaboration within the existing network of CSOs and communities and beyond (with trade unions and local authorities), in advocacy, organising public events, communication and media work on the fossil fuel developments and to create public and political awareness of the governmental and corporate conduct as regards oil and gas expansion in the countries, also of projected oil and gas exploitation operations that were (or the scope of which was) not known yet to local municipalities and communities before the CSOs informed them. The CSOs and their networks of communities enhanced their knowledge, analytical and strategizing capacities through the exchange of experiences (organising themselves in their struggle against the oil industry and in defending and developing their livelihoods) in tens of regional, national and local gatherings and trainings (physical or via webinars) of CSOs and communities, peasants and fishermen/women and peasants and fishermen federations and movements, in some cases also with municipalities, universities, human rights organisations and others. The significance of the increased networking amongst CSOs and communities is in the expectation that over the next few years, throughout Latin America, the violations of the rights of nature and of traditional peoples caused by the unbridled expansion of oil and gas extraction tend to deepen. [In 2020 the planned support to West African CSOs was provided in the framework of Milieudefensie's other Dialogue and Dissent alliance, the Green Livelihoods Alliance, and reported there].
NL-KVK-40530467-FGG-ToC2
Milieudefensie
FGG MD ToC 2: Improved Trade and Investment
FGG’s goal is to ensure that trade and investment advances socially just, inclusive and environmentally sustainable development. Like Minister Ploumen, we believe that trade and investment can contribute significantly to economic opportunity and equality. But the current global trade and investment regime has helped create and exacerbate governance gaps that adversely affect society, expanding the rights of corporations while diminishing the policy options available to governments. Policies promoting trade and investment have overlooked the potentiality of negative impacts, putting them at odds with commitments on policy coherence for development (PCD). There is an urgent need to close these governance gaps and to increase policy coherence in general. We believe that this will redress the imbalance between the rights and obligations of corporations and the regulatory space available to governments to fulfil environmental and social objectives, including increased gender equality and respect for human rights. Redressing this imbalance is essential in achieving socially just, inclusive, and environmentally sustainable societies. As the Minister has stated in her policy agenda, the market is not perfect. We believe that governments must be able to regulate in society’s interest. Governments have an obligation to assess the impacts of their policies and take action or refrain from introducing a policy when there is significant risk or evidence of negative impacts. However over the course of the last two decades there has been a trend for governments to sign up to bilateral and multilateral trade and investment agreements that restrict their ability to implement policies that stimulate inclusive and sustainable growth, and create incentives for them to cast aside their obligations to citizens. In addition, existing policies on energy sourcing and financing constrain the space within which more socially just, inclusive and environmentally sustainable energy systems could emerge. This dynamic is aggravated by the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in many agreements. These enable companies to sue governments for pursuing policies that may adversely affect future profits. Fierce competition for investment between countries further aggravates these problems, exerting downward pressure on wages and the price of natural resources. There is increasing interest, including in the Netherlands and the EU, in new approaches to trade and investment where benefits are shared more equally. The Netherlands is a key actor in the global debates on trade and investment and Policy Coherence for Development, and has set a trend that has been followed by many donor countries and international institutions. We believe that the government’s willingness to tolerate dissent and sustain dialogue with representatives of civil society around the world can lead to transformative change. Besides specific trade and investment policies, also policies related to agriculture and food security, energy and climate, raw materials use, transport and infrastructure, biodiversity and other areas, can have a significant impact on trade and investment flows and therefore on inclusive and sustainable development and on people in Low- and Lower-Middle Income Countries (LLMICs). Oftentimes, these links are overlooked. In order to achieve policy coherence for development, FGG will carry out joint analyses with partners looking at how key public policies drive investment towards or away from sustainable and inclusive food and energy systems, and a respectful relationship with the environment. Based on these analyses, which will include descriptions of new or existing alternative models, FGG and its Southern partners will develop a joint strategy to influence relevant policies. Satisfying global energy needs through fossil fuel extraction, including fracking, large-scale hydropower projects, nuclear energy, and industrial agriculture (such as flex crops and industrial tree plantations), constitutes one of the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions. It also generates unsustainable solutions that promote exclusion and increase people’s vulnerabilities. FGG focuses on demonstrating how existing policies on energy sourcing and financing (in both the North and the South) prevent more socially just, inclusive and environmentally sustainable energy systems emerging. At the same time they facilitate resource grabbing and extend corporate control over energy production. Our work creates options for the pursuit of models that represent real solutions to climate change, and that move forward, in a socially just way, toward the phasing out of fossil fuels. This dossier includes policies that are directly or indirectly related to climate and energy policies, such as policies on public energy provision and subsidies, financing and foreign direct investment, transport, infrastructure and growth corridors, extractives, agriculture, biodiversity, mining and raw materials production and use. FGG will strive to improve existing policies regulating activity around climate and energy, by strengthening community driven innovations aimed at providing for local energy needs and bringing lessons learned into policy discussions and interventions in key decision making spaces including UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and within EU institutions.
A. Enabling environment. The rights and (legal) space of people, communities and civil society actors in Low- and Lower-Middle Income Countries (LLMICs) active on trade and investment are protected. B. Capacities strengthened. Increased capacity of civil society actors to research, network and advocate on trade and investment. C. Alternatives developed. Alternative approaches to the current trade and investment regime—which are people-driven, gender inclusive and sustainable policies and practices that improve policy coherence for development, such as the Alternative Trade Mandate—have been developed, piloted and promoted by FGG and civil society actors. D. Agendas set. Decision makers prioritise improvement measures due to support from influential civil society actors, critical media attention, increased public awareness and effective scrutiny of trade and investment policies. E. Policies changed. Policies related to trade and investment have been improved, so that they advance policy coherence for development. F. Practice changed. Improved trade and investment policies and processes are implemented and enforced.
Civil society; Governments; International institutions; Private sector actors.
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
516044
516044
516044
516044
516045
132000
132000
132000
132000
132000
208063
Exp FoEE 2018 ToC2
Friends of the Earth Europe
145682
Exp FoEE 2016 ToC2
Friends of the Earth Europe
523642
Budget used MD ToC2 2017
Milieudefensie
366513
Budget used MD ToC2 2018
Milieudefensie
132000
Disbursement FoEE 2016 1/1 ToC2
Milieudefensie
132000
Disbursement FoEE 2019 1/1 ToC2
Milieudefensie
372499
Exp MD 2019 ToC2
158828
Exp FoEE 2017 ToC2
Friends of the Earth Europe
583065
Budget used MD ToC2 2016
Milieudefensie
132000
Disbursement FoEE 2020 1/2 ToC2
Milieudefensie
226151
Exp MD 2020 ToC2
231912
Exp FoEE 2020 ToC2
Friends of the Earth Europe
132000
Disbursement FoEE 2017 1/1 ToC2
Milieudefensie
583065
Exp MD 2016 ToC2
523642
Exp MD 2017 ToC2
366513
Exp MD 2018 ToC2
226151
Budget used MD ToC2 2020
Milieudefensie
372499
Budget used MD ToC2 2019
Milieudefensie
132000
Disbursement FoEE 2018 1/1 ToC2
Milieudefensie
263018
Disbursement FoEE 2020 2/2 ToC2 (over/underspent 2016-2020)
Milieudefensie
178533
Exp FoEE 2019 ToC2
Friends of the Earth Europe
Outcome C: Alternatives Developed
Alternative approaches to the current trade and investment regime—which are people-driven, gender inclusive and sustainable policies and practices that improve policy coherence for development, such as the Alternative Trade Mandate—have been developed, piloted and promoted by FGG and civil society actors.
2.C
# alternative approaches to the current trade and investment regime developed with CSOs in LLMICs that have been developed, piloted and/or promoted.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE2(1):] In addition to argumentation that had been developed in earlier years, based on developments in the context, in 2016 FoE Europe and FoE International issued several new publications on the risks of ISDS and its proposed successor ICS. One example is FoE Europe's publication 'Investment court system, ISDS in disguise: 10 reasons why the EU's proposal doesn't fix a flawed system'. [FoEE3(1):] In May 2016, FoE Europe presented an alternative to the European Commission's proposal for a Regulation concerning measures to safeguard the security of gas supply (the 'Winter package'), presented by the EC in February 2016, and participated in policy discussions. Instead of promoting the development of new gas infrastructure (pipelines and liquid natural gas terminals to enable gas imports from various countries, including from the Global South) and encouraging more investments in this sector, FoE Europe has advocated in favour of a phase-out of fossil fuel infrastructures to organise the energy transition needed to become fossil free asap, which is the only possible way to achieve the Paris Agreement objectives. FoE Europe's proposals have been discussed, partly through initiatives of MEPs who supported some of the proposals. Some elements were incorporated in the final version of the Winter package text, but the overall version of the strategy unfortunately showed far from the required ambition. With its advocacy work against renewing and expanding the EU fossil fuel infrastructure, FoE Europe is responding to the request of the FoE member groups from the Global South to ensure that governments in the Global North recognise their 'climate debt' – the North's historical responsibility for greenhouse gasses, commit to the necessary emissions cuts and ensure that European gas consumption does not contribute to even more negative environmental and social impacts in developing countries due to gas extraction there. With its Winter package, the EC risks creating a new fossil fuel lock-in, potentially driving (political and financial) priorities away from renewables and energy efficiency.
[FoEE1(1):] A comprehensive Friends of the Earth paper on sustainable approaches to trade and investment policy (with respect to climate and the environment) has been discussed with CSOs in Europe and LLMICs, and has been launched and promoted by FoE Europe in collaboration with these FoE groups. [FoEE2(2):] Two sets of alternatives have been developed and promoted in a collaboration of FoE Europe with Southern CSOs to ensure that EU energy policies stay within the 1.5-degree carbon budget.
[FoEE1i(1)]: In February 2018 FoE Europe with 162 organisations including TNI and Milieudefensie launched a 'Civil Society Statement: EU Trade and Investment Policy must be democratised'. [FoEE1ii(1)]: In April 2018 FoE Europe launched a proposal for a fair and sustainable trade agenda (based on the proposal by Milieudefensie that was reported upon in 2017 under 2.C MD1), published in the report 'Setting course for sustainable trade - a new trade agenda that serves people and the environment'. This report, which was presented to MEPs and over 50 CSOs at two events in the European Parliament in 2018, provides an analysis of globalisation and trade agreements, and includes 39 proposals for a fair and sustainable trade agenda. Based on the proposal FoE Europe developed and launched in May 2018 a tool to score how far trade agreements, or the negotiation mandates for trade agreements, contribute to sustainable economies: 'Checklist: An equitable and sustainable trade agreement?'. This checklist was subsequently used to scrutinize the EU-Indonesia free trade agreement proposal published by the European Commision (CEPA). FoE Europe published the result in July 2018 in the report 'Sustainable trade? Testing the EU-Indonesia Free Trade Agreement': “The current CEPA draft indicates that the agreement is not going to contribute to creating sustainable and fair economies [...]. The proposed agreement would not promote the exchange of sustainable products or reduce the trade in unsustainable ones. Instead, it is set to give unjustified privileges to large companies, and harm local economies and small-scale farmers. Small tweaks would not be enough to improve this agreement – the EU needs to start afresh and put sustainability and equity at the core of its approach to international trade.” [FoEE2(0)]: FoE Europe worked with CSOs in Mozambique, Nigeria and elsewhere on connected gas infrastructure projects in Europe and the LLMIC in question. [Not counted here, see 2.B FoEE2 and 2.D FoEE4]. [MD3(1)]: In the context of the Dutch Climate Agreement negotiations, Milieudefensie contributed to a call from MVO Platform to the Dutch Government in August 2018 to broaden its focus on CO2 emissions from corporations. While in the Climate Agreement only corporate CO2 emissions within the Netherlands are taken into account, MVO Platform called upon the Dutch government to also address the CO2 emissions abroad of the Dutch industry, aiming at a reduction of these emissions that shall not be used to decrease its emission reduction targets in the Netherlands. Furthermore MVO Platform called upon the Dutch government to ensure that CO2 emission reduction initiatives in the Netherlands shall not lead to higher CO2 emissions abroad, such as is the case with the use of palm oil as biofuel.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[MD1(1):] In June 2017 Milieudefensie published a Trade Agenda for an Equitable and Sustainable Economy with recommendations and specific policy proposals for the Dutch trade and investment policy (for which input from the FoE network and FGG members was used). Furthermore, Milieudefensie, TNI, SOMO and Greenpeace presented a 'Position Paper on the Enforceability of Trade and Sustainable Development Chapters in EU Trade and Investment Treaties' to the Advisory Group to the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which critically assesses the government’s positions on trade and investment policy. The organisations also contributed to a parliamentary hearing on trade policy in September. [FoEE2(1):] FoE Europe continued developing a counter narrative against the inclusion of investment protection in trade agreements. It published a new briefing paper on the proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC): 'The Multilateral Investment Court Locking in ISDS: Ten Reasons why the EU's proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court doesn't fix a fundamentally flawed system'. A speakers’ tour to four European countries was organised to highlight the problems with investment provisions in the EU-Canada agreement CETA, as well as to raise awareness about the proposed MIC. FoE Europe participated in the EU consultation on the MIC. Furtermore, FoE Europe, Both Ends, SOMO, TNI and CEO 22 September organised a large conference in Brussels, 'The EU's Multilateral Investment Court and its alternatives' on the issue, including speakers from South Africa and Ecuador. [FoEE3(1):] FoE Europe commissioned a research report, 'Natural Gas and Climate Change' by Prof. Kevin Anderson and Dr. John Broderick, to investigate the compatibility of continued gas use in the European Union with the Paris Climate Agreement. The report concluded that continued use of gas in Europe's energy sector is incompatible with the Paris Agreement. In its accompanying report 'Can the climate afford Europe's gas addiction?', FoE Europe highlighted the impact of gas on both the Paris Agreement and on poor and vulnerable communities in the Global South, and called on the EU to transform its energy system to be fossil free by 2030. The alternative presented in the report relates to the urgency with which Europe needs to phase out all fossil fuels: EU countries can afford just nine more years of burning gas and other fossil fuels at the current rate before they will have exhausted their share of the earth's remaining carbon budget for maximum temperature rises of 2°C. This work and FoE Europe's work on the EU's Projects of Common Interest policy (see 1.B) may have contributed to the European Commission for the first time using its ‘Green Revolution Scenario’ model (assuming the lowest gas-demand scenario by 2035) to base its analysis on where new gas infrastructure should be built, which potentially reduces the number of gas projects and reduces the priorities given to gas projects.
[MD1(1):] Publication on more environmentally sustainable and socially just forms of trade and investment, supported by several Dutch CSO's. [FoEE2(1):] Clear argumentation is developed against the inclusion of ISDS mechanisms in current trade negotiations and future trade agreements. [FoEE3(2)]: FoEE, in close cooperation with Southern and European member groups, develops and launches 2 proposals to alter the EU energy and climate policy in order to reduce its contribution to climate change.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1)]: FoE Europe and an Indonesia CSO will launch concrete proposals on how to address the impacts of palm oil production in the EU-Indonesia trade negotiations. [FoEE2(1)]: FoE Europe and at least 5 LLMIC and international groups will launch concrete proposals to influence the negotiations at UNCITRAL (UN Commission on International Trade Law) on the establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court.
[FoEE1(1)]: In 2019 FoE Europe and an Indonesian CSO launched a paper 'No palm oil in the EU-Indonesia trade and investment agreement' and promoted their recommendation regarding palm oil and the EU-Indonesia trade negotiations (CEPA). This was used in advocacy with EU and Indonesian negotiators. Large-scale oil palm plantation expansion leads to land grab and the devastation of natural livelihood resources of the Indonesian people depending on the forests. [FoEE2(1)]: Following the MIC capacity building workshop in Casablanca (see 2.B FoEE4), FoE Europe, TNI and others worked with African CSOs and trade unions (of which 18 from LLMICs Togo, Uganda, Ghana, Benin, Kenya, Nigeria, Guinea, Senegal and Tanzania) on an advocacy letter 'Letter from Africa CSOs and trade unions to African delegates at the UNCITRAL round' with recommendations regarding the MIC to African negotiators at UNCITRAL, not to globally institutionalise the ISDS system that gives investors enormous power over governments and people in (a.o.) African countries to claim compensation for laws and regulations that harm their profits. This letter was send 15 January 2020. [FoEE3(1)]: In the running up to the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) Conference in December 2019 on a revision of the ECT, FoE Europe and TNI in cooperation with CEO, and in the framework of the Seattle to Brussels network, organised an 'Open Letter on the Energy Charter Treaty' from civil society to national governments, European Commission and European Parliament, sent 9 December 2019, with the proposal to end fossil fuel protection in the revised ECT. The letter was signed by 278 environmental, climate, consumer, development, and trade related civil society groups from the 53 ECT member states, of which LLMICs Indonesia, Philippines, India, Mozambique, Uganda, Nigeria, Ghana, Togo, Guinee, Senegal, Gambia, El Salvador and Ukraine. In its December 2019 publication 'Beyond repair? The Energy Charter Treaty' FoE Europe explains that "So long as it provides excessive protection for energy investors, the ECT will allow them to obstruct public policies aiming to carry out the energy transition, mitigate climate change, protect the environment, bring energy under public or citizen control, and fight energy poverty. The ECT is in its very nature in contradiction with the commitments of the EU and EU Member States to the Paris Agreement on climate change and further necessary measures to reach carbon neutrality by 2050." This is the more important as the ECT Secretariat seeks to expand its membership, especially to African countries, which would be an obstacle to the necessary energy transition in these countries and, while Northern countries are greening their energy sectors, further increase the developmental backlog of Southern countries. FoE Europe's position gained media coverage throughout Europe, with Milieudefensie contributing to media coverage in the Netherlands. 23 September 2019, on the eve of the EU Energy Council Meeting in Brussels, FoE Europe, also on behalf of TNI, SOMO, Both ENDS and other CSOs, had already called upon the EU Member States' Energy Ministers to end the membership of the EU and its Member States in the Energy Charter Treaty. The organisations advocate that leaving the Energy Charter Treaty is an essential first step to deal with the climate emergency, to demonstrate that the EU is a genuine leader in the fight against climate change. [FoEE4(1)]: FoE Europe together with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) in the framework of the Seattle to Brussels network initiated an open civil society letter '340+ organisations call on the EU to immediately halt trade negotiations with Brazil', sent 17 June 2019, calling on the European Commission and EU Member States to halt negotiations for an EU-Mercosur free trade agreement; guarantee that no Brazilian products sold in the EU, nor the financial markets underpinning them, are leading to increases in deforestation, land grabbing of native lands or human rights violations; demand confirmation, with material evidence, that the Brazilian government will fulfill its commitments as part of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change; increase support for Brazilian civil society, including strengthening the implementation of the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy and proactive consultations with Brazilian civil society organisations that address human rights and the democratic functioning of Brazilian civil society; and to monitor and respond to human rights violations and strengthen mechanisms to protect human rights defenders. For those most at risk, including Indigenous peoples and environmental defenders, the EU should provide direct and urgent support where required, including through political representations. The letter was signed by more than 340 CSOs including from LLMICs Bolivia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haïti, Honduras, Paraguay, and including Both ENDS, TNI and SOMO. [FoEE5(1)]: In June, FoE Europe, FoE International, TNI and CEO published a report 'Red carpet courts: 10 stories of how the rich and powerful hijacked justice' presenting emblematic, but not so well known, ISDS lawsuits, which have been filed, threatened or decided since 2015, a.o. in LLMICs Vietnam and Zimbabwe and UMICs Thailand, Colombia and Ecuador. The report shows that ISDS – and its re-branded EU format ICS – creates significant and systemic public risks, without any corresponding benefits to society, and exposes the the threat that ISDS poses to democracy, public budgets, the integrity of host states’ judicial systems and to basic human, social and environmental rights. The NGOs propose to end all forms of ISDS, and put people’s interests ahead of corporations’ profits.
[FoEE1(1)]: FoE Europe will develop a set of demands and proposals for a European Green New Deal. This will be based on Southern calls for a complete phase out of fossil fuels and a rapid and fair energy transition in Europe, in order to show global leadership.
[FoEE1(2)]: FoE Europe has developed a set of 'Principles for Transformation: How the European Green Deal can achieve Systemic Change' with proposals how the EU can contribute to a fair (energy) transition in Europe. The principles are: Urgency and scale; An economy within Earth’s limits; Equity; People’s solutions and participation; and Global justice. FoE Europe also launched a paper 'From Fragility to Resilience: How EU Covid-19 recovery plans can tackle pandemic and planetary breakdown'. FoE Europe calls on the EU institutions and EU member states to take action in response to the Covid-19 crisis under the following four pillars: Solidarity with people; Building resilient ecosystems and tackling climate change; Creating an economy that cares for people and planet; and Ensuring and strengthening democracy.
[MD2(1)]: Milieudefensie commissioned the research 'Vuile handen. Een vingerafdruk van Nederland in de mondiale economie' (report published September 2020) that revealed that Dutch CO2 emissions abroad (especially in the Global South) are almost twice as big as the climate pollution within the Dutch borders, when the role of the Netherlands as commodity producer, commodity consumer as well as facilitator of trade in commodities are taken into account. The Netherlands is the largest palm oil trader in the European Union; Dutch imports and exports of petroleum products are five to six times larger than expected based on the size of the Dutch economy; and the Netherlands is the fifth largest beef exporter in the world. Milieudefensie uses the findings in its advocacy work in the Netherlands aiming at policy coherence for development: Policies on trade and investment, climate and energy, agriculture, corporate accountability and other topics, should be brought in line with the Paris Climate Agreement, and take into account the related CO2 emissions outside of the Netherlands. The research was commissioned in line with the demands from CSOs from the Global South participating in FoE International's Economic Justice , Climate Justice & Energy, Forests & Biodiversity; and Food Sovereignty Programmes, who urge the Northern CSOs to limit the global climate impact of Northern consumption and production patterns.
Outcome A: Enabling Environment
The rights and (legal) space of people, communities and civil society actors in Low- and Lower-Middle Income Countries (LLMICs) active on trade and investment are protected.
2.A.a
# mechanisms put in place or improved by governments that guarantee access for civil society to democratic decision making processes related to trade and investment, including the right to resist developments.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1):] In 2016, the European Commission continued its efforts to make the TTIP negotiations more transparent by publishing new position papers on topics in the TTIP negotiations, as well as textual proposals for legal text presented by the EU to the US negotiators. This was the first and most comprehensive publication of this kind in an EU trade negotiation ever. The EU started publishing such documents concerning TTIP in November 2014, after public pressure to which FGG members TNI, SOMO, Both ENDS, FoE Europe and Milieudefensie contributed. All documents can be found on the EU's website: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1230. However, consolidated texts between the EU and the US have not been published. [MD2(1):] Although individual Dutch citizens are not yet involved, Dutch CSOs representing their supporter base are regularly consulted on CETA and TTIP by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. After the public and political debate on TTIP and CETA, to which FGG contributed, the Dutch Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation started the Breed Handelsberaad in 2016, a platform to discuss new trade and investment agreements with 17 organisations. Included are trade unions, employers’ organisations, the association of Dutch municipalities and CSOs such as FGG members Both ENDS, SOMO and Milieudefensie. Its first meeting was held on 25 January 2017. Another example is that Milieudefensie was asked by the Ministry in 2016 to give input to a KU Leuven study commissioned by the Ministry on the options for a chapter on sustainability in trade and investment agreements. It has been crucial for future citizen involvement also in Southern countries that FoE Europe and Milieudefensie, together with TNI, SOMO and Both ENDS, have used the TTIP and CETA negotiations, including ISDS/ICS provisions, to facilitate the debate on investment protection. An increased public, media and political interest in trade and investment was achieved by raising awareness around the TTIP negotiations. TTIP made people in Europe and the Netherlands realise how unfair trade and investment agreements can negatively affect countries and people. FoE will also use this awareness to influence current and future trade and investment treaties between the Netherlands/EU and developing countries. Southern FoE groups have been highlighting the problems with ISDS for over a decade. The current debate in Europe helps them to voice their concerns. It has also made many Southern countries more aware of problems related to ISDS.
[MD1(1):] The Dutch government will decide in favour of a substantial reform of its BITs with respect to ISDS/ICS. [MD2(1):] The Dutch government will reject EU trade and investment agreements that contain ISDS/ICS provisions and/or that have insufficient sustainability chapters.
[MD1i(1)]: The new Dutch Model BIT developed and adopted by the Dutch government, and presented to Dutch Parliament by the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation on 26 October 2018, in comparison to the existing BITs, has been improved with respect to the power balance between public interest on the one hand, and corporations on the other. The model text (i) arranges for the right of governments to regulate in the public interest; (ii) confirms that if the government in the country of residence doesn't act against misconduct of a company, legal proceedings can be initiated applying the law in the home country of this company; and (iii) arranges for several improvements in the provisions for investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), e.g. as regards the independence and impartiality of the arbitration, the possibility for citizens and CSOs to join a procedure as amicus curiae, and the exclusion of letterbox companies from the ISDS provisions (which could lead to a 77% decrease of ISDS cases via Dutch BITs - see D.1 MD1). Such improvements have been advocated for by Both ENDS, SOMO, TNI and Milieudefensie in the past years, amongst others in the Trade Policy Advisory Group (Breed Handelsberaad) of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Proposals pursued by these organisations have been based also on inputs and demands from civil society in LLMICs, such as shared by FoE member groups from LLMICs participating in FoEI's Economic Justice Programme. [Other improvements in the Dutch Model BIT are reported under 2.E MD1; A selection of relevant advocacy work is included under 2.D MD2]. [MD1ii(1)]: As mentioned under the previous outcome description, the Dutch government published the new Model BIT text prior to the (re)negotiation of the BITs. This act in itself can be considered an improvement for democracy. The same holds for the decision of the Dutch government to hold a public consultation of the draft text in May and June 2018, and the fact that inputs of FGG member organisations and Dutch citizens have actually been used by the Dutch government to further improve the model text, as could be seen in the final version presented to Dutch Parliament 26 October 2018. Both ENDS, SOMO, TNI and Milieudefensie have been advocating for this transparency in the past years, including through a letter sent to Dutch Parliament and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 5 July 2017. [MD2(1)]: In 2018 several developments indicate shifts in the Dutch and EU governments' thinking about the desirability of provisions for investor-state dispute settlement and for sustainability in trade and investment agreements. The Japan-EU Economic Partnership Agreement signed 17 July 2018 doesn't include an ISDS provision as ISDS is not acceptable for the Dutch government and the EU, as can be read in the public minutes of the Breed Handelsberaad of 21 February 2018. It is likely that this development is connected to awareness in Dutch and European society and politics of the environmental, developmental and other societal risks of investor-state dispute settlement that undermines democracy. Both ENDS, SOMO, TNI, Milieudefensie and FoE Europe contributed to this awareness with advocacy work in the past years, leading to millions of European citizens signing petitions against ISDS. Both the mentioned Japan-EU trade agreement, and the EU-Vietnam trade agreement concluded 25 June 2018 contain sustainability chapters. [FoEE3(1)]: In the meeting of UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) Working Group III on Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform in October/November 2018 in Vienna, FoE Europe publicly denounced the conflict of interests of the vast majority of academics in this Working Group, and advocated within the Academic Forum for disclosure of financial interests. This resulted in a new policy of disclosure of financial interests in UNCITRAL's Academic Forum on ISDS, announced in January 2019. Furthermore, FoE Europe found and exposed in the media that the Belgian government had offered French-speaking African countries the services of Belgian law firms to represent them in the UNCITRAL negotiations, thus contributing to conflicts of interest within UNCITRAL.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1):] European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker stated in September 2017 that ‘Open trade must go hand in hand with open policy making’ and that the EC will from now on publish in full all draft negotiating mandates it proposes to the European Council. The TTIP negotiations have been suspended since November 2016, with little prospect of being resumed in the near future. However, other trade negotiations are ongoing and the level of transparency has generally increased since TTIP. Draft mandates for the Multilateral Investment Court and negotiations with Australia and New Zealand have been published, as well as some EU proposals for the EU-Indonesia negotiations. However, there is still a complete lack of publication of consolidated texts. [FoEE/MD1(iii)(1):] The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) ruled in May 2017 that trade agreements with investment provisions need to receive scrutiny by national parliaments of the EU member states. The CJEU ruled so after the European Commission requested the Court's opinion to determine whether the EU has exclusive competence enabling it to sign such agreements. The EU member states subsequently submitted observations to the Court. The massive public engagement (including from jurists) and political engagement with the TTIP, CETA and other trade and investment treaties (to which FoE Europe, Milieudefensie, other FGG members and their Southern partner organisations contributed) may have contributed to the EC's request, and to the content of the EU member states' opinions. [FoEE2(i)(0):] In November 2017, with the aim of improving civil society participation in decision-making processes of the European Commission, FoE Europe and CIEL published an assessment of the EC consultation on the Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) that ran from December 2016 to March 2017. The organisations concluded that it appeared that the public consultation was merely a window-dressing exercise and that results were misrepresented by the EC to wrongfully claim support for the MIC proposal. Media coverage was achieved in the Netherlands, among other places. A Dutch MP and an MEP have subsequently raised the issue in their parliaments. In 2018 FoEE and CIEL will file a complaint to the European Ombudsman on this case. [Not counted] [MD2(ii)(1):] Milieudefensie, Both Ends and SOMO participated in the Trade Policy Advisory Group (Breed Handelsberaad) for the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which critically assesses the government's position on trade and investment policy. Advocacy by SOMO, TNI, Both Ends and Milieudefensie, together with Greenpeace, Ondernemers van Nu and Transparency International Nederland, regarding lack of transparency around the revision of the Dutch model bilateral investment treaty (BIT) contributed to a resolution by the Dutch parliament urging publication of the new model BIT, and the promise of the Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation to share this model with parliament. The Minister already announced some improvements to the proposed model BIT, including exclusion of letterbox companies, inclusion of certain obligations for investors, and stricter rules on arbitrators. In May, Milieudefensie had further contributed to public awareness on the topic of investment protection (via letterbox companies in the Netherlands) in a campaign exposing five cases of environmental and social problems in which transnational extractive industry corporations used ISDS in Dutch and other BITs against governments in the Global South: Nigeria, Uganda, Indonesia, Ecuador and Colombia.
[FoEE1(1):] TTIP negotiations have been made more transparent. [MD2(1):] Dutch citizens are consulted on CETA and/or TTIP.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[MD1(1):] The Dutch government will reject EU trade and investment agreements that contain investor-state dispute settlement provisions such as ISDS or ICS, and other elements such as regulatory cooperation that imply a shift of power from democratically elected parliaments to transnational corporations, and/or that have insufficient sustainability chapters (which would directly or indirectly lead to environmental damage in LLMICs and the devastation of natural livelihood resources of communities in these countries), as is being demanded from Southern as well as Northern governments by Southern as well as Northern CSOs participating in FoE International's Economic Justice Programme, on whose behalf Milieudefensie together with other FGG members will advocate.
[MD1(0)]: Outcome not yet achieved. Dutch parliament though became more critical towards ISDS, also in the form of ICS, in the EU-Canada trade and investment agreement. See 2.D MD4, MD5. [Not counted]. [MD2(0)]: [The new Dutch model BIT, which is to be used for (re)negotiations of trade and investment agreements with partner countries (published 22 March 2019), and to which SOMO, TNI, Both ENDS and Milieudefensie have contributed, has already been counted in Milieudefensie's report on 2018].
[MD1(1):] The Dutch government will reject EU trade and investment agreements that contain investor-state dispute settlement provisions such as ISDS or ICS, and other elements such as regulatory cooperation that imply a shift of power from democratically elected parliaments to transnational corporations including fossil fuel companies, and/or that have insufficient sustainability chapters (which would directly or indirectly lead to environmental damage in LLMICs and the devastation of natural livelihood resources of communities in these countries, as well as prevent a just energy transition in the Global South and North in line with the Paris Climate Agreement), as is being demanded from Southern as well as Northern governments by Southern as well as Northern CSOs participating in FoE International's Economic Justice Programme, on whose behalf Milieudefensie together with other FGG members will advocate.
[MD1(0)]: 18 February 2020, almost the entire opposition in Dutch parliament voted against ratification of CETA. 12 and 13 February, during the parliamentary debate on the ratification of CETA, several resolutions were passed, a.o. on excluding P.O. Box firms from investment protection under CETA, and on evaluating ICS after five years.
Milieudefensie, largely in collaboration with trade unions and other CSOs including Both ENDS, TNI and SOMO, and informed by the position of CSOs from the Global North and the Global South, had contributed to informing Dutch parliament (Tweede Kamer as well as Eerste Kamer) a.o. via letters on 11 February (letter 'CETA is door de tijd ingehaald'); on 28 March (letter 'CETA: een achterhaald verdrag'); on 12 May (position paper presented by Milieudefensie during hearing Eerste Kamer 'CETA is hyperglobalisering, terwijl we een duurzame en weerbare economie nodig hebben'); on 7 June (letter arranged by Milieudefensie from 30 judicial experts 'Handelsverdrag CETA in strijd met de grondwet' in which they object (i) to the international arbitration court created for CETA, as this is an unnecessary parallel legal system to protect the interests of foreign investors, and is contrary to the Dutch constitution, which provides that Dutch courts have jurisdiction in such matters; as well as (ii) to the transfer of legislative powers to official CETA working groups, which constitutes an erosion of the legislative powers of the Dutch parliament. The professors and lawyers also warn that CETA could be "disastrous" "to the necessary energy transition and other major policy changes". "The Netherlands cannot afford to restrict the scope for legislative and policy changes." Canadian companies will be given the opportunity via CETA to file enormous claims against Dutch climate measures, while climate provisions in CETA are not legally enforceable. They conclude that because the treaty is contrary to the constitution, CETA can only be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Dutch parliament.); a petition 'Wij stoppen CETA! Voor een eerlijke en duurzame wereld' in collaboration with SOMO and TNI, and several opeds, a.o. on 10 February in Trouw ('Kamer, zeg ‘nee’ tegen handelsverdrag CETA', in which Both ENDS and Milieudefensie address the impact of agreements like CETA for developing countries) and on 12 February 2020 ('Leidt vrijhandelsverdrag Ceta tot stabiliteit in stormachtige tijden of juist tot klimaatzonde?'). Several of these letters etc. were referred to in the parliamentary debates and in parliamentary questions.
Milieudefensie's position as regards CETA is based on the demands of FoE International's Economic Justice Programme, and FoE International's Climate Justice & Energy Programme, in which Southern groups ask Northern groups to advocate that the Northern countries pursue fair and sustainable trade and trade and investment agreements, and advocate against ISDS/ICS provisions like in CETA that will chill democratic decision-making processes in LLMICs and create parallel justice systems for transnational corporations, and that hinder a just energy transition (when fossil fuel companies threaten to make use of these ISDS/ICS provisions). February 2020, 70 largely Southern CSOs, from inside and outside the FoE network, and including trade unions (including from LLMICs Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Philippines, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, West Bank and Gaza Strip, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Burundi, Uganda, Nigeria, Togo, Ghana, Liberia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, Paraguay), together with Milieudefensie sent an 'Open letter to the Dutch government: a global call to vote against CETA for trade justice' to Dutch parliament requesting it to reject CETA in order to prevent that the EU's trade and investment agreement policy would be built on its ICS model. The organisations write: "Blocking CETA would stimulate a much-needed debate on how to reform the global trade system to ensure it contributes to building a sustainable and just world, instead of maximising trade volumes and corporate profits. As one of the world’s biggest importers and exporters globally, the EU plays a powerful role in setting global trade rules through bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.". The CSOs ask "Don’t push the Investment Court System on the world" and state that "International trade agreements should not focus on maximising and liberalising trade and investment by reducing the transaction costs for corporate industry; it should prioritise how trade and investment can contribute to a healthy environment, food sovereignty, decent work, a sustainable economy and halting climate change.".
After the cancellation of TTIP (the proposed EU-US trade and investment agreement) CETA would become the first EU trade and investment agreement with ISDS (ICS), and as such the model for EU trade and agreements with Southern countries as well, as the former Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Ms. Liliane Ploumen had proposed. [This outcome description refers to the target originally set for 2019 under 2.A.a. Due to a delay in the political agenda, unforeseen at the moment of preparing the 2020 workplan, the debate in Dutch parliament had not been finalised in 2019, and continued in 2020].
[MD2(0)]: Dutch parliament on 2 June 2020 adopted a resolution against the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement: it wants the EU-Mercosur deal discarded and asks the Dutch government to let the European Commission know that the Netherlands withdraws its support. This happened after advocacy from Milieudefensie on the expected contribution of the agreement to deforestation, climate change, human rights violations, food sovereignty in Latin America, and food security in the EU. Rejection of the trade deal also shows the Dutch government's interest in an enabling environment for civil society in the Mercosur countries, and its rejection of the current state of the democracy and the rule of law in one of the Mercosur countries. The trade deal only mentions human and indigenous people’s rights in its chapter on Trade and Sustainable Development, which is not legally binding and so cannot be enforced. (See also 2.B FoEE2, 2.D FoEE1). [Not counted as the negotiations with Mercosur at EU level still continue].
2.A.b
# effective legal and other grievance mechanisms adopted or improved by governments via which CSOs and communities can resolve grievances with governments and companies related to trade and investment and claim their environmental, human and worker rights.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[MD1(1):] In November 2017, the Dutch OECD NCP accepted a case filed by Milieudefensie and others against a large Dutch bank regarding the bank’s impact on climate change through its investments. It is the first ever OECD Guidelines case on climate change to be accepted by an NCP. The Dutch bank will be investigated by the NCP for having no plan to report on and reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from its financing.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
Outcome E: Policies Changed
Policies related to trade and investment are improved, so that they advance policy coherence for development.
2.E
# mechanisms, policies and regulations improved or introduced by national, regional and international government bodies to ensure policies related to trade and investment advance policy coherence for development in LLMICs.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[MD/FoEE1(1):] In 2016, the European Commission replaced the old Investor-State Dispute Settlement system (ISDS) with the Investment Court System (ICS) in CETA. While ICS doesn't address fundamental problems with investor rights, it does include some procedural improvements, such as more transparency, an appeal court and not allowing mailbox companies to file cases. In the past years, FGG has contributed to putting the risks of the ISDS system on the political agenda as well as introducing it into the public debate, both with regard to TTIP and CETA negotiations. Increased capacities and advocacy work on trade and investment have resulted in more open and diverse debates on EU trade policy (in particular around the TTIP negotiations and the finalising of the CETA agreement). Governments and parliaments are being questioned by the public and the media about controversial aspects, such as investment clauses, environment and food safety provisions. A concrete result of FoE's and other FGG members' contributions was the European Commission’s acknowledgement that the traditional ISDS mechanism (that is included in hundreds of trade agreements with Southern countries) is no longer acceptable and a reformed system has to be developed. Reform of ISDS will from now on be aimed for by the EU in all new negotiations on investment treaties, including those with Southern countries. This is an important starting point in FGG's objective of contributing to improved trade and investment policies. In the Netherlands, debate in Parliament and amongst the public was achieved that possibly has contributed to the Breed Handelsberaad (platform discussing trade principles) initiated by Minister Ploumen, and the 'reset' of the trade agenda. Furthermore, the EU made negotiations on trade and investment agreements more democratic and transparent. [MD/FoEE3(1):] On 30 September 2016, the European Union ratified the Paris Climate Agreement, thus contributing to the entry into force of the Agreement on 5 October 2016. Milieudefensie and FoE Europe together with many Southern FoE member groups have contributed to public and political support for the Climate Agreement in the Netherlands and Europe in the past years. However, the Dutch and EU climate policies are still insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement goals.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[MD3(1):] On 4 July 2017, the Dutch government ratified the Paris Climate Agreement. Milieudefensie and other FGG members together with many Southern FoE member groups have contributed to public and political support for the Climate Agreement in the Netherlands and Europe in the past years. In 2015 Milieudefensie mobilised massive public support to advocate in the Netherlands for the FoE network's demand for a 1.5 degree global warming limit. In Paris, the Dutch government successfully lobbied for this goal being additionally mentioned in the Paris Climate Agreement (before the 2015 UNFCCC COP 21, the consensus was that the negotiations would only address the formal 2.0 degree limit). However, the Dutch climate policies are still insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement goals.
[MD1(1)]: The new Dutch Model BIT developed and adopted by the Dutch government, and presented to Dutch Parliament by the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation on 26 October 2018, in comparison to the existing BITs, has been improved with respect to the inclusion of provisions related to the environment and human rights. The model text (i) arranges for the right of governments to take environmental measures; (iv) refers to international treaties on climate, the environment, human rights and corporate social responsibility; (v) obliges investors to respect national law in the country of residence, including environmental laws; and (vi) arranges that in investor-state dispute settlement the arbiters may take the conduct of corporations into account including their compliance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Such improvements have been advocated for by Milieudefensie, Both ENDS, SOMO and TNI in the past years, amongst others in the Trade Policy Advisory Group (Breed Handelsberaad) of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Proposals pursued by these organisations have been based also on inputs and demands from civil society in LLMICs, such as shared by FoE member groups from LLMICs participating in FoEI's Economic Justice Programme. [Other improvements in the Dutch Model BIT are reported under 2.A MD1; A selection of relevant advocacy work is included under 2.D MD2] [Numbering of sub-outcomes (i), (iv) etc. is aligned with the outcome description under 2A MD1].
[MD/FoEE1(1):] Improvement of trade policies has been introduced: (i) environmentally harmful elements in TTIP and CETA such as lowering of environmental and health standards are considered and/or (ii) democratically unjust mechanisms such as ISDS and regulatory cooperation are improved or removed. [FoEE2(1):] National, regional or European government bodies take at least one decision that is in line with proposals advocated by FoEE in relation to climate and energy policies, in order to reduce the contribution to climate change.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1)]: After advocacy work of FoE Europe and Indonesian CSOs, The European Commission takes measures in an EU-Indonesia trade agreement that address the negative impacts of palm oil production.
[FoEE1(0)]: EU-Indonesia trade negotiations are still ongoing. Due to strong pressure from Indonesian and European CSOs (see 1.B FoEE1 and previous years' reports) and the strong public debate about the negative impacts of palm oil production (a.o. on the basis of FoE Europe's and Milieudefensie's advocacy work together with CSOs from palm oil producing countries in South East Asia and Africa), the EU has not yet published any proposals regarding palm oil in the CEPA negotiations. EU negotiators have confirmed that palm oil is a hot issue in the negotiations, as Indonesia is pushing for increased exports to the EU. (See also 2.D FoEE3) [Not counted]. [MD2(0)]: [The new Dutch model BIT, which is to be used for (re)negotiations of trade and investment agreements with partner countries (published 22 March 2019), and to which SOMO, TNI, Both ENDS and Milieudefensie have contributed, has already been counted in Milieudefensie's report on 2018].
[FoEE1(1)]: The EU will launch a plan for a Green New Deal including concrete measures for a fair energy transition and increased reduction targets for CO2, to the content of which FoE Europe and LLMIC CSOs have contributed through advocacy work. This will allow the EU to credibly engage in UN climate negotiations in the 2020 COP in Glasgow.
[FoEE1(1)]: As part of the European Green Deal, in September 2020 the European Commission has officially increased its ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% in the year 2030 instead of the previously agreed 40%. FoE Europe and other Green 10 partners had several meetings with European Commissioners where they advocated for a 65% reduction. FoE Europe plead for an ambitious EU climate policy in line with the demands from LLMIC CSOs participating in FoE International's Climate Justice & Energy Programme.
Outcome D: Agendas Set
Decision makers prioritise improvement measures due to support from influential civil society actors, critical media attention, increased public awareness and effective scrutiny of trade and investment policies.
2.D
# proposals for improvement to policies related to trade and investment discussed by national, regional and international government bodies and/or by private policy makers, in academia, public agenda, media and social movements.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1):] In Spring 2016, the European Commission published new proposals for the chapters on Regulatory Cooperation in TTIP. The new proposals took out some of the critical elements, such as obligations for member states to take part in Regulatory Cooperation and the proposal to establish a Regulatory Cooperation Body. FoE Europe, Milieudefensie and other FGG members have been advocating on the risks of Regulatory Cooperation. Investment protection has become a highly debated topic in Europe and elsewhere, where citizens as well as decision-makers have become aware of both procedural and substantive problems with ISDS systems. [MD3(1):] A Dutch Climate Bill, based on a draft Climate Act launched by Milieudefensie in 2008, was presented by political parties GL and PvdA in November 2015. The Bill proposes a greenhouse gas reduction of 55% in 2030 and 95% in 2050 in comparison to 1990, and 100% sustainable energy in 2050. In the first half of 2016, Milieudefensie took part in the consultation rounds resulting in the draft Climate Act submitted to the Dutch Parliament by GL and PvdA in September 2016. A revised version of the Climate Act, now also signed by SP, D66 and CU, was submitted to Parliament in January 2017. This law would ensure that the Dutch climate policy is in line with the Paris Agreement's 1.5 degree ambition. On 26 October 2016, a group of 38 large Dutch companies that united themselves in the Transition Coalition during the Dutch climate summit (Nationale Klimaattop) openly supported a Dutch climate law that aims at the implementation of the Paris Agreement. With its advocacy work for a Dutch Climate Act, Milieudefensie is responding to the request of the FoE member groups from the Global South to ensure that governments in the Global North recognise their 'climate debt' – the North's historical responsibility for greenhouse gasses – and to commit to the necessary emissions cuts. [MD4(2):] Several parliamentary questions and votes in 2016 in the Dutch Parliament were introduced (1) aiming at preventing negative environmental and climate impacts from TTIP and CETA (one vote proposing a carve-out clause for climate policy development in investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms), and (2) on a democratic decision-making process in the CETA ratification process for the Investment Court System (ICS). [MD5(3):] In 2016, Milieudefensie (in some cases together with SOMO and TNI) found support for proposals for far-reaching modifications to or the rejection of TTIP and CETA amongst (1) Dutch municipalities and district water boards (additional to those that had declared themselves 'TTIP-free' already in 2015); (2) the Dutch SER (Socio-Economic Council) that released an advisory statement in April 2016 in which it argues for many issues that FGG members have been advocating for, including a mechanism for monitoring, enforcement and dispute settlement for sustainability provisions in trade and investment agreements. As a result, the Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation commissioned a study at KU Leuven to advise on possible options for this. Further, the Minister in her non-paper from 1 September 2016 'Reforming EU trade policy: protection, not protectionism' pleads for an approach that ensures that trade and investment agreements help implement the climate agenda set out in the Paris Agreement. Lastly, (3) in April 2016, eight Dutch farmers’ organisations and Milieudefensie issued a joint manifesto 'Keep the farm TTIP-free'. [FoEE6(1):] In September 2016, parliamentarians from the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (in which MEPs and Latin American MPs participate) that were approached by FoE Europe and Latin American CSOs in a joint effort in the period 2014-2016 adopted a non-binding resolution: 'Opportunities and challenges of shale gas in Latin American and Caribbean countries (LAC) and EU Member States'. This resolution acknowledges the environmental, health and climate impacts of fracking, calls on governments to stop relying on fossil fuels and not to subsidise oil and gas projects with public funds, and recognises that the current promotion and exploitation of oil and gas weakens the development of renewable energy sources. 150 amendments to the initial text from 2014 (which promoted the alleged benefits of the shale gas industry and minimised all the impacts generated by fracking) were submitted. [FoEE7(1):] On 30 November 2016, the European Commission in an amendment to the EU Directive on Energy Efficiency proposed to increase the binding EU 2030 energy efficiency target from 27% to 30%. FoE Europe contributed to this success by taking the leading role in a consortium of CSOs working on this topic and running an advocacy-oriented campaign, particularly focusing on informing the European Commission and the European Council. FoE Europe regularly produced briefings for decision-makers and attended a multitude of meetings to promote the positive economic and climate benefits of moving the energy efficiency target up. With its advocacy work in favour of promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy and against expanding the EU fossil fuel infrastructure, FoE Europe is responding to the request of the FoE member groups from the Global South to ensure that governments in the Global North recognise their 'climate debt' – the North's historical responsibility for greenhouse gasses – and to commit to the necessary emissions cuts.
[FoEE1(1):] A package of proposals related to the establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court has been presented to and discussed with CSOs, journalists, academics and EU policy and decision-makers. [MD1(1):] With respect to Dutch BITs and EU trade agreements, the Dutch government will improve its ambitions for sustainability chapters in the BITs, also with respect to their binding character and the inclusion of sanctions. Milieudefensie will specifically propagate coherence of trade and investment policies with the Paris Climate Agreement.
[FoEE1(1)]: FoE Europe participated in two meetings of UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) Working Group III on Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform, in April 2018 in New York and in October/November 2018 in Vienna, where the EU proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) was discussed. In these meetings FoE Europe presented its analysis on investor rights published in November 2017, 'The Multilateral Investment Court - Locking in ISDS: Ten reasons why the EU’s proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court doesn’t fix a fundamentally flawed system', and discussed it with representatives of governments from France, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Cameroun, Mali, Gabon, Togo, Colombia, Argentina and Ecuador, as well as with the EU representation. FoE Europe participates in the CSO coalition which follows the MIC negotiations. 30 October 2018 the coalition released a statement 'More Than 300 Civil Society Organizations From 73 Countries Urge Fundamental Reform at UNCITRAL’s Investor-State Dispute Settlement Discussions' signed amongst others by FoE Europe, FoE International, TNI, Both ENDS, SOMO, ActionAid, Milieudefensie and CSOs from LLMICs Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, DR Congo, Egypt, El Salvador, Georgia, Ghana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nigeria, Philippines, Senegal, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Vanuatu. [MD2(2)]: The new Dutch Model BIT (referred to under 2.A MD1 and 2.E MD1) indicates that the Dutch government improved its ambitions for sustainable development provisions in trade and investment agreements [1]. Milieudefensie, Both ENDS, SOMO and TNI have advocated for this in the past years. In January 2018 Milieudefensie and Both ENDS published the research report 'Bescherming voor klimaatvervuilers: Nederlandse investeringsverdragen als obstakel voor de energietransitie'. Parliamentary questions were raised on 19 January 2018 amongst others about the finding that 19% of ISDS claims in the past 30 years are related to fossil fuel investments, and that such claims could impact national climate policies and the achievement of the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. The Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation responded on 21 February 2018 that the new Dutch Model BIT will arrange that states retain the right to take environmental measures. Milieudefensie, Both ENDS, SOMO and TNI also gained broad support for their plea to exclude letterbox companies from the ISDS provisions in Dutch BITs. In January 2018 in their research report '50 jaar ISDS: Een mondiaal machtsmiddel voor multinationals gecreëerd en groot gemaakt door Nederland' the organisations had exposed that 77% of ISDS claims via Dutch BITs was filed by letterbox companies. To support the pleas of the organisations, in January 2018 the organisations had organised a letter writing action directed at the Minister to which more than 11,000 citizens responded, and on 9 February 2018 had organised a public debate with the participation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Dutch employers' organisation VNO-NCW. Parliamentary questions referring to the '50 jaar ISDS' report were filed 19 January 2018, leading to a respons from the Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation on 21 February 2018 that she will try to exclude letterbox companies from investment protection. A vote in Dutch parliament on 22 February 2018 referring to the findings of the research report, and calling the government to exclude letterbox companies from investor-state dispute settlement provisions in the new Model BIT, was unanimously supported by all political parties [1]. [The eventual policy outcomes are reported under 2A MD1 and 2E MD1]. [FoEE3(1)]: In January to March 2018 the European Parliament (EP) for the first time extensively discussed the List of Projects of Common Interest (PCI List) proposed by the European Commission. A vote against the list, that was drafted by industry, and that includes 100+ gas infrastructure projects that are planned to be supported by the EU, but that are incompatible with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, was tabled in the EP Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. In a plenary session of the EP on 14 March 2018 a quarter of the MEPs voted against the list. FoE Europe together with a world-wide CSO coalition including CSOs from LLMICs (see 2.B FoEE2) had been opposing the list since 2017, analysing the different gas projects, developing reports and briefings, and raising public and political awareness about the climate and other impacts generated by these projects, thus forcing a public debate and political scrutiny on a matter that in previous years was considered a technical issue, and that was not voted on. [MD4(1)]: The exchange between fisher and peasant communities and CSOs from Brazil, Honduras, Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador, held within the Colombian communities of the Sinú Basin (see 1.B MD4iv), created international support from participants from the other four countries involved in the exchange for the model of autonomous territorial development proposed by Asprocig, the network of organizations of fishers, peasants, indigenous and afro-Colombian peoples of the 10 municipalities of Bajo Sinú. The model is based on the 'Biodiverse family agroecosystems', a complex sustainable system that includes agroecological practices within its territories, provision of native seeds, the use of various services like community water management and renewable energy. This alternative was developed while resisting the model of development for the region based on extractivism (oil and gas). It has the potential to be replicated in other regions of Colombia. [MD5(2)]: The Latin American network dealing with oil and gas extraction in Latin America (see 1.B MD4) with the use of materials produced with the financial support of Milieudefensie achieved that a hearing was held by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos) [1] in October 2018, to denounce the human rights violations arising from the implementation of unconventional hydrocarbon exploitation projects in the region. Furthermore, in relation to the international oil companies' plans for fracking in Vaca Muerta (Argentina), the network achieved that the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [1] in November 2018 in its 'Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Argentina' expressed concerns to the Argentine State questioning the environmental, social and climate viability of the fracking project.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE4(ii)(1):] FoE Europe continued to mobilise critical voices against ISDS, possibly contributing to statements by EU Trade Commissioners that ISDS is dead, and pushing the European Commission to launch proposals for an alternative: the Multilateral Investment Court (MIC). Because the MIC proposal does not solve the fundamental problems with investment protection (it only gives rights to investors, not obligations; it sidelines national courts; it discriminates against domestic investors; etc.), FoE Europe, with WeMove.EU and Campact, subsequently mobilised over 380,000 petitions from European citizens against the EU's proposal for a MIC. Furthermore, FoE Europe actively participated in the discussion on reforming ISDS at the United Nations Convention on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and advocated profound reforms of the current system. Southern CSOs are very critical of ISDS and the MIC, and FoE Europe's work on this topic (through advocacy, exposing, awareness-raising) is increasing the capacity of Southern CSOs to oppose ISDS/MIC. [FoEE4(iii)(1):] In September 2017, Belgium filed a request for an opinion at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the compatibility of the Investment Court System (ICS) in CETA with the European Treaties. If the ICS is found to be incompatible, it would have major consequences for investment protection provisions in all future EU trade agreements. FoE Europe was one of the initial organisations that advocated with a number of EU governments, including Wallonia, requesting an opinion at the CJEU. Milieudefensie and other FGG members had advocated a request by the Dutch government for an opinion at the CJEU. [MD4(ii)(1):] Milieudefensie organised the public support of 11 Dutch jurists for its plea against ICS (Investment Court System) and CETA. [FoEE5(1):] In response to the White Paper on the Future of Europe, presented by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in April 2017, containing five possible scenarios for Europe's future, FoE Europe, together with SDG Watch Europe, in June 2017 developed a manifesto that calls for an increased EU capacity to address citizens' concerns; effective climate and environmental policies; policy coherence for sustainable development and achieving the SDGs, and fair trade policies: 'Scenario 6: Sustainable Europe for its Citizens'. The manifesto was signed by more than 250 CSOs.
[FoEE1(1):] Proposals for regulatory cooperation in TTIP have been discussed at EU level to have less negative impacts. [MD2(1):] In relation to its Climate and Energy policy development, Dutch government discusses the need to limit the lobby influence of the fossil fuel sector. [MD3(1):] Dutch government representatives and/or MPs address the discrepancy between the Dutch/EU governments' climate ambitions (stressing the need to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees) and the Dutch/EU governments' climate and energy policies. [MD4(2):] Votes and amendments from Dutch parliamentarians and MEPs aiming to (1) prevent environmentally harmful elements in TTIP and CETA such as lowering of environmental and health standards; and (2) improve or remove democratically unjust mechanisms such as ISDS and regulatory cooperation.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE/MD1(1)]: Several hundreds of thousands of citizens will express support for a public petition organised by FoE Europe and other CSOs that asks for EU initiatives to end ISDS privileges for foreign investors in trade and investment agreements and to introduce binding measures to stop corporate impunity, in line with the demands from Southern FoE groups participating in FoE International's Economic Justice Programme. Media attention and public support for this petition will put the need to stop ISDS higher on the European and international political agenda. Milieudefensie in cooperation with other FGG members will contribute to public support in the Netherlands for Southern groups' pleas against ISDS and pro binding regulation for corporations. [FoEE2(1)]: A package of proposals related to the establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court (as developed by FoE Europe and LLMIC CSOs) has been presented to and discussed with CSOs, journalists, academics and EU policymakers.
[FoEE/MD1(1)]: 847.000 citizens signed on to a petition to the EU and its member states to stop ISDS and establish rights for citizens, in line with the demands from Southern FoE groups participating in FoE International's Economic Justice Programme. These petitions have been presented to high level decision makers in Europe (including European Commission Vice-President Timmermans) and at national level. The petitions illustrate the need and public support for ending ISDS type of rights for investors. FoE Europe was one of the core organiser of the petition. Milieudefensie together with TNI and other CSOs brought the petition to the attention of the public in the Netherlands. Furthermore the Stop ISDS Campaign gained support from several 100s of candiate MEPs who pledged to end corporate impunity. The ISDS system gives investors enormous power over governments and people in the EU as well as in LLMICs to claim compensation for laws and regulations that harm their profits. [FoEE2(0)]: FoE Europe presented CSO demands to not globally institutionalise the ISDS system that gives investors enormous power over governments and people in (a.o.) African countries to claim compensation for laws and regulations that harm their profits, at the New York round (April 2019) of the UNCITRAL negotiations for a MIC (see 2.B FoEE4). FoE Europe worked with African CSOs and trade unions (of which 18 from LLMICs Togo, Uganda, Ghana, Benin, Kenya, Nigeria, Guinea, Senegal and Tanzania) to present demands to African delegates to UNCITRAL. These demands were presented 15 January 2020 ina 'Letter from Africa CSOs and trade unions to African delegates at the UNCITRAL round'. [Not yet counted]. [FoEE3(1)]: New European Commissioner for Trade, Mr. Hogan recently stated that he told the Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs that there would be no EU-Indonesia trade and investment deal if the problem of unsustainable palm oil would not be resolved. He mentioned that they agreed to set up a dedicated working group, but this working group has not agreed on its terms of reference yet. In the past years FoE Europe together with Indonesian CSOs and trade unions has been advocating that the trade and investment deal should not lead to further oil palm plantation expansion and the related deforestation and land grab (see also 2.B FoEE1 and 2.E FoEE1). [MD4(1)]: January 2019 SOMO and Milieudefensie in collaboration with Nigerian CSOs published a report 'Reconstructie. Buigen of barsten. Hoe Shell Nigeria met een investeringsverdrag onder druk zette om het lucratieve olieveld OPL 245 te bemachtigen', on how a Dutch oil company was able to acquire a lucrative oil contract by pressuring the Nigerian government with the threat of an ISDS claim. The message is that investment treaties should no longer be solely about protecting the rights of foreign investors, but about their obligations to contribute to the sustainable economic development of the host country and local people, and to respect internationally applicable standards in the field of human rights and environmental protection. The report was covered in the national media and its message appeared in parliamentary debates in the Netherlands, such as the debate of 20 February 2019 on the new Dutch model BIT. The report increased awareness among the media, Dutch politicians and the Dutch government about how ISDS in investment treaties strengthens the power position of large Northern corporations operating in LLMICs vis-a-vis the governments of these countries, and the impact of this on the LLMICs' governance and economies (such as e.g. billions of euro's lower tax income for the country as in this case). The report provided a unique insight into the working of ISDS: the mere threat of an ISDS claim alone influenced governmental decision-making. [MD5(1)]: In autumn Dutch parliament became critical about the EU-Canadian trade and investment agreement CETA, amongst others for its ISDS provision (in the form of ICS). Milieudefensie and other FGG members had informed Dutch parliament together with various Dutch farmers' organisations and their constituencies. In November SOMO and Milieudefensie published a research report 'CETA: Sluiproute voor Amerikaanse multinationals' in which the negative impact of ICS on national governance is shown, and that not only Canadian but also USA corporations can use the ICS provision in CETA to influence decision-making in EU countries. Furthermore, Milieudefensie pointed at the negative climate impact of the model, that led to parliamentary questions put 19 September. Milieudefensie's position was based on the demands of FoE International's Economic Justice Programme in which Southern groups ask Northern groups to advocate that the Northern countries pursue fair and sustainable trade and trade and investment agreements. After the cancellation of TTIP (the EU-US trade and investment agreement) CETA would become the first EU trade and investment agreement with ISDS (ICS), and as such a model for EU trade and agreements with Southern countries as well, as the Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation had proposed. February 2020, 70 largely Southern CSOs, from inside and outside the FoE network, and including trade unions (including from LLMICs Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Philippines, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, West Bank and Gaza Strip, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Burundi, Uganda, Nigeria, Togo, Ghana, Liberia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, Paraguay), together with Milieudefensie sent an 'Open letter to the Dutch government: a global call to vote against CETA for trade justice' to Dutch parliament requesting it to reject CETA in order to prevent that the EU's trade and investment agreement policy would be built on its ICS model. The organisations write: "Blocking CETA would stimulate a much-needed debate on how to reform the global trade system to ensure it contributes to building a sustainable and just world, instead of maximising trade volumes and corporate profits. As one of the world’s biggest importers and exporters globally, the EU plays a powerful role in setting global trade rules through bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.". The CSOs ask "Don’t push the Investment Court System on the world" and state that "International trade agreements should not focus on maximising and liberalising trade and investment by reducing the transac- tion costs for corporate industry; it should prioritise how trade and investment can contribute to a healthy environment, food sovereignty, decent work, a sustainable economy and halting climate change.".
[FoEE1(1)]: At least two EU member states acknowledge the risks of the EU-Mercosur trade deal for the implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement, and other sustainability issues with the deal, and discuss recommendations concerning EU-Mercosur for EU member states and the European Parliament launched by Latin American CSOs and FoE Europe. [FoEE2(1)]: Proposals launched by LLMIC CSOs and FoE Europe to influence the negotiations at UNCITRAL (UN Commission on International Trade Law) with respect to the establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court, are discussed by decision-makers in UNCITRAL negotiations. [FoEE3(1)]: At least two EU member states acknowledge the risks of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) for the implementation of the Paris Agreement, as explained through advocacy efforts by LLMIC CSOs, international groups and FoE Europe, and discuss proposals from these CSOs launched to influence the negotiations on the modernisation and expansion of the ECT, addressing the problem that this treaty undermines implementation of the Paris Agreement on climate change. [MD4(2)]: As a result of advocacy efforts of Milieudefensie and LLMIC CSOs, increased support within the Dutch government for an abolition of state support for the fossil fuel industry (such as diplomatic support to the industry’s expansion of fossil fuel exploitation in LLMIC’s, and such as providing lobby access to governmental policy making processes on energy and climate), and for an active Dutch role in an international coalition of states researching and promoting limiting fossil fuel exploitation via law and/or policies, in order to achieve policy coherence for development in relation to SDGs on climate change and the environment, and to prevent a delay of the just energy transition as demanded a.o. by the LLMIC CSOs united in FoE International's Climate Justice and Energy Programme. [The related topic of financial support from governments to the fossil fuel industry is included under ToC3 3.D].
[FoEE1(1)]: The Austrian government in March 2020 agreed on a position that the current EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement proposal is not acceptable. France in September 2020 has said that the agreement would have to be brought in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. The EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement was planned to be approved by the European Council in autumn 2020. Due to concerns related to deforestation, climate change, human rights violations, both the European Parliament (in October 2020) and the European Commission acknowledged that the deal in its current state is not acceptable. In October 2020 European Commissioner for Trade, Mr. Valdis Dombrovskis stated that the EU expects a clear commitment from Mercosur countries that they will respect the sustainability issues included in the trade agreement, before any deal is ratified. FoE Europe with Latin American and European groups has actively advocated on the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement. In 2020 FoE Europe issued several publications to highlight environmental, human rights and climate impacts of the deal (see 2.B FoEE2). These have been at the forefront of the public debate and a number of member states and the European Parliament have taken on these concerns. To this result also contributed that FoE Europe together with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) in the framework of the Seattle to Brussels network in 2019 had initiated an open civil society letter '340+ organisations call on the EU to immediately halt trade negotiations with Brazil', sent 17 June 2019, calling on the European Commission and EU Member States to halt negotiations for an EU-Mercosur free trade agreement. The letter was signed by more than 340 CSOs including from LLMICs Bolivia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Paraguay, and including Both ENDS, TNI and SOMO. (See also 2.A.a MD2).
[FoEE2(0)]: FoE Europe did not work on the UNCITRAL negotiations in 2020. Trade work focused on the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement and the Energy Charter Treaty.
[FoEE/MD3(1)]: EU member states Austria, Luxembourg, France and Spain have become very critical about the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) and expressed their concern about the reform process on various occasions, a.o. in December 2020 on the eve of a conference of the ECT parties. The latter two EU member states in February 2021 have publicly called on the European Commission to start preparing for a possible leave. Also the Commission, on 2 December 2020, in response to a question raised in European Parliament, acknowledged that leaving the ECT is an option if negotiations for modernising the ECT are not successful. In October 2020 European Parliament passed an amendment to the European Climate Law that arranged that "The Union shall end protection of investments in fossil fuels in the context of the modernisation of the Energy Charter Treaty" (Article 8a). FoE Europe has done a great deal of research and advocacy work in 2019 and 2020 to highlight that the ECT is not in line with the Paris Climate Agreement and an obstacle for the energy transition in Europe as well as other parts of the world. FoE Europe a.o. published a report 'An Axe to Climate Action. 10 Reasons the EU and Governments Must Quit the Energy Charter Treaty', with 10 reasons why the EU and its member states should leave the ECT: The ECT protects and promotes fossil fuels; It helps the fossil fuel industry undermine climate action; It has no binding climate objectives; It is not compatible with EU and governments' commitments; It can hinder renewable energy; It obstructs environmental protection; It makes taxpayers pay for the costs of big polluters; It is an obstacle to a just transition and a democratically controlled energy system; It will export a dirty energy model worldwide; Reform is doomed to fail. In the Netherlands, Milieudefensie, SOMO, TNI, Both ENDS and other organisations informed Dutch parliament. On 2 July questions were raised in parliament and one resolution was submitted (no majority) that asked the Dutch government to assess the future-proofness of the ECT in relation to climate policy development.
[MD4(2)]: Because of the topicality in the international and Dutch political context (to which Milieudefensie and Both ENDS had contributed with advocacy work in 2019), in 2020 Milieudefensie and LLMIC CSOs decided to focus on financial support for the oil and gas industry (see ToC3 3.B, 3.D). This resulted in less focus on the topic of other types of governmental support for the industry, such as diplomatic support. Milieudefensie and trade union FNV informed Dutch parliament and the media on an issue around diplomatic support from the Dutch embassy in Nigeria for a Dutch oil company active in the country. This led to parliamentary questions on 28 September as well as on 16 December to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (see also ToC1 1.B FoEE/MD2c). A resolution was submitted 2 December calling on the government "to conduct an independent investigation into the relationship between Dutch embassies and multinationals [...], particularly in countries with multinationals active in the fossil fuel industry". Furthermore, Dutch parliament adopted a resolution on 12 November 2020 calling the Dutch government to to bring all instruments of foreign policy and diplomacy fully into line with the objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement.
Outcome F: Practice Changed
Improved trade and investment policies and processes are implemented and enforced.
2.F
# mechanisms, policies and regulations implemented and enforced by national, regional and international government bodies to ensure policies related to trade and investment advance policy coherence for development in LLMICs.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
Outcome B: Capacities Strengthened
Increased capacity of civil society actors to research, network and advocate on trade and investment.
2.B
# CSOs in LLMICs that lobby and advocate for improved policies related to trade and investment, based on increased skills, knowledge or network contacts.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(2):] In the period 2014-2016, FoE Europe, in close collaboration with the Argentine CSO Observatorio Petrolero Sur (OPSur), gathered and mobilised a Latin American anti-fracking coalition consisting of more than 40 CSOs from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and Uruguay. The groups advocated for a fracking ban in Latin America in a joint effort with the European anti-fracking coalition. FoE Europe and OPSur shared the experiences of the existing European anti-fracking CSO coalition with the Latin American CSOs. Bolivian CSOs were involved in the coalition, including Observatorio de Cambio Climático y Desarrollo and the Bolivian base of the Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente, of which the capacity increased through the coalition work. These two CSOs subsequently organised a specific meeting with Bolivian organisations on how to address the environmental and social problems resulting from shale gas development plans in Bolivia, as well as a seminar at the country's main university.
[FoEE1(7):] With the content and strategising support of FoE Europe, seven CSOs in Indonesia have taken up the work on the EU-Indonesia free trade negotiations and have been able to contribute to the negotiations via briefings, press work and direct meetings with the responsible civil servants and decision-makers, both in the EU and Indonesia. [FoEE2(5):] Ten LLMIC groups have participated in training (online or in person) on (1) how the fossil fuel industry acts to ensure the world keeps burning fossil fuels and (2) how EU energy policies promoting gas are exported to the Global South and are at the origin of increased environmental/social impacts there, where gas is produced. Five of these groups are utilising this training in advocacy directed towards the EU, their own governments and/or international institutions to ensure that the development of EU and national energy policies and/or developments are in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. Three LLMIC groups are participating in the production of a series of articles on the consequences in the Global South of EU diversification policy in the gas sector (focus on environmental, social, gender and climate impacts), with the objective to counter the ‘clean fossil fuel’ image touted by the industry.
[FoEE1(12)]: FoE Europe contributed to the capacities of 12 Indonesian CSOs (environmental organisations and trade unions) to advocate around the negotiations between Indonesia and the EU on a free trade agreement. FoE Europe co-organised CSO strategy and capacity development meetings parallel to two negotiation rounds, in Solo in Indonesia in February 2018, and in Brussels in June 2018. FoE Europe also coordinated a joint 'Civil Society Statement on the EU-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA)' signed by 32 Indonesian and 21 European CSOs and trade unions, that was launched in a press conference prior to the negotiation round in Solo in February, resulting in media attention from Indonesian newspapers. The statement calls for amongst others binding sustainable development chapters in CEPA and keeping palm oil outside of the negotiations. FoE Europe furthermore commissioned and in January 2018 launched together with one of the Indonesian CSOs a joint research report 'External Concerns on the RSPO and ISPO Certification Schemes' on the failures of voluntary certification schemes for palm oil, such as RSPO and ISPO, that was used for the CSOs' advocacy in the CEPA negotiation process. The research finds that including palm oil in CEPA will result in increased trade in palm oil products, based on weak voluntary-based certification schemes that lack implementation and enforcement mechanisms and fail to protect the interests of local communities, workers, smallholders and the environment - and thus contribute to further problems related to this commodity. [FoEE2(4)]: FoE Europe coordinates a global network of 300 CSOs advocating against new gas infrastructure. Such infrastructure constitutes a fossil fuel 'lock in' that would prevent compliance with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. FoE Europe facilitates the exchange of information (on specific gas projects, national and European policies, and the activities of the groups), contributes to building capacities of the participating CSOs (knowledge, strategizing, tactics, research etc.), and stimulates cooperation. In the network groups from LLMICs Nigeria, Ghana, Tanzania, Mozambique, Palestine/West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Indonesia participate. The efforts of FoE Europe contributed to a better understanding among LLMIC CSOs of the impact in their countries of EU gas policies, and uncovering connections between (i) plans for gas production and (ii) plans for infrastructure for gas transport and consumption, such as for instance between plans for LNG terminals in Europe and the development of a large gas field in Mozambique. Through participation in the network the groups were in 2018 able to collaborate and strengthen advocacy work on gas infrastructure, such as for example the mentioned gas development plans in Mozambique [1 Mozambican CSO counted], the Nigeria-Morocco gas pipeline [2 Nigerian CSOs counted], and the EastMed gas pipeline [1 group in Palestine/West Bank and Gaza Strip counted]. The groups also focus on European policies for expanding gas infrastructure (see 2.D FoEE3), and gas investments of the European Investment Bank. FoE Europe worked with a CSO from Palestine/West Bank and Gaza Strip to campaign against the EastMed gas pipeline that is on the EU's PCI list (see 2.D FoEE3). FoE Europe assisted the CSO with preparing a policy paper, and organised a speakers' tour in October 2018 with three members of the CSO along EU decision-makers to present their case against EastMed.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[MD1(ii)(1):] Milieudefensie supported an African and a French CSO in their joint work on an oil company active in an African country. Milieudefensie conducted a fact-finding mission with the African CSO in the area targeted by the company and produced several films that are used by the African and the French CSOs to support the affected local people. [MD1(iii)(1):] Milieudefensie supported an African CSO by commissioning independent research on the lobbying tactics of an oil company and the involvement of the Dutch government in promoting the development of a gas industry in the country. In addition, Milieudefensie provided the organisation with information on the company itself and access to international decision-makers which the organisation could use for advocacy concerning the environmental and social problems in the country related to the company's operations. Furthermore, Milieudefensie and Both ENDS facilitated bringing the organisation into contact with groups that assist in international advocacy: groups in the USA, South Korea and Japan. [MD1(iv)(1):] Milieudefensie involved a Nigerian CSO in European advocacy on a large corruption case in Nigeria around an oil industry investment. The aim of the joint effort is to address EU member states’ governments and parliaments concerning the problem of corruption related to extractive industry operations, and the climate impact of the development of carbon-intensive oil and gas resources. [MD1(v)(1):] Milieudefensie supported a network of Latin American CSOs working on extractive industries. Milieudefensie funded networking activities and contributed to strategizing within the network in which an LLMIC CSO takes part, on monitoring plans and activities of the extractive industries, researching their operations and understanding their tactics. Furthermore, the strategies involve engaging with local communities and trade unions, and media work. One LLMIC CSO is developing plans to apply these strategies in its country. The activities that were funded by Milieudefensie also included the organisation and CSO participation in meetings on the extractive industries around the WTO meeting in Argentina in December 2017. One outcome of the meeting was a solidarity statement with the LLMIC CSO that is under threat, signed by Latin American CSOs. [FoEE1(vi)(9):] Throughout 2017, FoE Europe has been coordinating a campaign on the EU's list of Projects of Common Interest (PCI list) which currently includes 77 gas projects that are planned to be supported by the EU, including large gas import infrastructure which is not in line with the Paris Climate Agreement, and also increase imports of gas from Southern countries, contributing to corruption, social and environmental problems, and human rights violations. Over 100 international and national groups (of which 9 from LLMICs) sent a joint letter to the European Commission and EU Member States in October. The work allowed Southern groups to voice their criticism on EU energy policies that would lock Europe into further decades of fossil fuel dependency and thus have a negative impact on achieving global climate targets. [FoEE2(3):] FoE Europe co-organised a meeting in Brussels on the free trade negotiations between the EU and Indonesia in which 3 CSOs from Indonesia participated. The activities included an advocacy meeting with the European Commission. The internal part consisted of workshops aimed at increasing the understanding of the EU trade and investment policy as well as sessions focused on enhancing the mutual exchange on how to ensure that sustainability aspects will be taken into account in the trade agreement. Since then, FoE Europe and the Indonesian CSOs have taken a leading role in developing a joint response by Indonesian and EU civil society on the negotiations as well as supporting partners in Indonesia with the organisation of activities for the next negotiation round.
[MD1(1):] LLMIC CSO advocates for a more sustainable national energy policy (with power shift from multinationals to people) based on increased capacity.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(7)]: With the content and strategising support of FoE Europe, seven CSOs in Indonesia continue to work on the EU-Indonesia free trade negotiations and are able to contribute to the negotiations via briefings, press work and direct meetings with the responsible civil servants and decision-makers, both in the EU and Indonesia. FoE Europe provides expertise and research, access to European decision-makers, CSOs, media, campaign support, financial support, and thus contributes to capacity strengthening of these organisations in their advocacy concerning the trade negotiations. [FoEE2(5)]: Five LLMIC groups have participated in training (online or in person) on (1) how the fossil fuel industry acts to ensure the world keeps burning fossil fuels and (2) how EU energy policies promoting gas are exported to the Global South and are at the origin of increased environmental/social impacts there, where gas is produced. These groups will use the acquired knowledge in their advocacy work directed at national and international governments aiming at achieving climate justice. [MD3(+2)]: In two to four LLMIC countries and where relevant also in the Netherlands and/or Brussels, with the support of Milieudefensie and in some cases also FoE Europe (joint research, strategising, sharing of information, development of alternatives, advocacy, awareness-raising and communication, contributing to increased capacities of the CSOs in these working fields), Southern groups will advocate energy policies that are in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. This will also strengthen the capacity of international networks of CSOs working on climate and energy.
[FoEE1(3)]: FoE Europe organised a speakers' tour for two representatives of an Indonesian CSO. They met several decision makers, media and CSOs in the Netherlands, in Brussels, in Germany and in Denmark, to expose the issues around palm oil (a.o. deforestation, land grab) and how to address them in the EU-Indonesia trade agreement (CEPA). FoE Europe also organized in March a meeting between a representative of the Indonesian CSO and the chief EU negotiator on CEPA to highlight issues related to palm oil. In December FoE Europe organised a meeting where Indonesian and European CSOs aligned their strategies and messages. Two Indonesian CSOs (different from the aforementioned CSO) took part in that meeting. [FoEE2(3)]: FoE Europe was co-organiser of the 'Beyond Gas Conference: Connecting struggles between North and South'. The event brought gas campaigners from more than 10 southern countries together with European gas activists. They did joint strategising, exchanging information, capacity building on impacts of gas and European plans to promote gas exploration around the world. CSOs from Palestine, Mozambique and Nigeria took part in the meeting, and applied the raised capacities in national and international campaigning together with FoE Europe [See also 3.B FoEE1] . [MD3a(+4)]: In 2019 Milieudefensie supported CSOs in Nigeria, Benin, Togo, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Liberia and Senegal (finance, strategizing) with a research on the (potential) environmental, economic and social impacts on fisher communities of (planned) offshore oil and gas exploitation along the West African coastline. The findings will be published in 2020 and used to connect fisher communities of these countries and join their efforts aimed at protecting their livelihoods. [3 CSOs already counted above]. [MD3b(7)]: Milieudefensie continued its support to a network of CSOs in Latin America (from Honduras [5 CSOs], Colombia, Bolivia [2 CSOs], Brazil and Argentina) dealing with the expansion of the fossil fuel industry in Latin America. In 2019 (and early 2020) with the financial support of Milieudefensie, the groups finalised mapping of the fossil fuel industry seeking to extend the extraction frontier to new areas inland and in deep sea waters, conducted participatory research on the impacts on and resistance of local communities (such as against oil spills affecting the livelihoods of fisher communities, and the disappearance and murder of EHRDs from these communities), and conducted research on corporate capture of governmental decision-making processes around this expansion, and lobby aiming at a.o. obtaining concessions, deregulation and tax advantages. Research reports on the oil and gas expansion in Honduras, Colombia, Bolivia, Brazil and Argentina were published: 'La Exploración de Petróleo y Gas en Honduras. Investigación Exploratoria' (January 2020), 'Informe Sobre Shell y la ampliación de la frontera extractiva en aguas profundas. El caso de Colombia' (November 2019), 'La presencia de Shell en Bolivia y su proyección en el mercado regional de gas' (January 2020), 'Informe As reservas do Pré-sal no Brasil: a nova fronteira da Shell' (November 2019), and 'Informe Exportar Vaca Muerta. Energía extrema, infraestructura y mercados' (March 2019). The research and publications were used for strategizing and increasing collaboration within the existing network of CSOs and communities and beyond (with trade unions and local authorities), in advocacy, organising public events, communication and media work on the fossil fuel developments and to create public and political awareness of the governmental and corporate conduct as regards oil and gas expansion in the countries, also of projected oil and gas exploitation operations that were (or the scope of which was) not known yet to local municipalities and communities. Furthermore, the CSOs and their networks of communities enhanced their knowledge, analytical and strategizing capacities through the exchange of experiences (organising themselves in their struggle with the oil industry and in defending and developing their livelihoods) in several national gatherings of CSOs and communities, and in a regional exchange visit in September 2019 (47 participants, of which 29 women, from Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina and the Netherlands) financed by Milieudefensie, held in the territory of communities affected by offshore oil extraction. The significance of the increased networking amongst CSOs and communities is in the expectation that over the next few years, throughout Latin America, the violations of the rights of nature and of traditional peoples caused by the unbridled expansion of oil and gas extraction tend to deepen. [FoEE4(18)]: In October 2019 FoE Europe and FoE International together with TNI and Public Service International (PSI) organised a three-day capacity building workshop in Casablanca for more than 20 African trade unions and CSOs (of which 18 from LLMICs Togo, Uganda, Ghana, Benin, Kenya, Nigeria, Guinea, Senegal and Tanzania) on the impacts of ISDS in negotiations on the Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) and the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). The training was followed by a joint African CSO advocacy letter on the MIC, with concrete recommendations to African delegates to the UNCITRAL negotiations. FoE Europe, with TNI, PSI and Client Earth, wrote a report for African CSOs about the risks of ISDS in Africa. It was one of the tools for the capacity building workshop.
[FoEE1(2)]: With the content and strategising support of FoE Europe, two CSOs in Indonesia continue to work on the EU-Indonesia free trade negotiations and are able to contribute to the negotiations via briefings, press work and direct meetings with the responsible civil servants and decision-makers, both in the EU and Indonesia. FoE Europe contributes to the increased capacity of the CSOs by providing expertise and research, access to European decision-makers, CSOs, media, campaign support and financial support. [FoEE2(1)]: With the content and strategising support of FoE Europe, three CSOs in Latin America of which one in an LLMIC will work on the EU-Mercosur trade deal via briefings, press work and direct meetings with the responsible civil servants and decision-makers, both in the EU and in Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay. FoE Europe contributes to the increased capacity of the CSOs by providing expertise and research, access to European decision-makers, CSOs, media, campaign support and financial support. [FoEE3(2)]: With the content and strategising support of FoE Europe, two CSOs in Africa will work on UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) negotiations for a Multilateral Investment Court and their countries' potential membership of the Energy Charter Treaty via briefings, press work and direct meetings with the responsible civil servants and decision-makers, both in the EU and in their countries. FoE Europe contributes to the increased capacity of the CSOs by providing expertise and research, access to European decision-makers, CSOs, media, campaign support and financial support. [FoEE4(+1)]: FoE Europe will increase the capacity of CSOs in two LLMIC countries in their advocacy around state and corporate plans for new gas infrastructure to export gas to Europe. FoE Europe will support the CSOs with access to media and decision-makers, and with research, joint strategising and advocacy and mobilising public support. [One CSO already counted under another outcome]. [MD5(2)]: Milieudefensie will increase knowledge within the FoE network and beyond on the topic of state support (financial [ToC3 3.B] and non-financial [2.B]) for the fossil fuel industry to expand fossil fuel extraction in LLMICs, and on what Northern and Southern CSOs can undertake to advocate an end to this practice. It is expected that capacity development in the network will be used by at least three LLMIC CSOs for advocacy work on the topic at the international level, in their LLMIC and/or in the Netherlands.
[FoEE1(0)]: In 2020, FoE Europe has not done work with partners in Indonesia on the EU-Indonesia trade agreement (CEPA). This was mainly due to lack of progress in the negotiations related to the topic of palm oil. The European Commission in 2019 had informed the Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs that there would be no EU-Indonesia trade and investment deal if the problem of unsustainable palm oil would not be resolved. In the past years FoE Europe together with Indonesian CSOs and trade unions has been advocating that the trade and investment deal should not lead to further oil palm plantation expansion and the related deforestation and land grab.
[FoEE2(1)]: CSOs in Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina and Uruguay have started advocacy work together with FoE Europe on the EU-Mercosur trade agreement in 2020, addressing the impact of this agreement. Joint research revealed that the agreement aims to boost an export-oriented agricultural model that harms small-scale farmers, indigenous peoples, traditional and rural communities, in Mercosur and EU countries. It threatens to accelerate environmental destruction and the climate crisis, and increase social injustice, corporate impunity, human rights violations, and health risks. Impacts include: more fires and deforestation in the Amazon; soaring greenhouse gas emissions; a disruption of local food production in Mercosur countries; increased use of dangerous pesticides; and worse food safety in Europe. FoE Europe had regular conference calls with the CSOs in the mentioned countries. In 2020 FoE Europe and a Brazilian CSO started to work on a report on problems related to meat production in Brazil (published in 2021). FoE Europe provided its colleagues in the Mercosur region with expertise on EU positions, and through campaign materials amongst which a report on the impacts of the EU Mercosur deal, 'Putting People, Health and the Planet for Sale. The True Cost of the EU-Mercosur Trade Deal' issued in May 2020, as well as through financial support.
[FoEE3(0)]: In 2020 FoE Europe did not work on UNCITRAL and the MIC, and focused on the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement, and EU decision-making on the Energy Charter Treaty.
[FoEE4(0)]: FoE Europe started to work with a Mozambican CSO to address the environmental and human rights problems associated with the development of a gas field in Mozambique. Focus is to challenge financial support from European Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) for gas projects. FoE Europe, Milieudefensie, Both ENDS and SOMO assist the group in strategizing, advocacy and communication. [CSO counted under ToC3 3.B MD/FoEE1a as in 2020 the main advocacy focus was ECA support].
[MD5(1)]: (Milieudefensie's cooperation with CSOs in Africa and Latin America on fossil fuel expansion relates to ToC1, ToC2 and ToC3. In order to avoid repetition, the capacity development outcomes of this cooperation are not reported here, but under ToC1 (1.B MD4) and ToC3 (3.B MD/FoEE1a, MD2)). Reported here is only Milieudefensie's support in research and communication by a Nigerian CSO and a Niger Delta community who approached Milieudefensie to address at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in Dutch parliament the collaboration between the Dutch embassy in Nigeria and a Dutch oil company, and the embassy's neglect of complaints from civil society against this oil company over oil spills (see 2.D MD4).
NL-KVK-40530467-FGG-ToC3
Milieudefensie
FGG MD ToC 3: Improved financial and tax systems
FGG, together with our Southern and Northern partners, will build public pressure for regulating the financial sector in order for it to contribute to socially just, inclusive and environmentally sustainable development. We will also pursue the reduction of existing unsustainable and unjust financial corporate practices in LLMIC countries, and call for a better financial regulation in international financial reform fora. We will seek to place proposals for improved regulations on the policy agenda. To achieve this, we will explain how current financial practices negatively impact developing countries and socially and environmentally sustainable development. In the short term this will involve focusing on collaborative work with partners, to expose the negative impacts of specific activities that have been financed, and to demonstrate that voluntary corporate environmental, social and governance (ESG) guidelines have been insufficient for improving sustainability and other development challenges. Together with Southern and Northern partners we will develop, propose and lobby for the introduction of legislative proposals. These will be designed to prevent financiers from engaging in operations, directly or indirectly, that harm people and the environment in the South. Capacity development for civil society organisations in both the South and North is needed if civil society’s voice is to be heard. Mutual capacity building will occur primarily through regular information exchanges, and collaboration to monitor and expose unsustainable financial mechanisms, and the financial players associated with them. More specifically, Southern partner CSOs will collect evidence on the impacts of financial practices and investments, and advocate with their own governments and in international fora for measures to positively reform the financial system. They will also develop legal training for communities on ways of holding financiers to account.
A. Enabling environment. The rights and (legal) space of people, communities and civil society actors in Low- and Lower-Middle Income Countries (LLMICs) active on trade and investment are protected. B. Capacities strengthened. Increased capacity of civil society actors to research, network and advocate on trade and investment. C. Alternatives developed. Alternative approaches to the current trade and investment regime—which are people-driven, gender inclusive and sustainable policies and practices that improve policy coherence for development, such as the Alternative Trade Mandate—have been developed, piloted and promoted by FGG and civil society actors. D. Agendas set. Decision makers prioritise improvement measures due to support from influential civil society actors, critical media attention, increased public awareness and effective scrutiny of trade and investment policies. E. Policies changed. Policies related to trade and investment have been improved, so that they advance policy coherence for development. F. Practice changed. Improved trade and investment policies and processes are implemented and enforced.
Civil society; Governments; International institutions; Private sector actors.
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
50000
50000
50000
50000
50000
53000
53000
53000
53000
53000
40192
Exp MD 2019 ToC3
62859
Budget used MD ToC3 2016
Milieudefensie
19721
Budget used MD ToC3 2017
Milieudefensie
27664
Budget used MD ToC3 2018
Milieudefensie
53000
Disbursement FoEE 2017 1/1 ToC3
Milieudefensie
8689
Exp FoEE 2017 ToC3
Friends of the Earth Europe
3058
Exp FoEE 2018 ToC3
Friends of the Earth Europe
62859
Exp MD 2016 ToC3
19721
Exp MD 2017 ToC3
27664
Exp MD 2018 ToC3
10024
Exp FoEE 2016 ToC3
Friends of the Earth Europe
0
Exp FoEE 2019 ToC3
Friends of the Earth Europe
192294
Budget used MD ToC3 2020
Milieudefensie
40192
Budget used MD ToC3 2019
Milieudefensie
192294
(Exp MD 2020 ToC3 [Jan-Mar])
53000
Disbursement FoEE 2016 1/1 ToC3
Milieudefensie
53000
Disbursement FoEE 2018 1/1 ToC3
Milieudefensie
53000
Disbursement FoEE 2019 1/1 ToC3
Milieudefensie
53000
Disbursement FoEE 2020 1/2 ToC3
Milieudefensie
-243229
Disbursement FoEE 2020 2/2 ToC3 (over/underspent 2016-2020)
Milieudefensie
0
Exp FoEE 2020 ToC3
Friends of the Earth Europe
Outcome E: Policies Changed
These include improved financial regulation by governments and improved financial policies in corporations; improved tax regimes and corporate tax practices; and effective accountability, transparency, safeguards and gender aware policies in public financial institutions.
3.E.a
# measures taken by national, regional and international government bodies to ensure financial, tax and spending policies advance socially just and sustainable development in LLMICs.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1):] On 14 December 2016, the European Parliament approved a recast of the directive on pension funds (Directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision). The recast obliges European pension funds to take social, environmental and governance factors into account in their risk management. This is specifically relevant as it can provide incentives against investments in developing countries in projects that can result in severe negative environmental and social impacts. In its advocacy work, FoE Europe uses evidence including from land grab cases for oil palm plantation expansion developed together with WALHI/FoE Indonesia, NAPE/FoE Uganda, SDI/FoE Liberia, ERA/FoE Nigeria, FoE International and Milieudefensie.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1):] In March 2017, the European Parliament and Council reached an agreement on the Shareholder Rights Directive (SRD). The SRD obliges shareholders to develop an engagement policy with companies they invest in on financial and non-financial criteria (environmental, social and governance issues). This makes companies more accountable to their shareholders, which is a step towards a more accountable and sustainable financial system. Institutional investors must be made to disclose their engagement policies as a step towards reducing the environmental and social impacts of their investments, such as for instance in palm oil companies involved in deforestation and land grabbing. However, a 'comply or explain' mechanism lacks the necessary teeth to create behavioural change for institutional investors. FoE Europe, ShareAction, and WWF have been advocating environmental, social and governance criteria in the EU's sustainable financial policies.
[FoEE1(1):] EU measures to introduce incentives for investors against involvement in land grabbing.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1)]: After advocacy work of FoE Europe in line with the demand from CSOs in the Global South as expressed amongst others in FoE International's Climate Justice Programme, the European Commission takes measures to reduce EU public subsidies for fossil fuels.
[FoEE1(1)]: The European Investment Bank (EIB) adopted in 2019 its new energy lending policy, which would see it end funding to most new fossil fuel projects from the end of 2021. Under the policy, from the end of 2021 the world's biggest multilateral bank will end new lending to fossil fuel infrastructure projects. FoE Europe was one of the core groups arguing for a phase out of fossil fuel subsidies for the last five years. (See also 3.C FoEE1). The relevance of such Northern action for a global just energy transition including in LLMICs was also identified at FoE Europe's 'Beyond Gas Conference: Connecting struggles between North and South' that brought together gas campaigners from more than 10 southern countries together with European gas activists [See also 2.B FoEE2]. [MD2(1)]: In her letter 'Investeren in Perspectief – Goed voor de Wereld, Goed voor Nederland' from 14 February 2019 to Dutch parliament the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation announced that "[as regards IFIs] the Netherlands is committed to ... phasing out the financing of fossil fuel projects" and that "This approach also applies to the ministerial bilateral financing instruments: the cabinet is ambitiously aiming at ... phasing out public financial support for coal projects and for the exploration and development of new stocks of oil and gas abroad. In particular, it will phase out in 2020 in the Subsidieregeling voor demonstratieprojecten, haalbaarheids- en investeringsvoorbereidingsstudies (DHI), Partners in International Business (PIB), Starters in International Business (SIB), Private Sector Development (PSD) Apps, Dutch Trade and Investment Fund (DTIF), Dutch Good Growth Fund (DGGF), Ontwikkelingsrelevante infrastructuurprojecten (DRIVE) and the Energy Executives Training (EET)." Although these instruments are of lesser importance for fossil fuel expansion, and "No restrictions are imposed on generic export instruments, such as missions, embassy support and export credit insurance", referring to instruments such as ECAs that are of significant importance, this can still be regarded a symbolically important change. Milieudefensie and Both ENDS contributed to this result on many advocacy occasions, a.o. in a letter to Dutch parliament on 8 December 2017 pleading for a phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies. Subsequently on 23 January 2018 Dutch parliament had adopted a motion asking the Dutch government to arrange that financial incentives for the fossil fuel industry will be phased out. Milieudefensie bases its position on demands from colleague CSOs in Southern countries as included in the positions developed within FoE Internationa's Climate Justice and Energy Programme. The relevance of such Northern action for a global just energy transition including in LLMICs was also identified at FoE Europe's 'Beyond Gas Conference: Connecting struggles between North and South' that brought together gas campaigners from more than 10 southern countries together with European gas activists [See also 2.B FoEE2].
3.E.b
# policies improved or introduced by public financial institutions and private actors on accountability, transparency and safeguards, and investment policies adopted that advance socially just and sustainable development in LLMICs.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
Outcome C: Alternatives Developed
A range of alternative, people-driven, inclusive and sustainable approaches to the current financial and tax regime have been developed and advanced by civil society actors.
3.C
# alternative proposals to financial and tax and spending policies developed, piloted, and promoted with CSOs in LLMICs.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1)]: FoE Europe 14 June 2019 co-launched a statement 'It's time for Europe's Bank to go Fossil Free' to demand that the European Investment Bank (EIB) stops financing fossil fuel projects, including in the Global South. The statement was signed on by 3 groups from Africa. In June, FoE Europe organised a speakers tour in Europe (visiting Madrid, Paris, Amsterdam, The Hague and Brussels) with a representative from a Mozambican CSO that adresses the environmental, climate and human rights impacts of liquid natural gas projects in Mozambique, involving large Northern oil companies and investors such as the EIB (see 1.B FoEE2). [MD2(1)]: December 2019, Oil Change International, ODI, Milieudefensie and 13 other CSOs jointly issued the research report 'Oil, Gas and the Climate: An Analysis of Oil and Gas Industry Plans for Expansion and Compatibility with Global Emission Limits'. The organisations urge that governments, starting with wealthy, developed fossil fuel producing countries, must recognize that leadership on climate change needs to include plans for a just and equitable phase out of fossil fuel production. The report shows that the oil and gas industry plans to invest USD 1.4 trillion into new oil and gas extraction over the next five years, while carbon emissions from already operating fields and mines alone would make it impossible to meet our global obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement. These plans are incompatible with what governments agreed in Paris in 2015, governments must stop the various ways in which they currently encourage expansion: stop further exploration and licensing of new oil and gas projects; stop using export finance to enable projects overseas; and eliminate tax breaks and other subsidies for oil and gas exploration and production. Furthermore, governments (in North and South) need to invest in a just transition for workers and communities affected by a gradual phase-out of production, with economic development strategies and support for training/retraining ensuring that trade unions are involved in the process. They must also accelerate the implementation of policies that shift demand away from fossil fuels, especially in the transportation, energy, plastics and petrochemicals sectors. [This report is also mentioned in 1.C MD4, for its recommendations to banks].
Outcome F: Practice Changed
There is successful and sustainable implementation of: financial regulation by governments and financial policies in corporations; tax regimes and corporate tax practices; and accountability, transparency, safeguards and gender aware policies in public financial institutions.
3.F.a
# mechanisms for improved financial, tax and spending policies implemented and enforced by national, regional and international government bodies.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
3.F.b
# concrete steps taken by public financial institutions and private actors to actively identify, prevent and mitigate adverse social, gender and environmental impacts of their investments, and concrete steps taken that advance socially just and sustainable development in LLMICs.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
Outcome A: Enabling Environment
Both the rights and the legal and political spaces needed to claim and defend those rights are protected for women and men, communities and civil society actors in LLMICs, enabling them to address misconduct and grievances successfully, and promote improved financial and tax policies.
3.A.a
# mechanisms put in place or improved by governments and/or financial institutions and developments banks that guarantee access for civil society to (democratic) decision-making processes related to finance, tax and spending, including the right to resist developments.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1):] Euro-commissioner and Vice President of the EC Valdis Dombrovskis, responsible for Financial Stability, Financial Services and the EC's plans for a Capital Markets Union (CMU), said on 6 July 2016 to the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs: '[...] we will look at ways to encourage institutional investors to take account of sustainability considerations in their investment policies' and has called for a High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance, announced on 14 September 2016 and put in place on 22 December 2016. SOMO is a member of this group and cooperates with FoE Europe in this. The objective is that the Expert Group will provide, by the end of 2017, recommendations for a comprehensive EU strategy on sustainable finance as part of the CMU. On 15 June 2016, FoE Europe, SOMO, Global Witness and other CSOs together with MEPs organised an event for policymakers on the European Commission's plans for a CMU in which representatives of the EC, the EP, investors, academics and CSOs participated. On 7 December 2016 FoE Europe co-hosted an event for MEPs and CSOs on the CMU to explain the need for finance regulation. Furthermore, FoE Europe coordinated the participation of three organisations (ActionAid, Global Witness and FoE Europe) in a 'call for evidence' (consultation) in January 2016, organised by the European Commission on the EU regulatory framework for financial services, as part of its 'Better Regulation agenda' in relation to the establishment of a CMU. In their input, the CSOs argued that in relevant current and upcoming legislation on financial services there should be language on reducing environmental and social risks, especially in Southern countries. The issue with the CMU is that the EC wants to free up capital that should be invested in the EU economy. This is supposed to create jobs, but will lead to more unregulated financing on the market, and will not address the environmental, social and governance risks. FoE Europe, SOMO and Global Witness argue that the different regulatory files that are under the CMU (such as the prospectus directive or the securitisation directive) should also address these issues. In its advocacy work, FoE Europe uses evidence including from land grab cases for oil palm plantation expansion financed by European investors, developed together with WALHI/FoE Indonesia, NAPE/FoE Uganda, SDI/FoE Liberia, ERA/FoE Nigeria, FoE International and Milieudefensie.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1):] The EU organises consultations on regulation of financial market and CSOs take part in it.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
3.A.b
# effective legal and other grievance mechanisms adopted or improved by corporations and/or financial institutions and development banks via which CSOs and communities can resolve grievances with governments, financial institutions and companies, and claim their environmental, human and worker rights.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
Outcome B: Capacities Strengthened
Increased capacity of civil society actors to research, network and advocate on financial and tax policies.
3.B
# CSOs and communities in LLMICs that lobby and advocate for improved financial, tax and spending policies, based on increased skills, knowledge or network contacts.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1):] WALHI/FoE Indonesia has worked on improving environmental standards for Indonesian financiers with strategic input from FoE Europe. In a coalition of Indonesian NGOs, WALHI focused on the Indonesian financial regulator Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. This regulator is developing standards that Indonesian banks need to uphold when lending money to companies whose business could create environmental and social risks, such as palm oil companies. The input of WALHI is (partly) based on the research jointly conducted in the past 15 years by WALHI, Milieudefensie and FoE Europe on environmental and social problems related to oil palm expansion and mining in Indonesia, and the joint research into and dialogue with financiers of the palm oil and mining companies, to which in 2016 Milieudefensie's work for the International Fair Finance Guide also contributed.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[MD1(ii)(1):] In 2017, the Fair Finance Guide (FFG) International network that was built in 2015 and 2016 with the participation of Milieudefensie continued to facilitate Southern FFG groups. An LLMIC FFG consortium approached the Dutch FFG consortium to assist them in addressing a large Dutch investor on the impacts of their investment in coal mining in the LLMIC. In December, the group sent a letter to this investor.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEI1:(1)] An LLMIC Asian CSO, with the financial assistance from FoEI, provided inputs to the safeguards policy process of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), participating in the AIIB annual governor’s meeting (June) and providing inputs to the consultation process on the safeguards policy (June). [FoEI2:(0)] As part of its video series “Economic Justice Struggles” FoEI produced a video entitled 'Stop tax evasion and corporate bullying' (French and English), intended to build international and FoEI support for the president of a European CSO who was sued by a large bank for taking part in non-violent action to challenge tax evasion by this bank. Together with a FoEI sign-on letter (signed by over 150 organisations from 56 countries) and a media support action, FoEI provided meaningful solidarity to the member group as requested. [Not counted as not an LLMIC CSO].
[FoEE1(2):] 2 FoE members in LLMICs lobby and advocate for improved policies based on increased skills, knowledge or network contacts.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[MD1(0)]: Milieudefensie's cooperation with CSOs in West Africa and Latin America on fossil fuel expansion relates to ToC1, ToC2 as well as ToC3, and is reported upon under 2.B MD3a, MD3b. [Counted under 2.B].
[MD1(3)]: Milieudefensie will increase knowledge within the FoE network and beyond on the topic of state support (financial [3.B] and non-financial [ToC2 2.B]) for the fossil fuel industry for its efforts to expand fossil fuel extraction in LLMICs, and to what Northern and Southern CSOs can undertake to advocate an end to this practice. It is expected that capacity development in the network will be used by at least three LLMIC CSOs for advocacy work on the topic at the international level, in their LLMIC and/or in the Netherlands.
[MD/FoEE1a(1)]: FoE Europe, Milieudefensie , Both ENDS and SOMO in collaboration with CSOs in the UK and France have been working with a CSO in Mozambique to increase its capacity to provide materials and evidence to address in Mozambique and in the home countries of the companies involved (amongst media, politicians, policy-makers a.o.) the impacts of the development of a large gas field in Mozambique, and to challenge the (expected) financial support via European export credit agencies (ECAs) for companies involved in the development of this gas field. The Northern organisations supported the Mozambican CSO's advocacy a.o. with a freedom of information request in the Netherlands on the Dutch government's analyses and considerations regarding the intended 600 million euro ECA support for the gas field development, and by engaging Dutch and European media, politicians and policy-makers. Milieudefensie and the Mozambican CSO involved the Dutch public via a petition in September 2020 directed at the Dutch ECA calling on the ECA to stop providing export credits for fossil fuel development projects: 'Atradius: stop de exportsteun voor vervuilende bedrijven' (for outcomes see 3.D MD1).
[MD1b(5)]: Milieudefensie and Both ENDS supported CSOs in Uganda (1), Nigeria (1), Togo (1) and Ghana (2) in research and advocacy on financial support from export credit agencies (ECAs), including the Dutch state ECA, for fossil fuel development in their countries. In November 2020 the joint CSO report 'A Just Energy Transition for Africa? Mapping the impacts of ECAs active in the energy sector in Ghana, Nigeria, Togo and Uganda' was published. The report shows that ECA support for fossil fuel development in Africa hampers the transition to clean and renewable energy in African countries. The ECA-supported investments in fossil fuel development make these countries economically dependent on energy sources that many countries in the world are committed to phase out, which poses serious economic debt risks, undermining their long-term resilience. Between 2013 and 2020 ECAs insured energy projects in the four countries for 18 billion USD, of which 52% were fossil fuel projects and 45% concerned hydropower. ECA-supported fossil fuel and hydro projects have had considerable adverse impacts on communities and their environment, as well as on the climate (which is also the case for hydropower), while there is a huge opportunity for renewable energy in the four African countries. Distributed renewable energy - including solar, wind and geothermal projects - have the potential to make an end to energy poverty in these countries and to provide sustainable energy access where it is most needed. In 2020 and continuing in 2021 the organisations have plead amongst the four African national governments and in the African media, as well as amongst the Dutch government and MEPs that public funds and financial institutions should actively start supporting the renewable energy sector in the global South (see also 3.D MD1).
Outcome D: Agendas Set
Decision makers prioritise improvement measures due to support from influential civil society actors, critical media attention, increased public awareness and effective scrutiny of financial and tax policies.
3.D
# proposals for improvement of financial, tax and spending policies discussed by private and public policy makers, and/or in academia, public agenda, media and social movements.
All baselines are set at 0
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1):] On 10 July 2017, the mid-term report of the High Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (HLEGSF) was published. The report, constituting recommendations to the European Commission, included several of the points advocated by FoE Europe, Global Witness and ShareAction, such as recognition that a sustainable development model requires ensuring ‘environmental, social and governance factors (ESG) are at the heart of financial decision-making’, a call for action by regulatory authorities to ‘make clear to all involved in the investment and lending chain that managing ESG risks is integral to fulfilling fiduciary duty’ and building on EU legal texts so that financial actors are clear that fiduciary duty includes action to integrate ESG considerations in their decision-making processes. In a public reaction to the HLEGSF report, the CSOs pointed to the need for the European Commission to go further and arrange for regulation that obliges financial industry companies to exercise due diligence to avoid ESG harm, and for greater accountability of financiers to those impacted by the operations of the companies in their portfolio. These points have also been raised by the organisations in several meetings on sustainable finance policy, and on the Capital Markets Union (CMU), with EU commissioners and MEPs, and found support in these meetings. One meeting concerned a high level event on the CMU organised by FoE Europe, Global Witness, ActionAid, WWF Europe and MEPs on 6 June 2017. Furthermore, in June the report 'A call for action to ensure strong regulation of the financial sector to avoid environmental, social and governance risks' was published by Global Witness, FoE Europe, SOMO, ActionAid, WWF, FERN, RAN, and ShareAction.
[FoEE1(1)]: On 8 March 2018 the European Commission in its communication 'Action Plan: Financing Sustainable Growth' announced that “To promote corporate governance that is more conducive to sustainable investments, by Q2 2019, the Commission will carry out analytical and consultative work with relevant stakeholders to assess: (i) the possible need to require corporate boards to develop and disclose a sustainability strategy, including appropriate due diligence throughout the supply chain, and measurable sustainability targets; and (ii) the possible need to clarify the rules according to which directors are expected to act in the company's long-term interest.” This effort of the European Commission to research options for due diligence for financial institutions is a very significant change for which SOMO and FoE Europe together with ActionAid and Global Witness have been advocating for many years, amongst others in their engagement with the High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (HLEG) of which SOMO was a member. The HLEG, that was established by the European Commission in 2016, on 31 January 2018 presented its final report. In a press release on that date, the European Commission reconfirmed it will finalise its strategy on sustainable finance on the basis of the recommendations of the HLEG: “Delivering an EU strategy on sustainable finance is a priority action of the Commission's Capital Markets Union (CMU) Action Plan, as well as one of the key steps towards implementing the historic Paris Agreement and the EU's Agenda for sustainable development.” [MD2(2)]: On 23 January 2018 Dutch parliament adopted two motions addressing state financial support for the fossil fuel industry (subsidies, tax exemptions, export credits etc.). One vote asks the Dutch government to arrange in its National Energy and Climate Plan that financial incentives for the fossil fuel industry will be phased out. A second motion asks the Dutch government to participate in the peer review process of the G20 in which countries evaluate each other's support for the fossil fuel industry. Milieudefensie and Both ENDS had pleaded for this in a letter to Dutch parliament on 8 December 2017.
[FoEE1(1):] Proposal to address tax avoidance by fossil fuel companies has been discussed with EU policy makers. [FoEE2(1):] Proposal to address involvement of investors in land grabbing has been discussed with policy makers at EU level.
N/A. Targets set for the combined periods 2016 and 2017 are included in “Period 2016-2017”. Results achieved in the period 2016-2017 are reported under “Period 2016” and “Period 2017”.
[FoEE1(1)]: FoE Europe campaign work on the negative impacts of oil and gas and how oil and gas are contributing to climate change and undermine the Paris Climate agreement, developed in line with Southern FoE groups' demands, will put the need to phase out public European subsidies for fossil fuels higher on the political agenda (European Commission, European Parliament).
[FoEE1(1)]: In 2019 FoEE continued its campaign aimed at phasing out EU subsidies for fossil fuel projects, focussing on gas projects in the EU's list of Projects of Common Interest (PCI), several of which FoE Europe is working on with CSOs in LLMICs (a.o. Mozambique, Nigeria and Palestine). When the 4th PCI list was voted on in February 2020 169 MEPs voted in favour of a rejection, and 443 against a rejection, with 36 abstentions. While this is not enough to reject gas projects on the list, the European Commission committed that only projects that are in line with the European Green Deal can receive funding from the EU. The relevance of such EU action for a global just energy transition including in LLMICs was also identified at FoE Europe's 'Beyond Gas Conference: Connecting struggles between North and South' that brought together gas campaigners from more than 10 southern countries together with European gas activists [See also 2.B FoEE2]. [MD2(1)]: The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate in its 'Integraal Nationaal Energie- en Klimaatplan 2021-2030' (NECP) issued November 2019 (p63) acknowledges that "In a broad definition of fossil fuel subsidies, [measures like tax exemptions] could also be regarded as subsidies" and mentions that "A list of such measures will be discussed shortly with IEA and OECD as part of the IEA's periodic In-Depth Review" while "The results of the review will be involved in formulating Dutch policy on this theme." This is a significant change as compared to the 'Draft Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-2030' issued November 2018, in which the Ministry states that "The Netherlands has no grants or subsidies for fossil fuels." (p43). The 2018 result that on 23 January 2018 Dutch parliament adopted a motion asking the government to arrange in its NECP that financial incentives for the fossil fuel industry will be phased out, for which Milieudefensie and Both ENDS had pleaded in a letter to Dutch parliament on 8 December 2017, apparently had not been enough to influence the Ministry's draft NECP. The change in position of the Ministry in 2019 happened after dialogue between Milieudefensie and the Ministry on the topic (a.o. on the definition of 'subsidies' and methodologies to assess them, and a.o. in a stakeholder meeting organised by the Ministry) during the year, the Ministry receiving feedback on its draft NECP from the European Commission in June 2019, and the release in September 2019 by Milieudefensie, ODI, CAN Europe and ETTG of the research report 'Fossil fuel subsidies in draft EU National Energy and Climate Plans. Shortcomings and final call for action' in which the NGOs conclude that EU Member States, while they are required to report on their fossil fuel subsidies and their plans to phase them out as part of their NECPs, the NGOs' analysis shows that none of the draft NECPs submitted provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s fossil fuel subsidies nor a comprehensive plan to phase them out, and that despite numerous international commitments to end them, and some limited progress on reform, all EU governments continue to provide high levels of subsidies to fossil fuels. The report encourages the EU governments to use a common definition of fossil fuel subsidies and to use existing data sources and methodologies to establish the subsidy level, in order to turn longstanding subsidy phase-out commitments into action. The report shows that the Netherlands provides fossil fuel subsidies to an amount of € 7.6 billion annually. The report was covered in the national and international press. Furthermore, in response to another parliamentary motion on 23 January 2018, that calls on the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate to participate in an international peer review of Dutch fossil fuel subsidies (for which Milieudefensie and Both ENDS had pleaded), the Ministry, in Autumn 2019, started a stakeholder process on the topic in which Milieudefensie participates. The Ministry invited the OECD and the International Energy Agency (IEA) to peer review its fossil fuel subsidies. Milieudefensie is currently awaiting the publication of the OECD/IEA study (Milieudefensie has commented on a draft) and once it gets published Milieudefensie will publish a parallel study on the topic from a (Southern) CSO perspective with concrete recommendations for a just and urgent phase-out of the Netherlands' domestic and international financial support for fossil fuels. Putting an end to (Northern) fossil fuel subsidies is a demand from Southern FoE groups in FoE International's Climate Justice and Energy Programme. Milieudefensie cooperates with CSOs in Mozambique, Togo, Honduras, Colombia, Bolivia, Brazil and Argentina on the impact in these countries of oil and gas exploitation (plans) supported financially and/or diplomatically by the Dutch government (see e.g. 2.B MD3b). [MD3(1)]: Milieudefensie, Both ENDS, Greenpeace and Pax achieved support from Dutch parliamentarians for their plea to the Dutch government to end subsidising fossil fuels via the Dutch export credit agency (ECA) Atradius DSB. Invited to a stakeholder meeting by the Ministry of Finance in autumn, and on other occasions during 2019, Milieudefensie (often together with the mentioned NGOs) advocated among the Ministry, parliament, SER and Atradius DSB that greening Atradius DSB should both comprise of increasing its green portfolio, and focus on ending export credit insurance for fossil fuel projects (fossil fuel projects currently accounting for € 1.8 billion or two-thirds of their portfolio, see ODI's report 'Phase-out 2020: monitoring Europe’s fossil fuel subsidies' (p5)). The issue was discussed in Dutch parliament several times and parliamentary questions were raised, e.g. in April 2019 in the Parliamentary Commission on Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, and in October 2019 during the written deliberations on modernising the ECA's. Milieudefensie and Both ENDS base their position on demands from colleague CSOs in LLMICs in which Atradius DSB insures oil and gas operations (a.o. Mozambique, Uganda, Nigeria, Togo, Ghana).
[MD1(1)]: As a result of advocacy efforts of Milieudefensie and LLMIC CSOs, increased support within the Dutch government for an abolition of subsidies for the fossil fuel industry (such as direct subsidies, tax exemptions, public finance, government purchases, export credit insurances etc.), in order to achieve policy coherence for development in relation to SDGs on climate change and the environment, and to prevent a delay of the just energy transition as demanded amongst others by the LLMIC CSOs united in FoE International's Climate Justice and Energy Programme. [The related topic of non-financial government support to the fossil fuel industry, such as diplomatic support, is included under ToC2 2.D].
[MD1(1)]: Advocacy from Milieudefensie and Both ENDS, in collaboration with and in support of CSOs in Mozambique, Uganda, Nigeria, Togo and Ghana (see 3.B MD1, MD2), resulted in engagement from Dutch politicians and the Dutch government for an end to state financial support via the Dutch export credit agency (ECA) for fossil fuel development in the Global South. Elementary in this were the findings of research in Mozambique, and research in four other African LLMICs published in the report 'A Just Energy Transition for Africa? Mapping the impacts of ECAs active in the energy sector in Ghana, Nigeria, Togo and Uganda' (see 3.B MD2). The CSO report provided a Southern impact perspective on ECA support, which had previously been lacking (it was assumed amongst governments that investment in the fossil fuel sector would be beneficial to development, access to energy, employment a.t.l., which the research showed was not the case). Both ENDS and Milieudefensie informed Dutch parliament of the positions of the African CSOs a.o. by letter of 16 November 2020 ('Overwegingen en aanbevelingen voor AO van 19 november inzake de Exportkredietverzekering') and via the media.
In the parliamentary debate on ECAs on 19 November parliamentarians referred to the Mozambique case presented by Milieudefensie and Both ENDS, and a resolution was submitted that calls on the government to include the shortest possible phasing-out path for all ECA support for the oil and gas industry in the scenarios to be drawn up for aligning the ECA with the Paris climate goals. State Secretary for Finance, Mr. Vijlbrief, in the 19 November debate made a commitment to Parliament to develop a scenario for an ECA fossil phase-out. This commitment resulted in a series of closed stakeholder consultations, involving Milieudefensie and Both ENDS as well as the Dutch business sector, VNO NCW, the Dutch ECA, the MoFA and Ministry of Finance, to discuss the ECA fossil phase out. These meetings took place between December and February 2021, and culminated in a bigger stakeholder meeting on 19 February 2021. Parliamentary questions about Dutch state support for the fossil fuel industry were also raised a.o. on 14 July 2020, referring to Milieudefensie's and Oil Change International's report 'Past time for action' (see under) and on 28 September 2020 on Oil Change International's 'Discussion Paper: Big Oil Reality Check – Assessing Oil And Gas Company Climate Plans' released in collaboration with a.o. Milieudefensie, Both ENDS and SOMO (see under).
Milieudefensie and Oil Change International informed Dutch parliament with the aforementioned report 'Past time for action: Subsidies and Public Finance for Fossil Fuels in the Netherlands' (June 2020). The report revealed that between 2016 and 2020, the Netherlands provided an average of 4.9 billion euros in fossil fuel subsidies each year; while the sum of the various forms of financial support to the fossil fuel industry, including subsidies, public finance and state-owned enterprise investment, amounted to an average of 8.3 billion euros per year. Of this amount, an average of 2.9 billion euros of public finance per year support fossil fuel production and related infrastructure at the international level (e.g. via the Dutch ECA and the Dutch development bank). This financial support for the fossil fuel industry is not in line with the Paris Climate Agreement, in which states agreed to “[m]aking finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”, nor with its European commitment made in 2013 to end all environmentally harmful subsidies by 2020.
Milieudefensie informed Dutch parliament with the aforementioned discussion paper 'Big Oil Reality Check – Assessing Oil And Gas Company Climate Plans' produced by Oil Change International and released in collaboration with a.o. Milieudefensie, Both ENDS and SOMO (September 2020). The paper analyzes the current climate commitments of eight of the largest integrated oil and fossil gas companies, and reveals that none come close to aligning their actions with the urgent 1.5°C global warming limit as outlined by the Paris Climate Agreement. The authors conclude that governments, investors, and communities should not assume the industry most responsible for causing the climate crisis will do its fair share to solve it.
The relevance of this is that until recently, the Dutch government claimed that no fossil fuel subsidies exist in the Netherlands. However, at the end of 2019, in response to adopted parliamentary resolutions calling on the government to take action on fossil fuel subsidies (that were submitted after advocacy work of Both ENDS and Milieudefensie), the Netherlands commissioned the OECD and the IEA to peer review its fossil fuel subsidies framework to inform policy on the topic. This creates an important opportunity for the government to turn long-standing commitments into concrete action. In the 'Past time for action' report, Milieudefensie argues that the whole range of fossil fuels-supporting instruments should be included in the government’s efforts to align financial flows with climate goals. In order to meet its commitment to align public financial flows with climate goals, Milieudefensie recommends the Dutch government a.o. to end all public financial support for fossil fuels.
[MD/FoEE2(2)]: Sharing the findings of the aforementioned research in Mozambique, Ghana, Nigeria, Togo and Uganda (see 3.B MD/FoEE1, 3.B MD2, 3.D MD1) together with the CSOs involved, and advocacy work from FoE Europe, may have also contributed to the announcement of the UK government 12 December 2020 that the UK will end all public finance for fossil fuel projects overseas, including export finance, which makes the UK the first major economy to end export finance for oil and gas. The Southern CSOs together with Milieudefensie and Both ENDS, provided their findings and input in the UK's online consultation process on phasing out UK fossil support, and were later invited by UK policy makers to provide further input during an online meeting. Several of the recommendations made by the CSOs were integrated in the UK policy decision released early 2021. Furthermore, in January 2021, the Council of the EU in its 'Council conclusions on Climate and Energy Diplomacy - Delivering on the external dimension of the European Green Deal' announced that the EU Foreign Ministers agreed to prioritize ending fossil fuel finance and subsidies, and to discourage further investments in fossil fuel based energy infrastructure projects in third countries. Such are significant shifts in policy and political sentiment and create potential for accelerating global climate action. As mentioned above, ending ECA financing for fossil fuels is particularly critical to meet climate goals, with ECAs being the largest international public financiers of fossil fuels.
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA
Milieudefensie
Green Livelihoods Alliance
Forested landscapes form the cornerstone of the livelihoods of about 1.2 billion people almost 20% of the world’s population. A large proportion of these people are among the poorest in the world. They are often particularly disadvantaged because their rights over land and natural resources are frequently ill-defined and far from assured. Forested landscapes in developing countries are also crucially linked to the rest of the world. The natural services they provide are regarded as International Public Goods (IPGs). The services climate resilience, biodiversity, and food and water security are critical for growing agro-commodities that are consumed globally. Despite the tremendous services forested landscapes provide, almost a third of the world’s forests have disappeared and another 20% of global forest cover is seriously degraded. Unsustainable cultivation of food, animal feed and energy crops is one of the root causes of deforestation as the expansion of plantations leads to further deforestation and land degradation. Incentivized by agricultural and trade policies, international actors such as multinational corporations and investors are major drivers of forest loss. Still, also local communities and small, local companies can contribute heavily to loss and degradation of forests. Another important driver of deforestation and land degradation is the lack of political and private will in many low- and lower-middle-income countries to safeguard the critical functions that forests provide. Scientific and empirical research shows that informed local communities with ownership of or access to land play a crucial role in safeguarding productive forested landscapes. Inclusive and sustainable governance of forested landscapes is founded on informed joint decision-making and collaboration by all stakeholders – government agencies, the private sector and local communities. This type of governance ensures equal access to natural resources and their benefits, ensuring thriving green livelihoods of local communities. The Green Livelihoods Alliance will act to support – and simultaneously learn from – local communities in forested landscapes. With our mutually reinforcing networks, tools, knowledge and experience, Alliance members Milieudefensie, IUCN NL and Tropenbos International work with civil society organisations (CSOs) who share our goals to represent and empower local communities in lobby & advocacy to bring about inclusive and sustainable governance of forested landscapes. Where possible, through collaboration the Green Livelihoods Alliance will facilitate multi-stakeholder dialogues with a wider group of CSOs, local and international companies and governments to improve policies and practices. Where necessary, we will empower CSO partners to press public and private stakeholders for change.
The objective of the Green Livelihoods Alliance is to strengthen the abilities and effectiveness of Southern CSOs to influence policies and practices to achieve the inclusive and sustainable governance of forested landscapes. In these landscapes local communities can enjoy secure access to ecosystem services on the basis of three core elements: 1) Equitable access to and better control over land, natural resources and rights; 2) Inclusive landscape governance; and 3) Nature-based approaches to conservation, sustainable management and forest restoration , including for enhanced climate resilience.
Civil society; Governments; International institutions; Private sector actors, Knowledge Institutions
The Alliance will initiate the “Forested Landscapes for Equity Programme” in close cooperation with its CSO partners. In this inception phase, the Alliance will dovetail the capacity building and country and driver-specific lobby & advocacy strategies. A thorough context analysis will be conducted and during inception workshops, the Alliance’s Theory of Change will be contextualized according to country and driver. Based on the outcomes of the workshops, lobby & advocacy strategies and interventions for dialogue and dissent will be designed. Alliance partners and CSO partners will also carry out a capacity development needs and assets analysis to identify relevant capacities for the envisaged strategies and interventions. During the inception phase, baselines will be set for capacity development as well as for thematic areas.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS)
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
IUCN NL
Tropenbos International
Milieudefensie
Service department
+31206262620
service@milieudefensie.nl
https://milieudefensie.nl/
Postbus 19199, NL-1000 GD, Amsterdam
8241750
8241750
8241750
8241750
8241750
212746
2600000
Tropenbos International
2574000
Tropenbos International
2600000
IUCN NL
2574000
IUCN NL
8159000
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS)
2289000
Tropenbos International
381856
370991
432593
266229
2574000
IUCN NL
751875
2740628
IUCN NL
8159000
Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS)
2600000
IUCN NL
2600000
IUCN NL
2574000
IUCN NL
397476
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS)
8159000
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS)
8160000
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS)
143359
95658
135481
163818
2574000
Tropenbos International
96879
Tropenbos International
-18096
Tropenbos International
2600000
Tropenbos International
2574000
IUCN-NL
2574000
IUCN NL
260096
IUCN NL
-10532
IUCN NL
-15274
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS)
41208750
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS)
2299975
Tropenbos International
2574000
Tropenbos International
2600000
Tropenbos International
2600000
Tropenbos International
2600000
IUCN NL
2574000
Tropenbos International
8159000
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS)
GLA PMEL Tool: Civil Actors Participation Tool
Green Livelihoods Alliance Annual Report 2017
Green Livelihoods Alliance Annual Plan 2019
Green Livelihoods Alliance Annual Report 2018
Exclusion Policy Milieudefensie
Green Livelihoods Alliance Annual Plan 2017
GLA PMEL Tool: Engagement, Commitment & Action Tool
Green Livelihoods Alliance Annual Report 2016
Green Livelihoods Alliance Annual Plan 2018
Green Livelihoods Alliance Annual Plan 2020
GLA Mid Term Review
Green Livelihoods Alliance Annual Report 2019
Green Livelihoods Alliance Annual Report 2020 and Report 2016-2020
DD5 - CSOs have improved their capacity to lobby and advocate.
DD5 - # of CSOs with increased L&A capacities
# of CSOs who have increased their capacity on at least 1 of the 5 Capacities for Lobby & Advocacy in the GLA capacity analysis tool, as a result of the GLA programme.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
In 2018, 61 Civil Society Organisations in the GLA strengthened their capacity for effective lobby and advocacy. This number includes some of the first and second tier partners (DD6) but only those who have increased their capacity on at least 1 of the 5 Capacities for Lobby & Advocacy in the GLA capacity analysis tool. It also includes third tier partners (CSOs from LLMIC countries directly capacitated in the GLA programme, but without a direct contractual relation). The GLA also contributed to capacity strengthening of other CSOs, CBOs and citizens, which is not included in this figure. When other actors than our CSO partners change their behavior as a result of our interventions, these are harvested as outcomes. When relevant, they are included in DD1, DD2 or DD3. Capacity building in 2018 ranged from trainings, workshops and guidance, to exchange visits. The GLA also conducted its mid-term review in July 2018 to stimulate exchange, learning and (re)strategizing. The GLA has focused particularly on capacity strengthening in the use of evidence to underpin dialogue and actions. In 2018, an increasing number of people were trained in local monitoring tools, such as the mobile app TIMBY (‘This Is My Backyard’) and GIS mapping. In a number of countries, local communities and CSOs collected information or conducted research in the field to improve land use planning or decision-making by governments. Partners also strengthened their capacities in communication. Mobilizing the media and journalists proved to be an important strategy to mobilize a critical mass and communicate messages among a large public Collaboration and exchange between the Northern alliance members and Southern CSOs was a fruitful approach to strengthen GLA partners’ capacity for effective lobby and advocacy. Also at country level, the GLA strengthened capacities for lobby and advocacy most effectively through learning by doing, for instance by participating in campaigning and joining exchange visits. To ensure relevance, the GLA has also linked capacity strengthening to themes that affect community forest management. The GLA continued with the development and sharing of tools and toolkits, such as the Landscape Investment and Finance Tool, a financial flow analysis module, the Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM), the Landscape Governance Assessments, the Anti-Corruption Toolkit and role-playing games. Several GLA partners participated in trainings on using these tools and are currently applying what they learned.
In 2019, 61 Civil Society Organisations in the GLA strengthened their capacity for effective lobby and advocacy. This number includes some of the first and second tier partners (DD6) but only those who have increased their capacity on at least 1 of the 5 Capacities for Lobby & Advocacy in the GLA capacity analysis tool. It also includes third tier partners (CSOs from LLMIC countries directly capacitated in the GLA programme, but without a direct contractual relation). The GLA also contributed to capacity strengthening of other CSOs, CBOs and citizens, which is not included in this figure. When other actors than our CSO partners change their behavior as a result of our interventions, these are harvested as outcomes. When relevant, they are included in DD1, DD2 or DD3. Capacity building in 2019 ranged from trainings, workshops and guidance, to exchange visits. In 2019, based on the recommendations from the mid-term review in 2018 and on a clear demand, GLA partners and alliance members increased their efforts on gender, the generation and use of evidence, civic space and collaboration. Interestingly, efforts on these topics also mutually reinforce them; both working in coalitions and using verified evidence are strategies that partners use to deal with shrinking civic space. Collaboration increased at the local level and at the programme level. Milieudefensie, IUCN NL and TBI collaborated on integrating gender more systematically into the GLA programme and their own organizations. Milieudefensie and IUCN NL also worked together closely in the lobby for the UN Binding Treaty , including active participation of Southern CSOs, which contributed to their capacity for effective lobby and advocacy at the international level. The community rights reviews conducted by TBI (see 2.4) are expected to yield useful lessons for the entire GLA programme; they have already increased insights and dialogue at the local level. A synthesis of results is expected in June 2020. The main results and lessons for each topic are highlighted in this chapter. A core assumption of the GLA ToC found to hold true through the years, is that CSOs are more effective if they use reliable and verified knowledge and evidence to underpin their dialogue and actions. The GLA therefore intensified its efforts in 2019 to generate evidence through community-based monitoring and citizen science initiatives, and to train local monitors and provide them with tools. Tools include drones, acoustic monitoring and This Is My Backyard (TIMBY), a mobile phone app to collect, monitor and share data. Data are passed on to a central platform that is accessible to the forest police, among others.
DD1 - Adequate practice of new/improved laws, policies, and societal norms
DD1 - # of laws, policies and norms, implemented for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show; public or private actors implement ((inter)national) laws, policies and standards, or improved implementation of existing laws, policies and standards; and # of outcomes that show civil actors take concrete actions that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance; or change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
N/A. The GLA uses outcome harvesting to operationalize the Dialogue & Dissent indicators. Setting targets for the number of outcomes to be harvested is not relevant and therefore not applicable.
N/A. The GLA uses outcome harvesting to operationalize the Dialogue & Dissent indicators. Setting targets for the number of outcomes to be harvested is not relevant and therefore not applicable.
Laws and policies stand or fall by the extent to which they are implemented, enforced and complied with. In 2018, a total of 99 harvested outcomes show improved implementation of laws, policies and practices of public, private and civil actors that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance. 49 of the harvested outcomes under DD1 show governments and businesses implemented laws, policies and standards, or improved implementation of existing laws, policies and standards. Firstly, 11 outcomes show that the GLA has been successful in protecting forests and halting illegal forest conversion in various landscapes. For instance, in Bolivia, the National Forest Controlling Authority intervened when clear-cutting plans were irregularly approved in community owned forests. Just like National Forest Officials in Uganda confirmed that the encroachment on a forest area was illegal. The Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry conducted field monitoring, to collect evidence on illegal plantations by an oil palm company in peatlands and protected areas. The outcomes have in common that the GLA monitored and investigated the situation, presented its findings to the authorities, who in turn, intervened or investigated further. Capacity building also played a role, such as in the DRC where officials were trained in the application of laws and legal instruments relating to environmental crimes. Secondly, the GLA has contributed to improved implementation of policies that benefit local communities to apply sustainable practices 12 times. For instance, in Vietnam, regional authorities facilitated local people to plant cash crops on the degraded land to improve their livelihoods. In the Philippines, local and regional authorities granted funds to several communities, for instance for a Rural Improvement Club, for promotion of trade in products developed by indigenous peoples in the Southern Sierra Madre and to community-based NTFP enterprises. Finally, the GLA alliance achieved 11 results in the implementation of laws or company practices concerning (the violation of) land rights. For instance when, as a result of a court case and a mediation process led by the GLA partner, a palm oil company and the regional authorities in Uganda, started the process of securing land titles for 8 farmers, to ensure tenure security and reduced conflict. In Indonesia, GLA partners supported communities to apply for land tenure permits through the social forestry scheme. In 2018, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry approved social forestry permits for 11 villages, for a total of 14,266 ha, providing them with land-use rights and opportunities for improved livelihoods. At international level, the RSPO Complaints Panel recognized complaints from 5 Liberian communities against a palm oil company, ordering it to stop work on disputed lands and address FPIC, human rights, and environmental issues. 50 of the harvested outcomes under DD1 show civil actors taking concrete actions that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance. To ensure government officials actually enforce policies for the protection of forests and rights, evidence on violations of land rights, illegal logging and mining is vital. For this purpose, the GLA has capacitated local forest monitors and guards in a.o. Bolivia, Ghana, Indonesia, Liberia, Cameroon, Philippines and Vietnam. This resulted in local communities becoming active in monitoring their forests. For instance in Bolivia, 18 communities have been capacitated to act as community guards of the Tucabaca Reserve. These communities play an important role in monitoring illegal encroachment of the reserve, thus protecting water sources and maintaining its attraction of eco-tourism. 2018 also saw an increase in the usage of monitoring data by civil society, in campaigns and direct complaints to companies. In addition, 11 outcomes concerned communities who contribute to more sustainable use of their forests. Communities ended illegal logging practices and hunting for bushmeat, started restoring degraded areas, and applied more sustainable agro-forestry practices to halt industrial plantations while at the same time contributing to local livelihoods. Often, these outcomes were achieved through awareness raising, field visits and exchanges, as well as research into viable sustainable alternatives.
N/A. The GLA uses outcome harvesting to operationalize the Dialogue & Dissent indicators. Setting targets for the number of outcomes to be harvested is not relevant and therefore not applicable.
Implementation or enforcement of laws, policies and goals, is a vital step to ensure that our work in fact leads to more inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance in the landscapes. In 2019, the GLA harvested a total of 176 outcomes that represent improved implementation of laws, policies and practices of public, private and civil actors that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance. 83 of the harvested outcomes under DD1 show governments and businesses implemented laws, policies and standards, or improved implementation of existing laws, policies and standards. About 2/3rd of the outcomes concern public actors enforcing or implementing policies and laws. At national level, the JET programme was successful in influencing governments to implement (improved) renewable energy policies (5 outcomes). In Nigeria for instance, the federal government included 2 billion naira in the annual budget for solar energy in rural electrification projects, and commissioned the largest off-grid solar power plant in Africa. The government of Uganda added 30 megawatt of solar energy to the national grid and invested in electric vehicles to promote environmental conservation. A large number of outcomes concerned local authorities (36) improving the implementation of their policies in 2019. In the Philippines for instance, police officers apprehended illegal loggers as a result of trained community members reporting the case to the authorities. A complaint was filed against the perpetrators. In the DRC, Judicial Police Officers of the Virunga National Park, efficiently investigated cases of wildlife and forest crimes, based on increased quality of evidence, as a result of a GLA training workshops for judicial staff. In Viet Nam, the Chu Yang Sin National Park has set up restoration models in post slash-and-burn fields and coffee plantations in Hoa Le and Khue Ngoc Dien communes. Thus, the national park implemented their policies to actively restore degraded land, 41 hectares in total benefiting 22 households. The remaining 1/3rd of outcomes in this category concerned private actors improving their behaviour. The results vary between outcomes from the international to the local level. For instance the Dow Jones Sustainability index removed a contested palm oil company from its list with sustainable companies, as a result of research by Friends of the Earth groups which was shared with the company’s investors. At the local level in Viet Nam, a forestry company established long rotation acacia plantations, based on collaboration with local farmers to improve their income as well as the ecosystem. 93 of the harvested outcomes under DD1 show civil actors taking concrete actions that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance. 72 of these outcome concern empowered communities who have proactively taken actions to safeguard their forests, apply sustainable practices or demand justice or proper compensations from public and private actors. Notable outcomes include for instance community representatives in Atewa, Ghana who sued a mining company for disposure of mining waste into the river. This showed improved strength of the community to compel private actors to adhere to existing mining standards, as a result of awareness raising by a GLA partner on the impacts of negligence in mining and responsible mining practices and regulations. A favourable judgement will encourage other communities to seek redress in case of negligence in extraction of forest and its related resources. In Indonesia, 5 Village Forest Management Groups signed a joint forest management agreement, and subse-quently surveyed their forests, generating valuable data on the forest’s animals, plants, non-timber forest products and environmental services, which is essential for the preparation of a sustainable village forest man-agement plan. The GLA partner discussed the importance of protecting the forest and the importance of data on forest services to the community at each meeting of the VFMG. The partner conducted participatory forest eco-system monitoring training using GPS.
N/A. The GLA uses outcome harvesting to operationalize the Dialogue & Dissent indicators. Setting targets for the number of outcomes to be harvested is not relevant and therefore not applicable.
Implementation or enforcement of laws, policies and goals, is a vital step to ensure that our work
in fact leads to more inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance in the landscapes. In
2020, the GLA harvested a total of 117 outcomes that represent improved implementation of laws,
policies and practices of public, private and civil actors that significantly contribute to inclusive and
sustainable forested landscape governance.
Public actors taking action
A significant part of the 117 outcomes under DD1 concerns public actors enforcing or implementing
policies and laws. Most of these outcomes were at the national level, as legislation at international
level is often not yet in the implementation phase. For instance, in Vietnam, the ministry in charge of
forests dismantled a major Vietnamese network of illegal loggers leading to the sanctioning of those
concerned. Also in Ghana, monitoring activities by the Community Resource Management
Committee (CRMC) led to the removal about sixty illegal miners who had rented accommodation in
Potroase in March 2020 (see chapter 2.1 of the final narrative report).
Private actors acting
Several outcomes in this category concerned private actors improving their behaviour. Some
outcomes indicate increased action of companies to engage, or to compensate communities. For
instance: In Ghana, local farmers in Borkorkrom community received compensation payment from a
timber company following FoE-Ghana’s campaign and publication of the company’s infringement on
community rights.
Civil actors acting
Outcomes under DD1 also show civil actors taking concrete steps that significantly contribute to
inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance. Several of these outcomes concern
empowered communities who have proactively taken actions to safeguard their forests, apply
sustainable practices or demand justice or proper compensations from public and private actors.
Communities took actions to safeguard their forests: For instance, LPHD in Indonesia is regularly
patrolling in the KEE corridor. Regular patrol in village forests will protect the village forest from
illegal logging and fires. It also helps to restore the degraded forest through restoration activities. In
Cameroon, a permanent network of local forest monitors was created in 2020, which is active in
documenting evidence of illegal logging. By the end of 2020, around 154 local forest monitors have
been trained and equipped with the Timby application, and delivered over 600 reports of
environmental and social harms to 6 Friends of the Earth groups that have undertaken over 200
advocacy actions in response.
Communities have also turned to alternative, more sustainable practices of using their land: For
instance in Vietnam, local farmers in the Hoa Phong, Hoa Son and Khue Ngoc Dien commune of
Krong Bong district set up agroforestry farms of coffee and oranges. Farmer groups of oil palm in
two villages in Indonesia started to earn additional income from processing alternative products such
as pineapple jam and dodol, decreasing their dependency on palm oil. In Ghana, farmers in the
Juaboso Bia landscape have increased tree cover on their farms to enhance climate smart and
sustainable cocoa production.
Outcomes under DD1 show that communities increasingly resist new extraction developments. In
Ghana, Chiefs and Assembly members in Bia West District have vowed to resist any attempts of
illegal gold mining within their jurisdiction. This outcome shows locals willingness and capability to
defend their rights against illegal and unsustainable extraction of natural resources. It also
demonstrates their ability to self-mobilise to protect activities that threaten their livelihood activities.
DD2 - Inclusive legislation, policies, norms and attitudes in support of marginalized people to access their rights, services and opportunities.
DD2 # of laws, policies and norms/attitudes, blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show; Public or private actors formally adopt/improve/ block laws, policies and standards, that contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance; and # of outcomes that show civil actors agree on actions/ adopt plans that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance; or agree to change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
N/A. The GLA uses outcome harvesting to operationalize the Dialogue & Dissent indicators. Setting targets for the number of outcomes to be harvested is not relevant and therefore not applicable.
N/A. The GLA uses outcome harvesting to operationalize the Dialogue & Dissent indicators. Setting targets for the number of outcomes to be harvested is not relevant and therefore not applicable.
In 2018, the GLA has harvested a total of 93 outcomes that demonstrate that public, private and civil actors changed laws, policies and norms/attitudes towards more inclusive and sustainable forested landscapes. Out of these outcomes, 60 outcomes show that public and private actors adopted laws and/or policies that contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance. At local or regional level, public actors adopted 21 policies or regulations for more sustainable practices. For example in the Philippines, where the City Development Council of Cagayan de Oro approved restoration through the CDO River Basin project and the local council in Cagayan de Oro allocated an area for a restoration project. 28 outcomes show policy change at national level. For example, the President of Liberia signed The Land Rights Act in September 2018, a Land Law that legalizes customary communities’ ownership of their lands. In January 2018, the Committee on Indigenous Cultural Communities and Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines approved the Indigenous Peoples Conserved Territories and Areas Bill, which contributes to the recognition of the contributions of indigenous people in natural resources governance. In Decree 156 guiding Viet Nam’s Forestry law, the Government of Viet Nam accepted forest as vital for sustaining and developing ethnic minority groups’ livelihood, communities as co-managers of forests, as well as improved transparency in policy making and implementation, contributing to access to forestland for local communities. Partners employed diverse strategies to reach these results: they participated in technical working groups, lobbied with authorities and mobilized and involved communities to ensure their interests were taken into account. Public support and mobilization of local constituents is important in long-term lobby and advocacy processes, because even after adoption of a law or policy, there is often a need to continue to push for its implementation. At international level, GLA partners contributed to 11 outcomes. The European Parliament voted to ban the use of palm oil to be counted towards the fulfilment of the EU renewable energy goals, which should lead to considerably lower imports of palm oil in the future. The Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a new decision on Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs), that allow for community based land and forest management areas to be recognized on top of ‘official’ protected areas. The Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) has included the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests (VGGT) as a reference for a requirement on tenure, which will strengthen community tenure rights in relation to forestry activities. Outcomes at international level were often achieved through a close cooperation between alliance members and national CSO groups. GLA partners participated in international working groups. Southern and Northern CSOs jointly lobbied at international institutions, demonstrated local struggles and provided feedback in consultation phases. Moving companies towards adopting sustainable practices remains difficult and takes time. However in 5 cases, private actors have adopted favourable policies. For example, in November 2018 the parent company of Sudcam (a Rubber plantation company) announced to hand back 13.000 hectares dense forest from its concession in Cameroon. Later in the year, they announced to stop all clearing of forest in their concession until the sustainability commission made sufficient progress. Already since 2015, the GLA partner and citizens lobbied and engaged in dialogue to find a solutions for the effects of Sudcam on communities and forests. An example of collaboration with a private actor comes from Indonesia, where oil palm company PT BGA initiated to replicate the successful facilitation of alternative livelihoods (fishery, mushroom cultivation, etc.) by a GLA CSO in Laman Satong village in other villages, to increase the community’s income and reduce their dependency on the forest. In 33 outcomes, civil actors agreed on actions or adopted plans that contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance. An example of civil society strengthening was harvested in the DRC. Congolese environmental civil society organizations developed an advocacy plan for forest sector reforms. This advocacy plan aims to improve the involvement of CSOs in the sustainable management of forest resources, strengthen the network of environmental CSOs and improve the forest policy in the DRC. In the Atewa forest in Ghana, Community Resource Management Committees developed 10 action plans to manage natural resources and address community specific environmental challenges in Atewa.
N/A. The GLA uses outcome harvesting to operationalize the Dialogue & Dissent indicators. Setting targets for the number of outcomes to be harvested is not relevant and therefore not applicable.
In 2019, the GLA has harvested a total of 107 outcomes that demonstrate that public, private and civil actors changed laws, policies and norms/attitudes towards more inclusive and sustainable forested landscapes. Out of these outcomes, 93 outcomes show that public and private actors adopted laws and/or policies that con-tribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance. The 65 outcomes on governments adopting policies range from the local to the international level. At the local level, 2 authorities in Viet Nam adopted knowledge and lessons learnt from GLA exchange visit on community forest management (CFM) into improved village forest management regulations in line with the provisions of Vietnam’s most recent Forestry Law. In Indonesia, the Ketapang district government in Gunung Tarak, together with CSOs and local communities has developed Actions Plan to collaboratively protect and restore a wildlife corridor and started to implement forest patrols and fire prevention measures in the area. At regional level, the Governments of the Congo Basin countries, multilateral institutions and donor countries, organized within the Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP), agreed to have the issue of forest conversion for agro-commodities as a priority topic of their actions in the coming years, which is a major step in building consensus between the governments on halting deforestation in the Congo basin. This was the results of a diverse network of civil society making this a priority in their advocacy. The GLA partner contributed by preparing and presenting a working paper and organizing a preparatory meeting for the CSOs lobbying the CBFF 2019 also saw the European Commission improving the delegated act on biofuels. In 2018 the GLA celebrated a policy change for which the GLA had advocated for years in close cooperation with European civil society: feed stocks with a very high climate impact (like palm oil and soy) could no longer be counted to fulfil renewable energy objectives in the transport sector as biofuel, in the Recast of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED2). The European Commission was to draw up a delegated act that should specify which feed stocks would cause high indirect land use change – and hence were to be banned. There was a risk that the European commission would postpone and weaken the delegated act. Therefore, an international lobby effort of an European NGO coalition including the GLA launched a campaign, which resulted in more than 68,000 people participating in the consultation by the EC. March 13, the European Commission changed and improved the delegated act on biofuels without any delay, in March 13, 2019. Civil actors also agreed on actions or adopted plans that contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested land-scape governance in 33 cases. The GLA successfully facilitated an Indonesian community to define their production forest as village forest. Through joint peat-swamp forest mapping, followed by village participatory mapping and awareness creation on the need to protect the remaining peatlands as fire belt, the community agreed to allocate 7,000 ha (out of 14,000 ha) as village forest. The Ministry of Environment and Forestry decree is expected to be issued in Febru-ary 2020. In Bolivia, the Indigenous Forestry Association of Urubichá adopted more equitable and just internal rules and procedures that will increase women’s participation in decision-making, forest management activities and benefit- sharing. This is as a result of a series of GLA workshops and technical meetings on forest governance and gender with the board members of the association. In Indonesia, a group of Environmental Lawyers established a coalition of lawyers under the name of the Farmers Advocacy Team for the Sovereignty of Land Rights. They initiated this network in Central Sulawesi to provide assistance for cases of environmental crime by large-scale oil palm companies and to defend local com-munity members criminalized by those companies, after several of them were involved with cases to defend local farmers in need, supported by the GLA.
N/A. The GLA uses outcome harvesting to operationalize the Dialogue & Dissent indicators. Setting targets for the number of outcomes to be harvested is not relevant and therefore not applicable.
In 2020, the GLA has harvested a total of 66 outcomes that demonstrate that public, private and civil actors changed laws, policies and norms/attitudes towards more inclusive and sustainable forested landscapes.
(Local, national and international) Governments changing policies and attitudes
The outcomes on governments adopting policies range from the local to the international level.
At the local level, outcomes include local authorities actively supporting sustainable initiatives or supporting monitoring activities, such as in Indonesia:
● The Head of the Sijunjung District Youth and Sports Service (Dispora) provided financial support for ecotourism activities of Nagari Batu Manjulur which was initiated by the Nagari Batu Manjulur Tourism Awareness Group.
● The village governments of Sungai Pelang and Sungai Besar allocated village funds from the village budget 2020 for village forest monitoring activities. As most parts of the villages of Sungai Pelang and Sungai Besar are in peatland area, the village forest is susceptible to fires especially during the long dry season. Intensive monitoring over the forest is then very important.
● The district government of forested areas Sigi and Poso District in Central Sulawesi facilitated village spatial planning as a part of district spatial planning, through regional planning agencies (BAPPEDA). The village spatial planning, which includes social and cultural aspects, can help the district government with improved district planning, based on local realities and on a participatory mapping process.
At the national level, in the Philippines, Member of Parliament IP representative Romeo Saliga drafted and passed a resolution urging the Ministry on Environment, Natural Resources and Energy (MENRE) to deputize Non-Moro Indigenous Peoples (NMIP) as forest guards within their ancestral lands. This is a significant outcome as there have been moves from the MENRE to create forest rangers from Moro community, who are outsiders in these forested areas, raising tensions with the local community. In Paraguay, the Chamber of Deputies and then the Senate, approved the law transferring occupied property to the peasant community of Marina Kue.
At the international level, several outcomes indicated a willingness to draft legislation to halt deforestation on the international political level. The European Parliament adopted a proposal for legislation that supports binding legislation against trade related deforestation. Also, Austria, France, the European Parliament and parliaments in Netherlands, Austria and Belgium all voiced strong concerns with the EU Mercosur trade agreement and the Commission has publicly announced that the deal in its current form cannot go through.
Private actors pressured to adopt, create or change policies
Private actors are increasingly under pressure to take action to drafting policies or MoUs towards more inclusive and sustainable forested landscapes.
In Uganda, the company BIDCO was put under pressure to change their bad practices and to revert their illegalities and abides to all environment safeguards. BIDCO is working with district natural resources department to monitor buffers. Evidence based research exposed the encroachment in buffer zones. Combined with pressure from exchange visits this led to the desired change.
Civil actors joining forces and drafting combined plans
Civil actors also agreed on actions or adopted plans that contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested land-scape governance. Many outcomes in 2020 under this indicator describe CSOs/NGOs joining forces to work together in their fight against deforestation, both in the national and international context.
In Indonesia, 34 farmers in Nagari Padang Gantiang, Sangir Jujuan Subdistrict, South Solok District agreed to form an Agroforestry Group with the name Tuah Sakato Farmer Group. With the Agroforestry Group existence, they can manage their rubber production to become a pilot agroforestry project in South Solok District and improve the livelihoods of group members and the surrounding community. In Nigeria, a women’s movement promoting a just energy transition has begun with strengthening the capacity of women’s rights organisations to understand and advocate for a just energy transition, following a training organised by ERA/FoEN. Internationally, more than 20 Brussels based NGOs undertook coordinated actions towards the EU commission’s From Farm to Fork strategy on the need to reduce deforestation and stop climate change caused by intensive livestock production and consumption, as well as support agroecological alternatives.
DD3 - CSO involvement: Advocacy activities of CSOs start having effect in the sense that their demands are being heard and that they are involved in decision making processes of targeted actors.
DD3 - # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage
# of harvested outcomes that show public or private actors include CSO/ target groups’ demands and positions on the political/ corporate/ media agenda; and/or include target groups or CSOs in the decision making process; and # of harvested outcomes that show civil actors succeed (in creating space) to influence and/or participate in decision making concerning inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
N/A. The GLA uses outcome harvesting to operationalize the Dialogue & Dissent indicators. Setting targets for the number of outcomes to be harvested is not relevant and therefore not applicable.
N/A. The GLA uses outcome harvesting to operationalize the Dialogue & Dissent indicators. Setting targets for the number of outcomes to be harvested is not relevant and therefore not applicable.
In 2018, GLA partners contributed to 111 outcomes that demonstrate CSO positions are included in the debate. Public and private actors, included CSOs’ or target groups’ demands on the political, corporate or media agenda 78 times (of the total of 111 outcomes). For instance, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory in Nigeria openly acknowledged the gains of renewable energy and pledged to promote it, as a result of a high-level conference on Just Energy Transition by GLA partners. This outcome represents a break with the past, because the Nigerian government used to focus solely on fossil fuel. In Ghana, the GLA showcased evidence of illegal logging and violations of communities rights to the management of a logging company. As a result, the company contacted the organization and requested to meet them and the Forest Services Division to discuss the communities’ concerns in more depth. More GLA partners successfully used this approach to get support for their demands; presenting evidence and participating in dialogue and consultations. Reaching the general public is also an important step in getting an issue on the agenda. GLA partners have been able to influence the public debate through the media (12 outcomes). Particularly in Bolivia, partners frequently succeeded in reaching the media. For instance when 3 national newspapers gave wide coverage to the problem of alluvial gold mining and its impacts on the environment and public health in Chiquitania, as well as exposing structural problems such as inaction of governmental environmental institutions and the judicial system. In Ghana, the media intensified exposure of illegal and unsustainable environmental practices in the past year. As well as influencing the public debate, the GLA brings local struggles and voices to the international level to ensure demands from the global South reach decision-makers in the Netherlands, the EU and the UN. In 2018, 9 outcomes show the inclusion of demands from Southern civil society on the international agenda. In addition to public actors including our demands, civil actors succeeded 33 times (out of the 111 outcomes) in participating in decision making concerning inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance. Most notably in Vietnam, a number of results show a bigger role for CSOs and forest-dependent communities. For example, local government authorities in the Central Highlands and Krong Bong District organised inclusive participatory processes that involved CSOs and local communities in land planning and policy development. This is significant, given the history, political system and role of civil society in Viet Nam. GLA partners mainly employ approaches such as evidence collection and dialogue, given the constrained space for activist approaches in Vietnam. In Ghana, state and private actors spearheading the implementation of Ghana’s Cocoa Forest Initiative (CFI), accepted CSO representation on the CFI steering committee. CFI is a leading initiative, tackling deforestation and social and economic issues for cocoa smallholders. The outcome ensures CSOs and their constituent farmers have a say on key sector issues of interest and serves as a starting point for ensuring inclusiveness and transparency in cocoa governance in Ghana. In the Philippines and Indonesia, we also see examples of increased representation of indigenous people and their knowledge in local governance structures, including women: in the Sierra Madre in the Philippines, indigenous representatives are now part of a local protected areas management board. In Cagayan de Oro, indigenous groups have been empowered to actively participate as key stakeholders in the CDO river basin management council.
N/A. The GLA uses outcome harvesting to operationalize the Dialogue & Dissent indicators. Setting targets for the number of outcomes to be harvested is not relevant and therefore not applicable.
In 2019, GLA partners contributed to 106 outcomes that demonstrate CSO demands and positions are included in the debate. Of these 106 outcomes, public and private actors, included CSOs’ or target groups’ demands on the political, corporate or media agenda 55 times. In the Philippines, the Commission on Human Rights demanded transparency from the government to lay out its proposed rehabilitation and social protection plans for affected communities by the Kaliwa Dam project. They also promised to conduct field-based investigation on the matter. This issue reached their agenda after a dialogue session between the Stop! Kaliwa Dam Network – including GLA partners - and the Commission, in which indigenous people expressed their grievances and shared prove that government authorities had already violated some of their rights. Similar recognition was achieved by the Bolivian partners in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). As a result of an intensive campaign by all Bolivian GLA partners under the Alliance for Human Rights and the Environment (ADHMA), 32 countries raised recommendations in the 2019 Universal Periodic Review of Bolivia in line with the topics prioritized by ADHMA. The GLA partners collaborated in this long-term process through training on the international human rights system, collection of information on human rights violations in relation to extractives and by flagging these in advocacy campaigns towards the UPR, in Bolivia and Europe. In 2018, a successful strategy was to incorporate local views in international campaigns to ensure demands from the global South reach decision-makers in the Netherlands, the EU and the UN. The GLA upscaled this work in 2019, resulting in 11 outcomes being achieved by bringing southern voices to the international level. For instance when 3 activists from Liberia and Indonesia expressed their grievances on rights violations by palm oil companies directly to various senior-level representatives of Dutch financial institutions that are financially supporting the companies that are linked to these violations, as well as Dutch government officials. After speaking to the activists, a representative of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs committed to analyse whether financing industrial agro-commodities should be maintained or new strategies promoted. The other way around, Norwegian, Netherlands and Australian Ambassadors were invited for a field visit to the Atewa forest reserve in Ghana by the GLA partners. This has put the threat of bauxite mining to the forest high on their agenda. It resulted in a joint pledge by the ambassadors to use their influence to safeguard Atewa forest reserve from bauxite mining. In addition to public actors including our views on the agenda, communities and civil society organisations succeeded 51 times in creating space for their demands for inclusive and sustainable forest governance. Early 2019 , 2 communities in Liberia staged a protest for the first time ever, demanding a palm oil company to comply with their Memorandum Of Understanding for better working conditions. Staging a protest is not a given in Liberia, where those protests are sometimes met with violence. However, the communities were desperate to improve their lives and working conditions and therefore challenged GVL to comply with their social commitments. The protest by the community shows their increased understanding of their rights as well as empowerment to demand justice, through ongoing support by the GLA. A powerful tool to get issues on the agenda in Liberia is by producing radio programmes (Forest Hour Series) on forests. GLA partner VOSIEDA supported the programme, which became a source of information for the Forest Development Authority (FDA) of Liberia. As a result of the programmes, the FDA placed a stop order on a logging company to commercially manage a Community Forest, and a network of journalist set up Liberia Forest Media Watch. After Forest Hour raised awareness on mismanagement and misrepresentation in a Community Forest management Body, the community demanded removal of the leadership and the Forest authorities supported a re-election. The GLA also influenced the debate on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). GLA partners FoEI and ERA from Nigeria lobbied intensively to have agroecology recognized by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in different working groups like the International Planning Committee (IPC) on agroecology. ERA’s representative was actively involved in this lobby, which led to an invitation to an IPC meeting in preparation of the Global Biodiversity Framework. As a result, the IPC included agroecology in their recommendations, including its importance as transformative system for biodiversity and with a key role for small scale farmers. In December 2019, the Council of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) adopted Ten Principles of Agroecology (CA 7173) and included agroecology in its submission to the CBD (CA 7175) on mainstreaming Biodiversity across agricultural sectors.
N/A. The GLA uses outcome harvesting to operationalize the Dialogue & Dissent indicators. Setting targets for the number of outcomes to be harvested is not relevant and therefore not applicable.
In 2020, GLA partners contributed to 99 outcomes that demonstrate CSO demands and positions are included in the debate.
GLA partners are being heard in the local, national and international political debate. This also happens cross continental: Two Southern FOE groups -FOE Mozambique and FOE Honduras gained access to European policy makers and/or relevant European players to advocate against HR violations committed by European corporations or financed by European money. This will lead to increased awareness among EU players on HR violations outside the EU.
At the national level, the voices of CSO partners and the communities they work with are also being heard. In Liberia, the Synaparcam community collective works to improve the situation of workers at oil palm plantations. For the first time, local buyers from oil palm plantation company Socapalm (Nestlé, Tractafric, Michelin, Azur) were addressed in campaigns by Synaparcam, after which at least two of the buyers contacted Synaparcam on the concerns raised by Synaparcam.
In the Philippines, partners and two local civil society networks were able to mobilize local politicians and community members to speak out against the Kaliwa dam. A congressman announced his willingness to support a Congressional Inquiry on the case and also the provincial board of Quezon passed a resolution giving power to the Governor to act against Kaliwa Dam Project. Also the highest political body of the local Dumagat-Remontado tribe reaffirmed its position against the dam.
Some of the DD3 outcomes describe the voice of women being lifted by the programme: In Indonesia, the new appointed management board of Village Forest Management Group (LPHD) Sungai Pelang for the tenure of 2020 – 2025, included a woman representative among its 8 new board members for the first time.
DD6 - Scope of the Strategic Partnership
DD6 - # of CSOs included in SPs programmes
# of first and second tier CSO partners in the Green Livelihoods Alliance with a direct financial relation
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
In 2018, the GLA consisted of 3 Dutch alliance members and 60 Civil Society Organisations, including 38 first tier partners and 23 second tier partners. The partners range from community based organisations, national CSOs to international network organisations. GLA alliance members and CSO partners play different roles in the programme. Sometimes they follow the GLA model of complementarity between a campaign organisation (the activist), a research organisation (or knowledge broker) and an organization more experienced in dialogue and collaboration (the convenor), while in other countries this distinction is less relevant. Because working in coalitions is often more effective to achieve our goals, the GLA partners also collaborate with an additional 49 CSOs and Community Based organisations (without a direct financial relationship). This entails working towards a common goal with these organisations through for instance a Memorandum of Understanding and in coalitions and networks.
In 2019, the GLA consisted of 3 Dutch alliance members and 67 Civil Society Organisations, including 39 first tier partners and 27 second tier partners. The partners range from community based organisations, national CSOs to international network organisations. GLA alliance members and CSO partners play different roles in the programme. Sometimes they follow the GLA model of complementarity between a campaign organisation (the activist), a research organisation (or knowledge broker) and an organization more experienced in dialogue and collaboration (the convenor), while in other countries this distinction is less relevant. Because working in coalitions is often more effective to achieve our goals, the GLA partners also collaborate with an additional 69 CSOs and Community Based organisations (without a direct financial relationship). This entails working towards a common goal with these organisations through for instance a Memorandum of Understanding and in coalitions and networks.
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-AC
Milieudefensie
Curbing the impacts of palm oil and soy agriculture by strengthening cooperative lobby and advocacy worldwide
GLA Context analysis: A series of comprehensive studies in recent years emphasized the dominant role of commercial agriculture, notably soy and palm oil, in tropical deforestation. Indonesia and Malaysia dominate the international market for palm oil but might be experiencing problems to grow the operations further because of high production costs and lower availability of land. This explains increased investments in low-cost frontiers in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin-America, including Nigeria, Colombia, Peru, Liberia and Cameroon, amongst others. Soy production is still on the increase in Latin America, and now takes up a large part of total cropland in Latin America: Bolivia 36%, Brazil 42%, Paraguay 55%, and Argentina 54%. Global demand for palm oil is growing, with for example a sharp rise in the EU for palm oil based biodiesel. Soy production in Latin America has grown 300% from 1999-2013. Due to the many negative impacts on water, food security, climate change, livelihood, human rights, land rights and biodiversity, associated with commercial agriculture and the resulting deforestation, the GLA program will work to mitigate impacts, improve operations towards sustainable levels and halt the expansion of palm oil and soy plantations through national and international lobby.
GLA Theory of Change 2016-2020: The agro-commodities program focuses on international lobbying goals that complement national GLA agrocommodity lobbying strategies. It will support national lobby strategies by bringing local cases and interests to the attention of the international press and politics. In addition, the program will facilitate South-South and South-North learning, capacity building and knowledge sharing. At the national level, the alliance works towards improved (implementation of) national policies and laws that conform to international standards and agreements. Where applicable, the alliance will work on the better uptake and implementation of safeguards in palm oil and soy value chains, responsible production and consumption, and on halting the expansion of palm oil production that leads to deforestation. The GLA supports the protection of rights of people whose rights have been violated. The program will focus on international public sector policies within the EU and the UN. In the EU for instance on the Finance Regulation, binding measures in the EU Deforestation Action plan, the 2030 EU Climate & Energy package and the Renewable Energy Directive (to stop the use of palm oil and other agricultural crops for biofuels from 2021 onwards). The alliance aims to achieve regulation of the financial sector to eliminate land grabbing and deforestation for agro-commodity expansion. It will also stimulate the uptake of best practice standards in palm oil and soy and policy support to that purpose. In the 5-year agro-commodities program, the alliance will support CSOs in palm oil and soy producing countries in increasing their knowledge and skills related to international policy processes, lobbying, case work and policy analysis. In addition, CSO partners will actively cooperate with and empower local communities to monitor local developments and advocate for their rights.
See attached documents for a brief summary of the Annual plans of the implementing organisation
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Friends of the Earth Europe
Centre pour l'Environnement et le Developpement Cameroun (CED)
Amigos de la Tierra Paraguay - Sobrevivencia
Milieudefensie
588476
1215358
1164377
1084095
1170269
588476
Milieudefensie
1215358
Milieudefensie
1084095
Milieudefensie
81456
Centre pour l'Environnement et le Developpement (CED)
112050
Centre pour l'Environnement et le Developpement (CED)
97000
Centre pour l'Environnement et le Developpement (CED)
106500
Friends of the Earth Europe
125000
Friends of the Earth Europe
37181
Total of small project commitments between 01/01/2017 - 31/12/2017 for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries.
Friends of the Earth network
63353
Total of small project commitments between 01/01/2018 - 31/12/2018 for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries.
Friends of the Earth network
178993
Total of small project commitments between 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019 for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries.
Friends of the Earth network
56025
Centre pour l'Environnement et le Developpement (CED)
44820
Centre pour l'Environnement et le Developpement (CED)
48000
Centre pour l'Environnement et le Developpement (CED)
38400
Centre pour l'Environnement et le Developpement (CED)
48000
Centre pour l'Environnement et le Developpement (CED)
6358
Centre pour l'Environnement et le Developpement (CED)
38400
Centre pour l'Environnement et le Developpement (CED)
9600
48500
55000
Friends of the Earth Europe
100000
Friends of the Earth Europe
55000
Friends of the Earth Europe
112500
Friends of the Earth Europe
13000
Friends of the Earth Europe
45000
Friends of the Earth Europe
67500
Friends of the Earth Europe
31128
Total of disbursements between 01/01/2017 - 31/12/2017 on small project grants and contracts for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries - committed in 2017
Friends of the Earth network
120936
Total of disbursements on small project between 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019 for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries.
Friends of the Earth network
359926
683102
30000
Sobrevivencia
1170269
Milieudefensie
9289
Centre pour l'Environnement et le Developpement (CED)
125387
Friends of the Earth Europe
204833
Total of small project commitments between 01/01/2020 - 31/12/2020 for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries.
Friends of the Earth network
150387
Friends of the Earth Europe
277531
Total of disbursements on small project between 01/01/2020 - 31/12/2020 for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries.
Friends of the Earth network
830760
960221
27000
Sobrevivencia
96000
Centre pour l'Environnement et le Developpement (CED)
55822
Total of disbursements between 01/01/2018 - 31/12/2018 on small project grants and contracts for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries - committed in 2018
Friends of the Earth network
1943
Remaining disbursements between 01/01/2018 - 31/12/2018 on small project grants and contracts for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries - committed in 2017
Friends of the Earth network
1164377
Milieudefensie
116500
Friends of the Earth Europe
125000
Friends of the Earth Europe
880024
IATI-GLA Summary Annual Plan 2018 Agro-Commodities Programme - Milieudefensie
DD1 - Adequate practice of new/improved laws policies and societal norms
DD1 - # of laws policies and norms implemented for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show: public or private actors implement ((inter)national) laws policies and standards or improved implementation of existing laws policies and standards: and # of outcomes that show civil actors take concrete actions that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: or change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Late 2017 the presidential chief of staff of Indonesia promised to prioritize the complaint of the Pungkat Community (an Indonesian village) vis-à-vis Palm oil company PT SAL and to visit Pungkat to assess the conflict.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: 22 July 2018 Dutch national pension fund (ABP) announced that it would withdraw its investments from a company over deforestation for oil palm expansion in Papua Indonesia
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: In februari 2019 the Dow Jones Sustainability index removed Golden Agri-Resources from its list with sustainable companies.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: The European Commission proposes as part of the European Green Deal in its Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies strong wording and policy actions to change food systems – from the need to stop deforestation to ideas on how to support alternative food systems.
DD2 - Inclusive legislation policies norms and attitudes in support of marginalized people to access their rights services and opportunities.
DD2 # of laws policies and norms/attitudes blocked adopted improved for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show: Public or private actors formally adopt/improve/ block laws policies and standards that contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: and # of outcomes that show civil actors agree on actions/ adopt plans that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: or agree to change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: In march 2017 the president of Cameroon signed a decree extending the land lease of Sithe Global Sustainable Oils Cameroon (SGSOC) for five years rather than the long term lease of over 18 years requested for by the company.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: On August 21st 2018 President Mario AbdoBenítez derogated the decree 7702 that allowed for total deforestation in the Chaco area in Paraguay.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: The European Commission changed and improved the delegated act on biofuels without any delay (March 2019).
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: A newly proposed Dutch bill says the use of food crops (conventional biofuels) will be frozen at 2020 level (1.2%) and proposes a maximum limit for used cooking oil (at 2020 level).
Government says it will make a case in the EU to designate soy as high-ILUC.
DD3 - CSO involvement: Advocacy activities of CSOs start having effect in the sense that their demands are being heard and that they are involved in decision making processes of targeted actors
DD3 - # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage
# of harvested outcomes that show public or private actors include CSO/ target groups’ demands and positions on the political/ corporate/ media agenda: and/or include target groups or CSOs in the decision making process: and # of harvested outcomes that show civil actors succeed (in creating space) to influence and/or participate in decision making concerning inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: In October 2017 the European Commission has announced they want to launch an action plan for sustainable finance in the first quarter 0f 2018 in its 2018 Commission work Programme.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: CSOs in 19 countries take part in around 70 coordinated activities across the EU asking for radical change of the Common Agricultural Policy in October 2018.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: In October 2019 during the 5th session of the Inter-Governmental Working Group (IGWG5) about the UN Binding Treaty on transnational corporations and human rights at the UN in Geneva - the Dutch delegate increased pressure on the EU and EU member states to become more active in the UN binding treaty process.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: for the first time local buyers from oil palm plantation company (anonymised) were addressed in campaigns by a partner organisation and in media stories in Cameroon in September 2020 after which at least two of the buyers contacted the organisation about the concerns raised.
DD5 - CSOs have improved their capacity to lobby and advocate
DD5 - # of CSOs with increased L&A capacities
# of CSOs who have increased their capacity on at least 1 of the 5 Capacities for Lobby & Advocacy in the GLA capacity analysis tool as a result of the GLA programm
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
DD6 - Scope of the Strategic Partnership
DD6 - # of CSOs included in SPs programmes
# of first and second tier CSO partners in the Green Livelihoods Alliance with a direct financial relation
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-JET
Milieudefensie
Inclusive and Just Energy Transition programme
Context analysis: Landscapes rich in valuable natural resources, such as oil, forested and associated water-based ecosystems (lakes, mangroves) are at risk of degradation and pollution by exploration and exploitation of oil, through deforestation for installations/pipelines, oil spills, and gas flaring. Of particular concern is potential damage to national reserves/parks, and spawning grounds of fish in the Delta and along the shores of Lake Albert and Lake Edward. Also, governance of oil resources is characterized by high degrees of inequality. Especially communities/ordinary citizens lack voice in decision-making about oil exploration and exploitation plans and benefit sharing. On the other end of the spectrum, geo-political interests also influence oil resource governance in the focus countries. Furthermore, violations of local, national and international best practices on human and environmental rights are widespread and corporate accountability is generally weak. In some cases regulations are absent, conflicting or lack harmonization, but mostly a lack of will (influenced by corruption), weak enforcement capacities on behalf of relevant state agencies, and a lack of accountability mechanisms in the home countries of multinationals are noted. Of specific concern are the transboundary challenges related to the management of DR Congo-Uganda oil reserves because it increases the risk of conflict in the region. In spite of (prospected) oil production and export, millions of people in the focus countries have no access to energy and mostly rely on fuel wood and charcoal for cooking. This constitutes a massive threat to deforestation and underlines the urgency for a transition towards renewable sources of energy, in particular on community level. But as governments in the focus countries predominantly appreciate the economic benefits of oil exploitation, a discussion around long-term costs and benefits of oil is weakly embedded in broader reflection and agenda setting on renewable energy sources, inclusive and just energy transition, and other values (ex. cultural values, livelihoods, biodiversity, water, tourism) the oil-rich landscapes offer. This links on global level with reflections on unsustainable nature of fossil fuels in meeting worldwide demand for energy within the limited carbon budget defined by the worldwide ambition to keep climate change under two degrees global warming.
Theory of Change 2017-2020: The thematic programme, in the long-term, wants to contribute to a pro-people, inclusive and just energy transition process (moving away from oil/fossil fuels towards renewable energy) that specifically considers gender and vulnerable groups. Four pathways of intermediary change within the sphere of influence of the programme contribute to the overall goal: R1: CSOs are unified around a common ideology on inclusive and just energy transition: broadening the knowledge and experience of the CSO coalition on energy transition and strengthening capacities on research, lobby and advocacy. Also exchange with CSOs from other African countries and, where relevant, northern countries will be stimulated. R2: Relevant national government agencies in the African focus countries progressively encourage/ promote an inclusive and just energy transition: lobby and advocacy that is based on well-researched analyses on the economic potential of renewable options for development, coupled with legislative lobby on specific (inter) national policy development will increase government engagement and eventually budgeting for just energy transition. R3: Best practices of inclusive and just energy transition exist in communities in the selected landscapes: The programme aims to raise awareness on community level and stimulate engagement/ participation in energy transition agenda setting processes. R4: New or existing oil exploration/extraction projects are halted or delayed: The programme will also look at oil exploration and exploitation that is already taking place (Nigeria) or at provisions made by government and private actors to launch operations in time to come (DR Congo, Uganda). Violations by companies and governments of international best practice around human and environment rights standards will be addressed by the programme through campaigning and litigation. This will further motivate support for the need for energy transition and reduce demand for oil. Litigation and campaign work may also delay (and potentially halt) oil projects.
See attached documents for a brief summary of the Annual plans of the implementing organisation
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
195123
23397
309934
446758
446447
23397
Milieudefensie
195123
Milieudefensie
446758
Milieudefensie
100000
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
136581
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
50000
Friends of the Earth Europe
145740
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
91834
Total of small project commitments between 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019 for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries.
Friends of the Earth network
45000
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
36581
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
10000
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
135256
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
10450
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
5000
Friends of the Earth Europe
45000
Friends of the Earth Europe
80190
Total of small project disbursements between 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019 for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries.
Friends of the Earth network
12947
45123
159184
446447
Milieudefensie
39620
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
50000
Friends of the Earth Europe
60945
Total of small project commitments between 01/01/2020 - 31/12/2020 for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries.
Friends of the Earth network
55104
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
55000
Friends of the Earth Europe
72589
Total of small project commitments between 01/01/2020 - 31/12/2020 for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries.
Friends of the Earth network
295882
50000
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
45000
Friends of the Earth Europe
173353
309934
Milieudefensie
50000
Friends of the Earth Europe
10450
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
50000
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
40000
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
IATI-GLA Summary Annual Plan 2018 JET Programme - Milieudefensie
DD1 - Adequate practice of new/improved laws policies and societal norms
DD1 - # of laws policies and norms implemented for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show: public or private actors implement ((inter)national) laws policies and standards or improved implementation of existing laws policies and standards: and # of outcomes that show civil actors take concrete actions that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: or change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: The Rural Electrification Agency has secured funding from the first Green Bond launched by the Nigerian government on December 17 2017 for two renewable energy programmes to promote awareness on and use of clean renewable energy in Nigeria.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Representatives from 8 communitie are now using renewable energy tools such as solar lighting and fuel efficient cookstoves in their communities and spreading the word.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
DD2 - Inclusive legislation policies norms and attitudes in support of marginalized people to access their rights services and opportunities.
DD2 # of laws policies and norms/attitudes blocked adopted improved for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show: Public or private actors formally adopt/improve/ block laws policies and standards that contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: and # of outcomes that show civil actors agree on actions/ adopt plans that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: or agree to change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: A Nigerian community has become engaged to undertake legal action to stop gas flaring in their region.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: At the Stakeholders Consensus Building for National Renewable Energy Policy Workshop held in Abuja June 28-29 2018 Senator Bukar Abba Ibrahim Chair of the Senate Committee on Ecology and Climate Change announced his readiness to sponsor ERA/FoEN’s draft national renewable energy bill encouraging transition from fossils to renewable energy sources in Nigeria.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
DD3 - CSO involvement: Advocacy activities of CSOs start having effect in the sense that their demands are being heard and that they are involved in decision making processes of targeted actors
DD3 - # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage
# of harvested outcomes that show public or private actors include CSO/ target groups’ demands and positions on the political/ corporate/ media agenda: and/or include target groups or CSOs in the decision making process: and # of harvested outcomes that show civil actors succeed (in creating space) to influence and/or participate in decision making concerning inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: A wider coaltion of Nigerian CSOs including international civil society have addressed the Nigerian government to push for action to implement the UNEP report between June and December 2017
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory Muhammed Bello openly acknowledged the gains of renewable energy and pledged to promote it thereby expressing a positive change on the part of high ranking government officials in embracing renewable energy.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
DD5 - CSOs have improved their capacity to lobby and advocate
DD5 - # of CSOs with increased L&A capacities
# of CSOs who have increased their capacity on at least 1 of the 5 Capacities for Lobby & Advocacy in the GLA capacity analysis tool as a result of the GLA programm
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
DD6 - Scope of the Strategic Partnership
DD6 - # of CSOs included in SPs programmes
# of first and second tier CSO partners in the Green Livelihoods Alliance with a direct financial relation
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-FLG
Milieudefensie
Responses to challenges and opportunities in enabling and achieving inclusive and sustainable governance of forested landscapes
GLA Context Analysis: Weak forest and land governance are important underlying drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. Many local communities depend heavily on forests for their daily livelihoods. They are often disproportionally impacted by deforestation, while their contribution to ecological destruction and their access to possible benefits is often relatively limited. Trends in global markets and policies provide both risks and opportunities for positive change towards inclusive and sustainable governance of forested landscapes. The Forest and Land Governance (FLG) thematic programme aims to help civil society in the GLA landscapes to build their capacity to deal with and manage the risks of international initiatives around the sustainable management of forested landscapes while fully engaging in their development and sharing in the benefits these intend to produce. The work in this programme will complement the work at the country programme level. It aims to bring about change in some of the international policies (both public and private) that are most relevant to forest governance, the accessibility of decision making processes and the capacity and competencies of CSO partners to influence these processes. It also aims to link southern CSOs amongst each other, and to link Southern with Northern NGOs that work on advocacy and policy solutions, so they can learn from each other, share experiences and take joint action.
GLA Theory of Change 2016-2020: The GLA programme aims to address the risks and opportunities at international level that improve access to land and resources for local communities, ensure their participation in decision making processes, and support the introduction of nature-based approaches to land and forest management. The programme focuses its efforts on: A) International policies that support locally controlled and sustainable management of forested landscapes; B) Diminished illegal logging; C) The scaling up of certification of forestry, agro-forestry, commodities and landscapes; and D) Public and private financing that support inclusive and sustainable management of forested landscapes. The alliance will strengthen the capacities of participating CSOs in the south, in particular their capacities to engage with international actors such as multilateral organisations, international companies, etc.; conduct international lobbying and advocacy efforts; their ability to develop and present convincing cases and alternatives development visions; and work in (international) coalitions.
See attached document for a brief summary of the Annual plans of the implementing organisations
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Friends of the Earth International
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
214279
212486
216800
299742
316566
197745
Friends of the Earth International
316566
Milieudefensie
153893
Total of small project commitments between 01/01/2020 - 31/12/2020. for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries.
Friends of the Earth network
113315
Friends of the Earth International
194106
Total of disbursements on small project between 01/01/2020 - 31/12/2020 for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries.
Friends of the Earth network
49358
16534
58651
197745
Friends of the Earth International
47537
Total of small project commitments between 01/01/2017 - 31/12/2017 for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries.
Friends of the Earth network
216800
Milieudefensie
54376
Friends of the Earth International
54376
Friends of the Earth International
30436
214279
Milieudefensie
212486
Milieudefensie
299742
Milieudefensie
131987
Total of small project commitments between 01/01/201 - 31/12/2018. for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries.
Friends of the Earth network
204873
Total of small project commitments between 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019. for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries.
Friends of the Earth network
106297
Friends of the Earth International
46690
Friends of the Earth International
17537
Total of disbursements between 01/01/2017 - 31/12/2017 on small project grants and contracts for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries - committed in 2017
Friends of the Earth network
30000
Additional disbursements between 01/01/2017 - 31/12/2017 on small project grants and contracts for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries - committed in 2017
Friends of the Earth International
108684
Total of disbursements between 01/01/2018 - 31/12/2018 on small project grants and contracts for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries - committed in 2018
Friends of the Earth network
187963
Total of disbursements on small project between 01/01/2019 - 31/12/2019 for various Friends of the Earth groups in LLMIC countries.
Friends of the Earth network
106297
Friends of the Earth International
46690
Friends of the Earth International
48179
IATI-GLA Summary Annual Plan 2018 Forest & Land Governance - Milieudefensie
DD1 - Adequate practice of new/improved laws policies and societal norms
DD1 - # of laws policies and norms implemented for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show: public or private actors implement ((inter)national) laws policies and standards or improved implementation of existing laws policies and standards: and # of outcomes that show civil actors take concrete actions that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: or change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: In its 44th session from 9-13 October 2017 in Rome the Committee on World Food Security and Nutrition (CFS) adopted a position that is favourable for forest dependent people and women’s rights to land food and governance after the statements made by the Civil Society Mechanism (CSM).
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Five Friends of the Earth groups (Togo Cameroon Ghana Malaysia Philippines) take concrete actions towards more sustainable forest use: they have started community based forest monitoring using the This is My BackYard (TIMBY) tool and integrated the use of the monitoring findings in their campaigns on rights and environment since November 2018.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Local forest monitors in Ghana Cameroon Philippines Togo and Liberia started new research on social and environmental harms in their territories. They send in verified evidence alerting the FoE groups in the countries to the harms and triggering follow up actions. In the Philippines and Ghana this contributed to halting illegal logging and fishing in communities territories. In Ghana alerts informed actions to halt the expansion of logging improved compliance with and renegotiations of social contracts between the company and communities. In Togo the alerts increased exposure of encroachment in a national park. In Ghana and Cameroon the alerts led to official enforcement requests and enforcement actions with forest authorities. In Liberia the evidence was used in international complaints. In the Philippines the timby tool was taken up by community based governance structures.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Following the publication of local research (using TIMBY) on a timber company’s operation - an international buyer of the timber company contracted the services of a third-party Certification body to investigate the operations of the timber company and report whether the wood products for the buyer are source from the community where there are reported human rights violations by the company
DD2 - Inclusive legislation policies norms and attitudes in support of marginalized people to access their rights services and opportunities.
DD2 # of laws policies and norms/attitudes blocked adopted improved for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show: Public or private actors formally adopt/improve/ block laws policies and standards that contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: and # of outcomes that show civil actors agree on actions/ adopt plans that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: or agree to change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: The High Level Panel of Experts of the Committee on World Food Security and Nutrition (CFS) explicitly supported the enforcement of FPIC in recommendation 4.a. to the 44th session of the CFS in Rome in October 2017 which was subsequently adopted by the CFS.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: 17-29 November 2018 the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a new decision on Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) that allow for community based land and forest management areas to be recognized on top of ‘official’ protected areas for compliance with Aichi biodiversity target 11.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: a multinational company in Gabon gave a verbal agreement in principle of retrocession in favor of two forest communities.
DD3 - CSO involvement: Advocacy activities of CSOs start having effect in the sense that their demands are being heard and that they are involved in decision making processes of targeted actors
DD3 - # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage
# of harvested outcomes that show public or private actors include CSO/ target groups’ demands and positions on the political/ corporate/ media agenda: and/or include target groups or CSOs in the decision making process: and # of harvested outcomes that show civil actors succeed (in creating space) to influence and/or participate in decision making concerning inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: In its 44th session in Rome on the request of the Civil Society Mechanism (CSM) the Committee on Food Security and Nutrition (CFS) has decided to organize a conference on the impact of large scale plantations on food security and nutrition after the CSM made this concrete suggestion to the CFS plenary to compensate the lack of some key issues in the recommendations of the High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE).
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: After meetings and lobby events featuring GLA CSOs from Africa and Asia on palm oil cases in September 2018 a US Senator's office has begun working with GLA parthners and an NGO coalition to draft legislation to address deforestation and human rights violations by US corporations and financiers.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: The Council of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in its 163rd session on 2-6 December 2019 adopted Ten Principles of Agroecology (CA 7173) and included agroecology in its submission to the CBD (CA 7175) on mainstreaming Biodiversity across agricultural sectors.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Following knowledge gained from the GLA Timby project - community farmers and monitors Ghana met with an official of the Forest Services Division to present their complaints during which the official called some of the timber operators operating in the communities instructing them to speed up the processes for the payment of SRA to the communities and also promised to have their other grievances related to destroyed crops investigated.
DD5 - CSOs have improved their capacity to lobby and advocate
DD5 - # of CSOs with increased L&A capacities
# of CSOs who have increased their capacity on at least 1 of the 5 Capacities for Lobby & Advocacy in the GLA capacity analysis tool as a result of the GLA programm
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
DD6 - Scope of the Strategic Partnership
DD6 - # of CSOs included in SPs programmes
# of first and second tier CSO partners in the Green Livelihoods Alliance with a direct financial relation
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-LR
Milieudefensie
Preserved ecosystems and improved livelihood conditions for rural communities in Liberia
GLA Country Context Analysis: Formal recognition of customary land ownership and security of tenure for the poor is a critical building block for inclusive and sustainable development. Since 2009, when Liberia enacted the Community Rights Law with Respect to Forest Lands that paved the way for communities to formalize their ownership claims to their customary forestlands, community rights with respect to natural resources have gained a prominent place on the political agenda. The move towards formalizing customary land claims gained further momentum in 2013 with the adoption of a Land Rights Policy that promised formal recognition and legal protection for customary rights. The Land Rights Act, which could ‘seal the deal’ for communities has however been stalled in the Liberian Legislature since 2015.
GLA Country Theory of Change 2016-2020: The GLA programme for Liberia proposes to increase the capacity of communities to resist destructive oil palm expansion and logging, increase the respect and recognition of tenure rights of local communities by government and concessionaires, and increase adherence to the full implementation of policies and laws in forest and land management. This will provide opportunity for working in Liberia to contribute to the preservation of ecosystems and improved livelihood conditions for rural communities in Liberia and specifically in the Sinoe landscape.
See attached documents for a brief summary of the Annual plans of the implementing organisation
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
225686
166563
207464
271646
156818
166563
Milieudefensie
7500
Voseida
45943
Friends of the Earth International
32103
18260
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
60000
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
47194
Friends of the Earth International
50000
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
42027
Friends of the Earth International
63459
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
121918
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
17468
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
40000
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
27931
225686
Milieudefensie
207464
Milieudefensie
271646
Milieudefensie
47194
Friends of the Earth International
60916
Friends of the Earth International
35728
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
120000
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
100000
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
7500
Voseida
171062
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
42027
Friends of the Earth International
45943
Friends of the Earth International
60916
Friends of the Earth International
48000
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
63459
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
10000
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
47658
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
11752
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
39782
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
60667
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
19369
39668
156818
Milieudefensie
36269
Friends of the Earth International
95036
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
36269
Friends of the Earth International
176698
Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)
25512
IATI-GLA Summary Annual Plan 2018 Liberia Milieudefensie
IATI-GLA Summary Annual Plan 2016-2017 Liberia Milieudefensie
DD5 - CSOs have improved their capacity to lobby and advocate
DD5 - # of CSOs with increased L&A capacities
# of CSOs who have increased their capacity on at least 1 of the 5 Capacities for Lobby & Advocacy in the GLA capacity analysis tool as a result of the GLA programm
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
DD6 - Scope of the Strategic Partnership
DD6 - # of CSOs included in SPs programmes
# of first and second tier CSO partners in the Green Livelihoods Alliance with a direct financial relation
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
DD1 - Adequate practice of new/improved laws policies and societal norms
DD1 - # of laws policies and norms implemented for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show: public or private actors implement ((inter)national) laws policies and standards or improved implementation of existing laws policies and standards: and # of outcomes that show civil actors take concrete actions that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: or change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: February 13 2018 the RSPO Complaints Panel issued its final decision that recognized the community complaints from Butaw Tarjuowon Du Wollee Nyennue Numopoh in Sinoe county against GVL filed in 2012 and required GVL to stop work on disputed lands address FPIC Human rights and environmental issues.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Liberian oil palm plantation company Golden Veroleum Liberia has stopped further clearing of land for conversion to plantations at least since early 2019 - in response to pressure from local communities and GLA partners.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: One of the paramount chiefs in the target region took action to support communities to resist land grabbing after being trained on land valuation by the implementing partner.
DD2 - Inclusive legislation policies norms and attitudes in support of marginalized people to access their rights services and opportunities.
DD2 # of laws policies and norms/attitudes blocked adopted improved for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show: Public or private actors formally adopt/improve/ block laws policies and standards that contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: and # of outcomes that show civil actors agree on actions/ adopt plans that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: or agree to change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: In September 2018 the President of Liberia signed The Land Rights Act a Land Law that legalizes customary communities ownership of their lands.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
DD3 - CSO involvement: Advocacy activities of CSOs start having effect in the sense that their demands are being heard and that they are involved in decision making processes of targeted actors
DD3 - # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage
# of harvested outcomes that show public or private actors include CSO/ target groups’ demands and positions on the political/ corporate/ media agenda: and/or include target groups or CSOs in the decision making process: and # of harvested outcomes that show civil actors succeed (in creating space) to influence and/or participate in decision making concerning inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: In their meeting of September 21-23 2016 the Joint Implementation Committee (JIC) decided to halt regulations proposed by the Forestry Development Authority (FDA) aiming at clearing primary forest for oil palm expansion due to SDI’s campaign on forest conversion.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: From March 2017 onwards eight communities in Sinoe Liberia engaged with palm oil company Golden Veroleum Liberia (GVL) in face to face dialogue (‘open space’) for the first time to discuss complaints raised by the communities related to GVL’s palm oil expansion and find solutions.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: February and September 2018 Golden Agri-Resource and Golden Veroleum Liberia chief executives invited the Liberian civil society oil palm working group for an engagement meeting and committed to sharing their action plan expansion plan and timelines with the group for the very first time.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: In May 2019 - Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) has taken the lead to develop the national oil palm strategy and action plan for Liberia through the National Oil Palm Platform of Liberia and included the Civil Society Oil Palm Working Group in the taskgroups.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: ten (10) Community animators sent in three major reports with documentation of land grab data/information which informed action by the Liberian Land Authority to address the land situation in this county (anonymised). This has further promted the community to take urgent action to stop the further land sale and request the county authorities including the Liberia Land Authority (LLA) to respect compliance to FPIC.
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-UG
Milieudefensie
Securing a healthy ecosystem for improved community livelihoods in the Kalangala landscape through lobby and advocacy for protection of forested landscapes
GLA Country Context Analysis: The GLA programme in Uganda focuses on the Kalangala landscape (especially on Bugala and Buvuma islands) because the forests in this landscape are seriously affected or under threat of degradation due to the introduction and expansion of oil palm plantations. Forest degradation in Kalangala is further exacerbated by collection of biomass fuel and logging for home use, construction and trade. Large oil palm plantations further lead to lake degradation due to erosion, water pollution due to use of fertilizers coupled with the disrespect for lake buffers, food scarcity due to commercialized mono-cropping of oil palm, alterations of ecosystem functioning and climate change impacts.
GLA Country Theory of Change 2016-2020: The program will support the improvement of the ecosystem that is currently under threat. To ensure this, the GLA programme will build partnerships with the central government (NEMA, NFA, and MWE etc.), local government (in Kalangala landscape), and civil society to promote community rights and conservation of the landscape to protect International Public Goods (water provisioning, food security, climate resilience and biodiversity). The programme will also strengthen partnerships with the private sector so that they can participate in the conservation of the environment at the chosen landscape to ensure a win-win situation. In the end, the programme aims to achieve good community livelihoods and rich biodiversity to ensure conservation for generations. The programme has the following key result areas: (1) Expansion of oil palm plantations on both public and private land in Kalangala landscape stopped; (2) Empowered communities are able to engage with the government and palm oil investors; (3) Empowered, informed and supportive local and national government that appreciates oil palm safeguards on forests for improved community livelihoods; (4) Women and other marginalized groups empowered to participate in oil palm expansion discussions.
See attached documents for a brief summary of the Annual plans of the implementing organisation
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
National Association of professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
220615
172386
214838
22232
4906
172386
Milieudefensie
121467
National Association of professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
220615
Milieudefensie
39727
Friends of the Earth International
39000
National Association of professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
120000
National Association of professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
39727
Friends of the Earth International
60000
National Association of professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
214838
Milieudefensie
22232
Milieudefensie
39262
Friends of the Earth International
71735
Friends of the Earth International
53736
Friends of the Earth International
113087
National Association of professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
39262
Friends of the Earth International
71735
Friends of the Earth International
53736
Friends of the Earth International
39000
National Association of professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
48000
National Association of professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
12000
National Association of professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
61467
National Association of professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
5087
National Association of professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
4533
National Association of professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
21888
11657
30016
23963
-55467
National Association of professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
4906
Milieudefensie
4906
48000
National Association of professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
60000
National Association of professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
IATI-GLA Summary Annual Plan 2018 Uganda Milieudefensie
IATI-GLA Summary Annual Plan 2016-2017 Uganda Milieudefensie
DD1 - Adequate practice of new/improved laws, policies, and societal norms
DD1 - # of laws, policies and norms, implemented for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show; public or private actors implement ((inter)national) laws, policies and standards, or improved implementation of existing laws, policies and standards; and # of outcomes that show civil actors take concrete actions that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance; or change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable, no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Kalangala District Local Government around July 2017 passed a resolution stopping a multinational oil palm company together with its contracted oil palm out growers from further encroachment on the 200-metre buffer zone, an area of land designated for environmental protection of the lake Victoria
Target value not applicable, no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Around July 2018, the local government of Kalangala District, Uganda, and Palm oil company Bidco started on the process of obtaining land titles for 8 Farmers from Bugala who still had portions of land. The land was surveyed, mark stones were planted to enable the process of obtaining land titles for them.
Target value not applicable, no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
DD2 - Inclusive legislation, policies, norms and attitudes in support of marginalized people to access their rights, services and opportunities.
DD2 # of laws, policies and norms/attitudes, blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show; Public or private actors formally adopt/improve/ block laws, policies and standards, that contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance; and # of outcomes that show civil actors agree on actions/ adopt plans that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance; or agree to change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable, no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: On 28th December 2017, the President of the Republic of Uganda declined to sign the GMO biotechnology bill into law. The bill seeks to provide a regulatory framework that facilitates a.o. biotechnology the release of Genetically modified organisms. The president rejecting the Bill so that it can be improved to protect indigenous species which would disappear if passed into law in its current form, and take food security into account.
Target value not applicable, no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: On 5th September 2018, the Deputy Attorney General, a legal representative of government, withdrew the Constitutional amendment Bill No.13 of 2017 from Parliament in Kampala, Uganda. The bill sought to give government absolute power to acquire land for development without first compensating the land owners.
Target value not applicable, no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
DD3 - CSO involvement: Advocacy activities of CSOs start having effect in the sense that their demands are being heard and that they are involved in decision making processes of targeted actors
DD3 - # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage
# of harvested outcomes that show public or private actors include CSO/ target groups’ demands and positions on the political/ corporate/ media agenda; and/or include target groups or CSOs in the decision making process; and # of harvested outcomes that show civil actors succeed (in creating space) to influence and/or participate in decision making concerning inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable, no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: In October 2017, farmers in Kalangala District in Uganda got compensation, following a complaint filed in January 2017 to the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO). A mediation process was initiated by the CAO which resulted into 38 community members being compensated and community members who owned pieces of land received signed transfer titles.
Target value not applicable, no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable, no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
DD5 - CSOs have improved their capacity to lobby and advocate
DD5 - # of CSOs with increased L&A capacities
# of CSOs who have increased their capacity on at least 1 of the 5 Capacities for Lobby & Advocacy in the GLA capacity analysis tool, as a result of the GLA programm
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
DD6 - Scope of the Strategic Partnership
DD6 - # of CSOs included in SPs programmes
# of first and second tier CSO partners in the Green Livelihoods Alliance with a direct financial relation
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-GH
Milieudefensie
Sustainably managed landscapes in Atewa and Juabeso-Bia in Ghana to enhance IPGs and livelihoods
GLA Country Context Analysis: The Green Livelihoods Programme (GLA) programme in Ghana works in the Juabeso-Bia landscape in the Western Region and Atewa forest landscape in the country’s Eastern Region. Both landscapes are situated in the tropical evergreen forest zone and are rich in biodiversity, as illustrated by areas that have been designated as Global Significant Biodiversity Areas (GSBA). Both landscapes support the provision of the four International Public Goods (IPGs): water, food security, biodiversity and climate resilience. Juabesa-Bia landscape contains the only biosphere in Ghana and is extensively covered by cocoa plantations. Atewa contains the headwater for some of the important water systems in Ghana notably the Densuriver, on which a major part of the population in Accra depends. However, the landscapes are under serious threats from mining; illegal logging and expansion of farming. The threats are affecting its ability to support the provision of IPGs in the long term and the status of the GSBAs areas. Both landscapes are representative for larger parts of Ghana and face problems that are wide spread in the country. The GLA Ghana programme will be headed by Tropenbos International Ghana, A Rocha Ghana and Friends of the Earth Ghana. Other CSOs will be involved in the implementation of the programme.
GLA Country Theory of Change 2016-2020: The GLA programme encourages governments at different levels to enact, implement, enforce and monitor policies and regulations, private sector to apply best sustainable practices, and local communities to be responsible stewards of the natural resources. Local communities will be supported to adopt sustainable natural resources (NR) practices and use nature-based approaches such as agroforestry and agro-ecological farming practices. For these communities, especially women, the reform of the land and tree tenure system is important to make benefit sharing arrangements more equitable. An important instrument to ensure communities’ rights is the Community Resource Management Areas (CREMA) concept, of which the establishment, legalization and up scaling will be promoted. The same accounts for integrated land and water management with strong community participation, which will give local communities greater access to, and control over, their landscapes. As overall approach, the programme will support local communities to engage government and the private sector in the sustainable management of forested resources. District assemblies (DAs) will be encouraged to integrate biodiversity, climate resilience and responsible NR approaches into medium-term development Plans (MTDPs) and participatory land use planning. And efforts will be made to get the private sector to adopt and apply climate smart practices and agro-commodity production systems, landscape standards and sustainable sourcing practices. To achieve these outcomes the Theory of Change shows the following strategies / pathways: the formation of CSO networks and platforms; gender and social inclusiveness in landscape activities and partner organizations; capacity development of CSOs to generate and use evidence; capacity development of CSOs for advocacy and lobby actions; organizational strengthening of participating CSOs.
See attached documents for a brief summary of the Annual plans of the implementing organisation
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Friends of the Earth Ghana
68821
95550
102985
99139
58731
58731
Milieudefensie
10580
Friends of the Earth Ghana
36269
Friends of the Earth International
35580
Friends of the Earth Ghana
36269
Friends of the Earth International
11881
68821
Milieudefensie
9175
12000
Friends of the Earth Ghana
95550
Milieudefensie
43810
Friends of the Earth International
3000
Friends of the Earth Ghana
43810
Friends of the Earth International
30000
Friends of the Earth Ghana
39012
Friends of the Earth Ghana
44883
Friends of the Earth International
15000
Friends of the Earth Ghana
15012
Friends of the Earth Ghana
102985
Milieudefensie
99139
Milieudefensie
50000
Friends of the Earth Ghana
50000
Friends of the Earth Ghana
29026
Friends of the Earth International
46066
Friends of the Earth International
20000
Friends of the Earth Ghana
25000
Friends of the Earth Ghana
4000
Friends of the Earth Ghana
20000
Friends of the Earth Ghana
5000
Friends of the Earth Ghana
25000
Friends of the Earth Ghana
29026
Friends of the Earth International
44883
Friends of the Earth International
46066
Friends of the Earth International
9795
11655
3073
IATI-GLA Summary Annual Plan 2018 Ghana Milieudefensie
IATI-GLA Summary Annual Plan 2016-2017 Ghana Milieudefensie
DD1 - Adequate practice of new/improved laws policies and societal norms
DD1 - # of laws policies and norms implemented for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show: public or private actors implement ((inter)national) laws policies and standards or improved implementation of existing laws policies and standards: and # of outcomes that show civil actors take concrete actions that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: or change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Since July 2017 members of Nkawie (Ashanti Region) and Goaso (Brong Ahafo Region) forest fringe communities have become effective community forest monitors due to their increased understanding of Ghana’s forest laws and of illegal and corrupt forest activities.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
DD2 - Inclusive legislation policies norms and attitudes in support of marginalized people to access their rights services and opportunities.
DD2 # of laws policies and norms/attitudes blocked adopted improved for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show: Public or private actors formally adopt/improve/ block laws policies and standards that contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: and # of outcomes that show civil actors agree on actions/ adopt plans that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: or agree to change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: In October 2018 the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources has submitted the Wildlife Resources Management Bill to cabinet in Accra.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: The cabinet of the Government of Ghana has referred the Wildlife Resources Management Bill to a sub-committee in Cabinet in Accra for a review of the penalties associated with offences.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
DD3 - CSO involvement: Advocacy activities of CSOs start having effect in the sense that their demands are being heard and that they are involved in decision making processes of targeted actors
DD3 - # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage
# of harvested outcomes that show public or private actors include CSO/ target groups’ demands and positions on the political/ corporate/ media agenda: and/or include target groups or CSOs in the decision making process: and # of harvested outcomes that show civil actors succeed (in creating space) to influence and/or participate in decision making concerning inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Since early 2017 a national radio station has taken a more activist approach by initiating new awareness raising including daily discussion programmes dedicated to forest and environmental destruction and by supporting campaign a.o. against illegal mining.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: In August 2018 there was a meeting between the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resource and the Forestry Commission with CSO representative where a number of proposals submitted by the MLNR were discussed. The Forestry Commission of Ghana proposed that farmers will benefit from a new payment scheme – the Farmers Tree Tending Toll which serves as an incentive for farmers to maintain trees in their farms and thereby sustain forested landscapes.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Following the discussions on Tree Tenure reformsin June 2019 among CSOs and the subsequent meeting of stakeholders from local communities - the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources (MLNR) pledged to start the process of amending the Concessions Act 1962.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: CSOs have validated and submitted to the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources the proposed amendment to the Concessions Act (124) of 1962
DD5 - CSOs have improved their capacity to lobby and advocate
DD5 - # of CSOs with increased L&A capacities
# of CSOs who have increased their capacity on at least 1 of the 5 Capacities for Lobby & Advocacy in the GLA capacity analysis tool as a result of the GLA programm
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
DD6 - Scope of the Strategic Partnership
DD6 - # of CSOs included in SPs programmes
# of first and second tier CSO partners in the Green Livelihoods Alliance with a direct financial relation
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-NG
Milieudefensie
Protection of forests through decreasing the influence of corporations on natural resource governance and by protecting the livelihood of local communities in the Niger delta and Cross River state
Nigeria’s political economy is dependent on crude oil extraction and agro commodities like palm oil. These industries severely impact people and the environment in forested landscapes. The environmental impacts of crude oil extraction in the Niger Delta are severe. Nigeria loses nearly 500,000 hectares of land annually to deforestation, largely caused by large scale commercial palm oil plantations, impacting heavily on local ecosystems, biodiversity and the local economy. This ‘natural resource curse’ has impacted on the fabric of social and political life in Nigeria by a.o. the historical grievances against multinational corporations in the oil sector, the centrality of natural resource extraction for political power, the protection of corporate security and the criminalization of ‘dissent’ in the name of national security. Local livelihoods are at risk due to land grabbing by corporations forcing local communities to engage in survival practices that further degrade the environment.
The programme builds upon an ongoing partnership between ERA, Milieudefensie, FoE Europe and local and international partners. The GLA partners IUCN-NL and Tropenbos International will be part of this partnership. The programme aims to protect community rights, the conservation of the landscape and to develop an alternative ecological model. This will also provide an opportunity to protect International Public Goods (water, climate change, biodiversity and food security). The programme objectives are as follows: (1) The Nigerian government is changing and implementing policies towards protecting community rights and holds companies accountable. (2) Companies and investors abide by the law and no longer apply large-scale plantations and oil extraction projects that cause deforestation, land and forest degradation and negatively affect people’s rights. (3) Local communities defend their rights and promote sustainable livelihoods. (4) There is increased public awareness and understanding of problems related to crude and palm oil production at the local, national and international levels.
See attached documents for a brief summary of the Annual plans of the implementing organisation
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
Friends of the Earth Europe
328978
211052
196641
210720
153899
328978
Milieudefensie
211052
Milieudefensie
57088
Friends of the Earth International
100000
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
51000
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
90000
Friends of the Earth Europe
44192
Friends of the Earth International
39360
57088
Friends of the Earth International
30679
211052
Milieudefensie
196641
Milieudefensie
210720
Milieudefensie
52000
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
120000
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
127500
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
108874
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
127500
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
102000
Friends of the Earth Europe
42338
Friends of the Earth International
44192
Friends of the Earth International
50617
Friends of the Earth International
36000
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
63750
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
20000
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
63750
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
45124
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
63750
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
51000
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
12000
Friends of the Earth Europe
57088
Friends of the Earth International
50617
Friends of the Earth International
32603
42338
Friends of the Earth International
153899
Milieudefensie
59674
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
37148
Friends of the Earth International
85174
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
37148
Friends of the Earth International
57077
16000
Environmental Rights Action (ERA)
12640
IATI-GLA Summary Annual Plan 2016-2017 Nigeria Milieudefensie
IATI-GLA Summary Annual Plan 2018 Nigeria Milieudefensie
DD2 - Inclusive legislation policies norms and attitudes in support of marginalized people to access their rights services and opportunities.
DD2 # of laws policies and norms/attitudes blocked adopted improved for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show: Public or private actors formally adopt/improve/ block laws policies and standards that contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: and # of outcomes that show civil actors agree on actions/ adopt plans that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: or agree to change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
DD5 - CSOs have improved their capacity to lobby and advocate
DD5 - # of CSOs with increased L&A capacities
# of CSOs who have increased their capacity on at least 1 of the 5 Capacities for Lobby & Advocacy in the GLA capacity analysis tool as a result of the GLA programm
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
DD6 - Scope of the Strategic Partnership
DD6 - # of CSOs included in SPs programmes
# of first and second tier CSO partners in the Green Livelihoods Alliance with a direct financial relation
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
DD3 - CSO involvement: Advocacy activities of CSOs start having effect in the sense that their demands are being heard and that they are involved in decision making processes of targeted actors
DD3 - # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage
# of harvested outcomes that show public or private actors include CSO/ target groups’ demands and positions on the political/ corporate/ media agenda: and/or include target groups or CSOs in the decision making process: and # of harvested outcomes that show civil actors succeed (in creating space) to influence and/or participate in decision making concerning inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: By June 2017 30 communities in Edo State impacted by activities of an palm oil company and 15 local and national Civil Society Organisations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) had formed a strong and active Stakeholders Coalition for the Protection of the Environment in Nigeria. The Coalition had a protest march on June 21 2017 in Benin City Edo State.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Hydorcarbon Pollution Remediation Project (HYPREP) the body mandated by the Federal Government of Nigeria to oversee the cleanup of Ogoniland has responded in the media to ERA/FoEN’s campaign for implementation of UNEP report recommendations on cleanup of Ogoniland.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
During a House of Assembly Members’ fact finding oversight visit to impacted communities in (anonymised state) in December 2019, an oil palm transnational company indicated their willingness to engage with host communities to resolve the various complaints presented and enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with them.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Members of the Senate Committee on Ecology and Climate Change as well as the House of Representatives Committee on Climate Change conducted an oversight visit to cleanup sites in Ogoni land based on ERA/FoEN’s request - in Sept 2020.
DD1 - Adequate practice of new/improved laws policies and societal norms
DD1 - # of laws policies and norms implemented for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show: public or private actors implement ((inter)national) laws policies and standards or improved implementation of existing laws policies and standards: and # of outcomes that show civil actors take concrete actions that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: or change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: In July 2017 Hydrocarbon Pollution Remediation Project (HYPREP) the body mandated by the Nigerian government to ensure clean up and remediation of Ogoni land in the Niger Delta advertised for expression of interest by qualified consultants and contractors for the cleanup of Ogoni land signalling one of the first concrete steps towards the actual cleanup of Ogoni land.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: In November 2018 Oil Companies responsible for the pollution of Ogoniland made a contribution of $180 million to Hydrocarbon Pollution Remediation Project (HYPREP) a body under the Federal Ministry of Environment for the Ogoniland cleanup.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or indicative example of outcome: In February 2019, Hydrocarbon Pollution Remediation Project (HYPREP) - the government body under the Federal Ministry of Environment mandated to oversee the cleanup of Ogoniland - mobilised 16 contractors to sites in Ogoniland for the cleanup.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: In 2020 an Oil Palm company agreed to compensate a community farmer for their illegal invasion and destruction of his farm after legal pressure by the implementing organisatin.
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-PH
Milieudefensie
Inclusive and sustainable forest management to safeguard International Public Goods in 3 forested landscapes of the Philippines
GLA Country Context Analysis: Forests in the Philippines have been in steady decline, which has a tremendous impact on millions of people who depend on these forests and the vital ecosystem services they provide. The program focuses on three landscapes: Sierra Madre Mountain Range (Luzon), CDO-Tagoloan river basins landscape continuum and part of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). These landscapes not only serve as homes to many communities - including indigenous peoples - who depend on them for their daily subsistence, but are also critical for the adjacent provinces and regions. All three landscapes are subjected to forest and habitat degradation, which threatens the sustainability of livelihoods, food security, water provisioning and biodiversity. The landscapes face multiple sources of threats, such as uncontrolled resource extraction, unsustainable and overlapping land use and militarization/conflict. Overcoming these threats is hampered by limited opportunities of local communities to influence decision making on sustainable governance. Policy makers are often detached from the ground and are thus unable to formulate effective policy reforms for sustainable development.
GLA Country Theory of Change 2016-2020: The Long-term goal of the program is to safeguard the International Public Goods (climate, water, food security and biodiversity) of forest-dependent and indigenous communities in the target communities. This will be possible when these forest landscapes are conserved and restored, and the different stakeholders agree to manage the resources in a sustainable way including respecting the tenure and resource use rights of forest dependent communities. The program aims to achieve this by strengthening the lobby and advocacy capacity of civil society organisations as well as forest-dependent and indigenous communities. Forest dependent communities and civil society have an opportunity to influence existing policies and practice through thorough and consistent lobby work at the local and national level. Where relevant, the program will also develop a proof of concept by creating pilot-models of sustainable landscape management which will benefit forest dependent communities.
See attached documents for a brief summary of the Annual plans of the implementing organisation
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC)
57034
71793
73880
78514
38168
73880
Milieudefensie
20000
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC)
16000
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC)
31443
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC)
23861
Friends of the Earth International
36000
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC)
15720
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC)
20000
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC)
7931
11455
57034
Milieudefensie
71793
Milieudefensie
78514
Milieudefensie
17390
Friends of the Earth International
40000
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC)
26425
Friends of the Earth International
33355
Friends of the Earth International
42000
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC)
17390
Friends of the Earth International
23861
Friends of the Earth International
26425
Friends of the Earth International
20000
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC)
16000
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC)
21000
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC)
33355
Friends of the Earth International
3159
38168
Milieudefensie
26185
Friends of the Earth International
4021
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC)
26185
Friends of the Earth International
29021
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC)
7962
3143
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC)
12580
Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC)
8202
IATI-GLA Summary Annual Plan 2016-2017 Philippines Milieudefensie
IATI-GLA Summary Annual Plan 2018 Philippines Milieudefensie
DD5 - CSOs have improved their capacity to lobby and advocate
DD5 - # of CSOs with increased L&A capacities
# of CSOs who have increased their capacity on at least 1 of the 5 Capacities for Lobby & Advocacy in the GLA capacity analysis tool as a result of the GLA programm
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
DD6 - Scope of the Strategic Partnership
DD6 - # of CSOs included in SPs programmes
# of first and second tier CSO partners in the Green Livelihoods Alliance with a direct financial relation
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
DD1 - Adequate practice of new/improved laws policies and societal norms
DD1 - # of laws policies and norms implemented for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show: public or private actors implement ((inter)national) laws policies and standards or improved implementation of existing laws policies and standards: and # of outcomes that show civil actors take concrete actions that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: or change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: The Leadership of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples approved the Certificate of Recognition of the Timuay Justice and Governance as the Indigenous Political Structure in the Teduray Lambangian Ancestral Domain Claim area during their En Banc meeting on December 22 2017 in Quezon City.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: By the end of 2018 around 70 indigenous farmers in the five pilot areas apply Sulagad principles and skills (sustainable and nature-based practices based on Indigenous knowledge) in their farms and gardens preventing further forest / nature degradation.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Teduray and Lambangian community leaders and organizers organized a COVID-19 emergency team - with members from youth volunteers of previous GLA projects. they were tasked to monitor and document the escalating armed confrontations in the area and organize humanitarian activities for the communities.
DD2 - Inclusive legislation policies norms and attitudes in support of marginalized people to access their rights services and opportunities.
DD2 # of laws policies and norms/attitudes blocked adopted improved for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show: Public or private actors formally adopt/improve/ block laws policies and standards that contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: and # of outcomes that show civil actors agree on actions/ adopt plans that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: or agree to change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: The newly signed Bangsamoro Organic Law has adopted the full inclusion of indigenous peoples’ rights in July 2018.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: The local government (anonymised) issued a resolution pledging financial/technical support as well as supporting the very idea of the anti-illegal logging drive in June 2019.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Bangsamoro Transition Authority (BTA) Member of Parliament IP representative Romeo Saliga drafted and passed a Resolution No. 199 - in the second quarter of 2020 - that urges Ministry on Environment Natural Resources and Energy (MENRE) to deputize Non-Moro Indigenous Peoples (NMIP) as forest guards within their ancestral.
DD3 - CSO involvement: Advocacy activities of CSOs start having effect in the sense that their demands are being heard and that they are involved in decision making processes of targeted actors
DD3 - # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage
# of harvested outcomes that show public or private actors include CSO/ target groups’ demands and positions on the political/ corporate/ media agenda: and/or include target groups or CSOs in the decision making process: and # of harvested outcomes that show civil actors succeed (in creating space) to influence and/or participate in decision making concerning inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Barangay Local Government officials of five pilot areas are part of the Sulagad team to promote indigenous and nature-based farming (the 2nd and 3rd quarter of 2018). Sulagad is an agro-ecological practice and way of life of the Teduray and Lambangian indigenous community.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Barangay government officials of (anonymised) village, who drafted and passed resolution against illegal fishing, discussed with officials to also support the anti-illegal fishing campaign in 1st quarter of 2019.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-ID
Milieudefensie
Inclusive and sustainable forested landscape management in West Sumatra, West Kalimantan and Central Sulawesi Provinces in Indonesia
GLA Country Context Analysis: Indonesia accounts for the third largest forest area in the world (ca. 127 million ha), with designated forest lands covering 60% of its land area. Yet it also has one of the highest rates of deforestation globally (around 1.17 million ha per year). To date, economic growth has been sustained through a strategy which builds on the use of Indonesia’s abundant natural resources. Commodities comprise more than half of exports. Agriculture (15%) and mining (12%) are key contributors to the national Gross Domestic Product. Agriculture and forests are vital for livelihoods, and employ more than a third of the working population. Millions of people (33,000 villages) depend on the forest and forest commodities for their livelihood without any recognition of access and/or use of the natural resources. However, in 2015, the government launched an ambitious program targeted at allocating 12.7 million hectares of forests to be managed by communities through social forestry schemes; more than 2.5 million hectares each year. The GLA partners in Indonesia have selected three landscapes which represent the general problems and livelihoods strategies in the country very well: ‘Mudiak Baduo’ in the West Sumatra Province, ‘Gunung Tarak’ in the West Kalimantan Province and ‘Lariang’ in the Central Sulawesi Province. The three landscapes face the following shared issues: (1) a rapid expansion of agro-commodity oil palm and other land-based investments at the expense of forests; (2) tenure insecurity and long arduous bureaucratic procedures for obtaining Social Forestry (SF) permits; (3) uncertainty about what communities will do with their SF permits and how they will use forest environmental services to create better lives; and (4) lack of forest-based sustainable livelihood options surrounding conservation areas which has led to rampant illegal logging and encroachment.
GLA Country Theory of Change 2016-2020: The outcomes envisaged by GLA in Indonesia contribute to the three overall conditions for sustainable and inclusive governance of forested landscapes as described in the international ToC for the GLA: (1) security of land tenure/access to land and resources use for local communities, addressed through interventions related to Village Forestry and community participation in the management of plantations; (2) communities and CSOs included in decision making on land use throughout, through collaboration or through access by justice; (3) implementation of nature based approaches to the management of forested landscapes in the implementation of sustainable management of village forests, and of the High Conservation Value (HCV) approach in the spatial planning of land investments. This is to be achieved by strengthening CSO capacities for lobbying and advocacy for (1) equitable and sustainable spatial planning; (2) the application of HCV as the key tool for sustainable production investments and regional development by private sector and government ; (3) sustainable management of oil palm concessions, and sustainable palm oil supply chains; (4) supporting village governments and community groups in equal participation in sustainable agro-industry; and (5) local communities to have a greater involvement in the sustainable management of forest areas.
See attached documents for a brief summary of the Annual plans of the implementing organisation
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI)
227964
227637
236277
222713
65831
227964
Milieudefensie
222713
Milieudefensie
28090
Friends of the Earth International
13705
Friends of the Earth International
4307
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI)
25622
Friends of the Earth International
185000
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI)
33620
Friends of the Earth International
182816
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI)
28090
Friends of the Earth International
87500
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI)
70000
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI)
25622
Friends of the Earth International
92500
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI)
16316
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI)
92500
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI)
33620
Friends of the Earth International
25655
6277
227637
Milieudefensie
65831
Milieudefensie
26185
Friends of the Earth International
17854
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI)
97552
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI)
26185
Friends of the Earth International
114656
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI)
21792
236277
Milieudefensie
175000
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI)
180047
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI)
13705
Friends of the Earth International
100000
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI)
74000
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI)
24874
33885
IATI-GLA Summary Annual Plan 2016-2017 Indonesia Milieudefensie
IATI-GLA Summary Annual Plan 2016-2017 Indonesia Milieudefensie
DD1 - Adequate practice of new/improved laws policies and societal norms
DD1 - # of laws policies and norms implemented for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show: public or private actors implement ((inter)national) laws policies and standards or improved implementation of existing laws policies and standards: and # of outcomes that show civil actors take concrete actions that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: or change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: The President of Indonesia extended the Moratorium of New Permits in Primary Forest and Peatlands in July 2017.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: The Regional Development Agency (Bappeda) and the Environmental Agency (DLH) of South Solok District support the implementation of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for regional development plans in August 2018.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: In 2020 nature-degrading gold mining activities without a permit (PETI) in South Solok decreased drastically - after the implementing partner documented and published instances of illegal mining upon which local authorities acted
DD2 - Inclusive legislation policies norms and attitudes in support of marginalized people to access their rights services and opportunities.
DD2 # of laws policies and norms/attitudes blocked adopted improved for sustainable and inclusive development
# of harvested outcomes that show: Public or private actors formally adopt/improve/ block laws policies and standards that contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: and # of outcomes that show civil actors agree on actions/ adopt plans that significantly contribute to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance: or agree to change/stop practices that are harmful to inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: In July 2017 the Minister of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) expressed her commitment to maximize social forestry programs in accordance with the RPJMN 2014 - 2019 at the Joint Working Meeting.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: On December 20 2017 the Head of a village in the project area decided not to release the remaining land and forest for the expansion of oil palm plantations
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: The West Kalimantan Provincial Government issued Governor Regulation no. 39 of 2019 concerning prevention and control of forest and land fires to minimize land burning in the province.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: Increased resistance of the people of Kualan Hilir Village against an Industrial Plantation Forest company on their lands.
DD3 - CSO involvement: Advocacy activities of CSOs start having effect in the sense that their demands are being heard and that they are involved in decision making processes of targeted actors
DD3 - # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage
# of harvested outcomes that show public or private actors include CSO/ target groups’ demands and positions on the political/ corporate/ media agenda: and/or include target groups or CSOs in the decision making process: and # of harvested outcomes that show civil actors succeed (in creating space) to influence and/or participate in decision making concerning inclusive and sustainable forested landscape governance.
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: The Women's Group in Salumpaku conveyed their ideas and demands on the management of natural resources in their Village in particular in the Salumpaku Village development planning meeting held in March 2017.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: On 7 August 2018 the public and stakeholders pay attention to efforts to save peat protected forest areas in the Sungai Putri Forest Block in a multi-stakeholder meeting strengthening the environmental advocacy network.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Notable or illustrative example of a harvested outcome: a village Government together with farmers within the scope of an industrial plantation - urged the government to supervise the plantations and voiced their demands to the company.
Target value not applicable no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
DD5 - CSOs have improved their capacity to lobby and advocate
DD5 - # of CSOs with increased L&A capacities
# of CSOs who have increased their capacity on at least 1 of the 5 Capacities for Lobby & Advocacy in the GLA capacity analysis tool as a result of the GLA programm
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
DD6 - Scope of the Strategic Partnership
DD6 - # of CSOs included in SPs programmes
# of first and second tier CSO partners in the Green Livelihoods Alliance with a direct financial relation
All baselines of Dialogue and Dissent indicators are set at 0.
NL-KVK-40530467-Atewa-Lifeline
Milieudefensie
Final Lifeline for Atewa Forest
The proposed ‘Final Lifeline for Atewa Forest’ intervention is the last opportunity to save Atewa Forest from bauxite mining interest. The Atewa Range Forest Reserve is a crucial source of water to more than five (5) million Ghanaians. It is also recognized as a Globally Significant Biodiversity Area and provides important climate services. However, the Atewa Forest is at risk of being lost forever as the Government of Ghana has signed a MoU with the Chinese government to mine bauxite deposits in the Atewa Forest Reserve. Bauxite mining will cause irreversible biodiversity loss and environmental degradation, undermining crucial ecosystem services notably a reliable provision of clean water.
Friends of the Earth Ghana
Milieudefensie
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS)
IUCN Nederlands Comité
Tropenbos International
Milieudefensie
498563
456088
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS)
422228
IUCN Nederlands Comité
7722
Friends of the Earth Ghana
2058
Friends of the Earth Ghana
8580
Friends of the Earth Ghana
12000
Friends of the Earth Ghana
10800
Friends of the Earth Ghana
5087
498563
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS)
Atewa Final Life Line End Report
Ghanese government actors and/or international financial sector actors, have included evidence and arguments against bauxite mining and pro ‘green’ investments as distributed by civil society in their statements, agenda’s or policies.
Based on convincing evidence and arguments against bauxite mining (a non-sustainable option) and pro ‘green’ investments (as a sustainable option) compiled and translated into policy briefings, ‘white papers’, presentations, video products.
# of harvested outcomes that show that targeted actors have included evidence and arguments against bauxite mining and pro ‘green’ investments as distributed by civil society in their statements, agenda’s or policies.
Target value not applicable, no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
Although over 20 statements on Atewa have been made by the President and other members of his cabinet, notably the Vice President, the Senior Minister, and Minister of Lands and Natural resources and Environment they did NOT change their agenda and policies on Atewa. They did however indicate that only a part of Atewa (the Northern half) would be mined for bauxite and that non-destructive technologies that would not harm wildlife and other biodiversity would be employed in the mining. This might be an indication that they recognize the great value of the area and will assure mining will be done ‘sustainable’. In parliament discussion has been intense. Over 5 interventions took place with reference to Atewa in which arguments on the forest’ values were mentioned. The Legislator, especially Minority caucus in Parliament ceased several occasions to ask questions regarding the transparency and value for money in Ghana’s Sino-hydro agreement. The minority causus also formally requested government to exclude Atewa from the mining deal. The parliamentary select committee on mines solicited input from Civil society for a the elabaration of an Act concerning Bauxite mining and held meetings to seek inputs of CSOs in the integrated Aluminum bauxite development.. The Council of Ghanaian chiefs in Netherlands released a statement urging the president to secure Atewa Range forest for water and not bauxite mining. Other important statements have been made by relevant traditional authorities including the Chief of Suhum, Apampatia, Kwabeng and Larbikrom. A great many press statements, petitions, press releases and interviews have been made by various groups in society. These included media (as an active actor!) colleague CSO organizations, professional bodies (including Ghana Institute of Foresters), Universities and Research Institutions, student groups etc. all expressingconcern on the environmental and social effects and implications of the bauxite mining.
Key state and non-state actors are aware of legal implications of conversion of the Atewa forest.
# of harvested outcomes that show engagements of civil society with state and non-state actors on the issue.
Target value not applicable, no targets are set for the # of outcomes harvested per DD outcome. The programme does aim to achieve change in this result area. Therefore the target is set to a minimum of 1.
A great many interactions have taken place with state actors from local, district, national and international level. On the highest government level these included a meeting with (1) the Minister for Environment (MESTI), (2) the Director of Forestry Commission, (3) the Ghana Integrated Aluminum Development Corporation (GIADEC) under the Mineral Commission and with (4) the Parliamentary Select committee on Mines and Energy. There has been very frequent contact with civil servants working for the relevant government ministries (MLNR, MESTI, FC,EPA, WRC, MC, local government etc.). Other stakeholders group we engaged with were Traditional Authorities, Bilateral and Multilateral Donors such as World Bank, UN development agencies, Dutch Embassy, American Embassy and French Embassy. With a number of letters we have reached out to Chinese actors including the Chinese Development Bank and Chinese Embassy. Media played an active role as actor in the campaign while all of the activities have been organized with or by a mix of civil society organizations, youth groups and women’s groups among others.
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-PoV
Milieudefensie
GLA Power of Voices Partnership
The Green Livelihoods Alliance (2021 - 2025) is an alliance of Gaia Amazonas, IUCN NL, Milieudefensie, NTFP-EP, SDI and Tropenbos International, with Fern and WECF as technical partners.
The Green Livelihoods Alliance (GLA) aims to ensure that tropical forests and forest landscapes are sustainably and inclusively governed to mitigate and adapt to climate change, fulfil human rights and safeguard local livelihoods.
In twelve countries in South America, Africa and Asia, as well as internationally, the Alliance works with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) and social movements to:
- increase the participation of IPLCs in policy and decision-making regarding land rights and forest governance
- strengthen lobby and advocacy to hold governments and industries accountable for deforestation and human rights violations.
A crucial prerequisite is to ensure the operational space and security of IPLC leaders, CSO activists, women’s rights and environmental and human rights defenders (EHRDs).
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS)
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Women Engage for a Common Future
Fundación Gaia Amazonas
IUCN Nederlands Comité
Non-Timber Forest Products Exchange Programme
Stichting Fern
Tropenbos International
Sustainable Development Institute
Eva Duarte Davidson
Senior Programme Coordinator
eva.duarte.davidson@milieudefensie.nl
Support to the exercise of democracy and diverse forms of participation of citizens beyond elections (15151); direct democracy instruments such as referenda and citizens' initiatives; support to organisations to represent and advocate for their members, to monitor, engage and hold governments to account, and to help citizens learn to act in the public sphere; curricula and teaching for civic education at various levels. (This purpose code is restricted to activities targeting governance issues. When assistance to civil society is for non-governance purposes use other appropriate purpose codes.)
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
1000000
7860000
9380000
9540000
9285000
8570902
461000
451124
Women Engage for a Common Future
82500
Women Engage for a Common Future
3809900
Women Engage for a Common Future
10000
FERN
302125
NTFP-EP
1661000
IUCN NL
30000
FERN
845000
TBI
227062
Women Engage for a Common Future
91168
NTFP-EP
9524800
IUCN NL
IUCN NL
16531.66
SDI
200000
IUCN NL
11580
SDI
11580
SDI
11580
SDI
158918
SDI
2193472
Milieudefensie
1993112
Milieudefensie
1892000
TBI
801399
Women Engage for a Common Future
787700
NTFP-EP
1104871
Gaia
103428
FERN
38401
SDI
58401
SDI
6000
SDI
6000
SDI
1660
SDI
262707
NTFP-EP
11910800
Milieudefensie
205000
IUCN NL
IUCN NL
124156.20
SDI
39454
FERN
640400
TBI
87565.99
SDI
57886.61
SDI
1423900
SDI
3809900
NTFP-EP
1807702
GLA Coordination
476200
FERN
82500
NTFP-EP
7860000
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands
8787176
46097902
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands
8518000
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands
204404
SDI
1000000
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands
205000
TBI
9524800
Tropenbos International
641400
Gaia
82500
Gaia
3809900
Gaia
8034645
188650
NTFP-EP
97796
FERN
565950
NTFP-EP
1928000
IUCN NL
1104871
Gaia
1497600
TBI
729045
Women Engage for a Common Future
10281000
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands
Annual plan 2021
Annual plan 2021
Annual plan 2022
Annual plan 2022
Baseline report 2021
Baseline report 2021
Annual Report 2021
Annual plan 2023
Annual Report 2022
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-PoV-Cameroon
Milieudefensie
GLA-PoV-Cameroon
Cameroon boasts a huge variety of flora and fauna, spread over about 20 million hectares of tropical rainforest. About four million people live in and around these forests, including a large percentage of indigenous people such as the Baka and Bagyeli. The forest is part of the second largest rainforest in the world, through which the great Congo River flows. It plays a key role in combating dangerous climate change.
But the forests in Cameroon are under severe threat. Investments in logging, industrial agriculture and mining are increasing as well as deforestation. By 2020, Cameroon lost 100,000one hundred thousand hectares of rainforest. Land rights of indigenous and local communities are not formally recognized. Land grabbing and other human rights violations by large corporations in the timber or agriculture sectors are commonplace. Forest activists who stand up for these rights are subject to intimidation, threats or violence.
Over the past five years we have put a halt to new plantations and logging permits. For example, the Ebo forest was protected from logging, saving 130 hectares of rainforest. In the coming years, Cameroon’s GLA program aims to increase and strengthen the influence and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. We advocate for a methodology to represent them in corporate and political processes that deal with land and natural resources. The base is proper monitoring by local forest-, and human rights activists to document violations. On top of this, we will continue to campaign nationally and internationally for greater recognition and protection for indigenous and local people, and engage in resistance or use grievance procedures for redress in cases of (human) rights violations and deforestation.
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Support to the exercise of democracy and diverse forms of participation of citizens beyond elections (15151); direct democracy instruments such as referenda and citizens' initiatives; support to organisations to represent and advocate for their members, to monitor, engage and hold governments to account, and to help citizens learn to act in the public sphere; curricula and teaching for civic education at various levels. (This purpose code is restricted to activities targeting governance issues. When assistance to civil society is for non-governance purposes use other appropriate purpose codes.)
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
117000
118600
118100
118700
118300
112279
112279
119024
590700
451600
119024
SCS1 # of laws and policies for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
This result shows the number of laws and policies that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
# of governmental policies for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of governmental policies that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no governmental policies have been better implemented for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to better implement 1 government policy for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on agro-industries and/or large infrastructural projects
# of international agreements for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of international agreements that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no international agreements have been better implemented for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
# of laws for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of laws that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no laws have been better implemented sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
4 laws are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts at midline. For example, in 2021 the Ministry of Land Affairs has taken a series of decisions suspending land registrations in areas at risk of land scarcity. Notably around major cities and areas where large-scale land-based investments are located.
# of private sector company policies for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of private sector policies that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no private sector company policies have been better implemented for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
# of by-laws for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of by-laws that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no by-laws have been better implemented for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
SCS2 # of laws, policies and norms/attitudes, blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development
This result shows the number of laws, policies and norms/attitudes, blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development
# of governmental policies blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no governmental policies have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to block, adopt or improve 1 government policy for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on agro-industries and/or large infrastructural projects
# of laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no laws have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to block, adopt or improve 1 law for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on agro-industries and/or large infrastructural projects
# of private sector company policies blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of private sector company policies blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no private sector company policies have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
# of by-laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of by-laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no by-laws have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
# of international agreements blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the of international agreements blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no international agreements have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
SCS3 # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage.
This result shows # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage, as result of GLA efforts
# of advocacy initiatives carried out by CSOs, for, by or with their membership/constituency at sub-national level
Measures the advocacy initiatives carried out by CSOs, for, by or with their membership/constituency at sub-national
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no spaces were created to engage at sub-national level as a result of for CSO engagement in the programme
The aim of the programme is to increase the level of influence or participation in decision making by CSOs and IPLCs in more processes. In addition, the programme aims to increase the level of participation by women and young women/men in all processes. No specific target is defined in this case.
# of advocacy initiatives carried out by CSOs, for, by or with their membership/constituency
Measures the advocacy initiatives carried out by CSOs, for, by or with their membership/constituency at national and international level
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no spaces were created to engage at national and international level as a result of for CSO engagement in the programme
The aim of the programme is to increase the level of influence or participation in decision making by CSOs and IPLCs in more processes. In addition, the programme aims to increase the level of participation by women and young women/men in all processes. No specific target is defined in this case.
SCS5 # of CSOs with increased L&A capacities
This result shows the CSOs working in GLA with increased L&A capacities
# of women led CSOs with increased L&A capacities
Measures the number of 1st and 2nd ring partners that are led by women and have increased L&A capacities
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no CSO has yet increased L&A capcities as a result of the programme.
These are 1st ring women led CSO partners that are expected to increase their capacity over the course of the GLA2 programme in Cameroon. No 2nd ring women led CSO partners have been included in this target value, as the GLA is a flexible adaptable program this can't be well estimated in advance.
One 1st ring CSOs has increased capacity on 'Issue-based knowledge (data) and information to build an advocacy campaign' among others.
No specific annual target is set for this indicator
In 2022, one 1st ring CSO has increased capacity on lobby & advocacy, among other topics.
# of youth led CSOs with increased L&A capacities
Measures the number of 1st and 2nd ring partners that are led by youth and have increased L&A capacities
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no CSO has yet increased L&A capcities as a result of the programme.
No 1st ring youth led CSO partners are expected to increase their capacity over the course of the GLA2 programme in Cameroon. No 2nd ring youth led CSO partners have been included in this target value, as the GLA is a flexible adaptable program this can't be well estimated in advance.
NA
No specific annual target is set for this indicator
# of CSOs (not youth or women led) with increased L&A capacities
Measures the number of 1st and 2nd ring partner that are not specifically led by women or youth and have inreased L&A capacities
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no CSO has yet increased L&A capcities as a result of the programme.
No 1st ring 'not youth not women led' CSO partners are expected to increase their capacity over the course of the GLA2 programme in Cameroon. No 2nd ring 'not youth not women led' CSO partners have been included in this target value, as the GLA is a flexible adaptable program this can't be well estimated in advance.
NA
No specific annual target is set for this indicator
# of CSOs which are both women and youth led with increased L&A capacities
Measures the number of 1st and 2nd ring partner that are led by both women and youth and have inreased L&A capacities
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no CSO has yet increased L&A capcities as a result of the programme.
No 1st ring 'women and youth led' CSO partners are expected to increase their capacity over the course of the GLA2 programme in Cameroon. No 2nd ring 'women and youth led' CSO partners have been included in this target value, as the GLA is a flexible adaptable program this can't be well estimated in advance.
NA
No specific annual target is set for this indicator
NL-KVK-40530467-FGG3
Milieudefensie
Fair, Green and Global Alliance III
The Fair, Green and Global Alliance (FGG) aims to increase the power and decision-making influence of organised, mobilised and informed civil society, to advance fair and green trade and value chains. FGG believes that poverty, inequality and exclusion are caused by power asymmetries. We see the unprecedented power of capital over people and planet as the primary obstacle impeding realisation of fair and green trade and value chains. The FGG programme focuses on recalibrating power within the global architecture of trade and value chains by amplifying the voices of rights-holders – small producers and traders, workers, fishers, rural and indigenous peoples – who are practising, claiming or defending fair and green economic practices, and/or whose rights are being ignored, threatened or violated by corporations and/or governments. We aim to transform social relations so that these rights-holders’ voices are heard and heeded. FGG’s eight members (ActionAid, Both ENDS, Clean Clothes Campaign, IT for Change, Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands, in collaboration with FoE International and FoE Europe), The Samdhana Institute, SOMO and the Transnational Institute) cooperate with some 1000+ partners and allies in our many worldwide networks to strengthen collective capacities to advance a common vision of fair and green trade and value chains.
Both ENDS
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Friends of the Earth Europe
Friends of the Earth International
Milieudefensie
https://milieudefensie.nl
2092888
2092888
2092888
2092888
2092886
65213
716406
Expenditure MD 2022
300000
Contract FoEE 2022
Friends of the Earth Europe
915402
Contract FoEI 2022
Friends of the Earth International
10464438
Budget 2021-2025
Both ENDS
Milieudefensie
1255733
Installment from BE 2021 1
Both ENDS
Milieudefensie
837155
Installment from BE 2021 2
Both ENDS
Milieudefensie
300000
Contract FoEE 2022
Friends of the Earth Europe
915402
Contract FoEI 2022
Friends of the Earth International
2092888
Installment from BE 2022
Both ENDS
Milieudefensie
300000
Contract FoEE 2021
Friends of the Earth Europe
915402
Contract FoEI 2021
Friends of the Earth International
300000
To FoEE 2021
Friends of the Earth Europe
915402
To FoEI 2021
Friends of the Earth International
772412
Expenditure MD 2021
107171
ANAFAE Honduras
CENSAT Colombia
FASE Brazilië
CEDIB Bolivia
CEASE Argentinië
Amis de la Terre Togo
65213
ANAFAE Honduras
CENSAT Colombia
FASE Brazilië
CEDIB Bolivia
CEASE Argentinië
Amis de la Terre Togo
A
strengthened capacities
3
# targeted civil society actors that lobby and advocate for improved policies and practices in trade and value chains and advance fair and green practices based on capacities mutually developed
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will contribute to increased lobby and advocacy capacities of 15 CSOs in LLUMICs from all regions in the Global South (a.o. research, strategy development, communications, media and lobby access) that these CSOs in collaboration with FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will use in lobby and advocacy on trade and investment agreements, the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights, and government and corporate policies and practices related to fossil fuel expansion in LLUMICs.
[3.FoEE1(3,3x)]: FoE Europe has supported one CSO from an African LLUMIC and three CSOs from Latin America (of which two from an LLUMIC) with strategy development and communications, in order to increase their capacity to advocate on the environmental, climate and human rights impacts of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) and the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement respectively. The African CSO advocated at its national government on the proposed expansion of the ECT to African countries. The Latin American CSOs a.o. launched the reports 'Brazilian meat and the EU-Mercosur Agreement' and 'Ethanol expansion and the EU-Mercosur trade deal'. Furthermore, FoE Europe together with S2B (Seattle to Brussels Network) continued advocacy at the European Commission on the environmental, social and other problems of EU-Mercosur. The CSOs' advocacy further contributed to sustainability and human rights issues getting a more prominent place in trade and investments negotiations. [See also 5C.FoEE/MD1]. [Counted under subindicator x as well, as the work aims to prevent the negative impacts of FTAs and investment treaties on democratic decision-making, and on the position of civil society vis-à-vis the corporate sector]. [3.FoEE2(1)]: FoE Europe, in a working group of Yes to Life No to Mining (YLNM, a global solidarity network of and for communities, organisations and networks who are standing up for their right to say no to mining and advancing life-sustaining, post-extractive alternatives), strengthened the capacity of CSOs from Europe and the Global South by co-leading on regular calls where EU policies relevant to raw materials mining and consumption are discussed, and joint strategies and actions are developed. FoE Europe led in drafting of a joint YLNM paper 'Driving destructive mining: EU Civil Society denounces EU raw material plans in European Green Deal' published May 2021. In it, the global YLNM coalition of 180+ community platforms, human rights and environmental CSOs, and academics from 36 nations is calling on the EU to address the systemic issues underpinning endless extractivism and turn the tide toward a more just and sustainable future to put urgent measures in place to achieve absolute reductions in demand for - and consumption of - raw materials in Europe. [Counted is the global YLNM network]. [3.MD3(1)]: Milieudefensie together with Both ENDS, OCI and FoE Europe provided a CSO from Mozambique with access to Dutch, UK and European media, to Dutch, UK and European politicians, and, via a freedom of information act procedure, to Dutch government information, and with that contributed to an increased advocacy capacity of the CSO. The CSOs jointly used it to address at the Dutch government its ECA support for a gas development project in Mozambique, the impact of the project on the environment, communities and the security situation in the country, and the incompatibility of the ECA support with the Paris Climate Agreement. The CSOs were successful in raising public and political awareness. State Secretary for Finance Mr. Vijlbrief on 9 December 2021 in a parliamentary debate promised an independent review of the decision-making process leading to the ECA support for the Mozambique gas project and the security situation around it. [See also 5C.MD3]. [3.MD4(8)]: Milieudefensie continued its support (financial, networking, communication) to a network of CSOs in Latin America, from Honduras [3 CSOs], Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia and Argentina, and a regional CSO, all dealing with the expansion of the fossil fuel industry in Latin America. In 2021 with financial support from Milieudefensie, the groups continued mapping of the fossil fuel industry attempts to extend the extraction frontier to new areas inland and especially in deep sea waters, conducted participatory research on the (potential) impacts on and resistance of local communities (such as against oil spills affecting marine and terrestrial ecosystems, employment, local income, food security and the livelihoods of fisher and peasants communities, and the disappearance and murder of EHRDs from these communities), and conducted research on corporate capture of governmental decision-making processes around this expansion (including the building-up of infrastructure required for fossil fuel transport, such as harbours), and corporate lobby aiming at a.o. obtaining concessions, deregulation and tax advantages. The CSOs published research reports on the oil and gas expansion in the region: 'Situación de pescadores/as del Golfo de Fonseca: Proyecto centroamericano de acción crítica frente a la explotación de hidrocarburos en la región'; 'Situación del Petróleo y Gas en los Países de Centroamérica'; 'Informe de Actualización sobre Exploración y Subsecuente Explotación de Petróleo y Gas en el Caribe de Honduras'; 'Frontera hidrocarburífera: Expansión y violaciones de los derechos en Sudamérica'; 'El plan de reactivación del Upstream 2021 o la búsqueda de hidrocarburos que continúa siendo una amenaza e incertidumbre'. The CSOs used the research and publications for strategizing and increasing collaboration within the existing network of CSOs and communities and beyond (with trade unions and local authorities), in advocacy, organising public events, communication and media work on the fossil fuel developments and to create public debate and political awareness of the governmental and corporate conduct as regards oil and gas expansion in the countries, also of projected oil and gas exploitation operations that were (or the scope of which was) not known yet to local municipalities and communities before the CSOs informed them, and to develop positions, statements and alternative plans. The CSOs and their networks of communities enhanced their knowledge, analytical and strategizing capacities through the exchange of experiences (organising themselves in their struggle against the oil industry and in defending and developing their livelihoods) in tens of regional, national and local gatherings and trainings (physical or via webinars) of CSOs and communities, peasants and fishermen/women and peasants and fishermen federations and movements, in some cases also with municipalities, universities, human rights organisations and others.
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will contribute to increased lobby and advocacy capacities of 15 CSOs in LLUMICs from all regions in the Global South (a.o. research, strategy development, communications, media and lobby access) that these CSOs in collaboration with FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will use in lobby and advocacy on trade and investment agreements, the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights, and government and corporate policies and practices related to fossil fuel expansion in LLUMICs.
FoEE partners in Brazil, Uruguay, Mozambique actively engaged in advocacy on trade and corporate accountability on the EU Mercosur agreement, the UN Binding treaty and the EU CSDDD. They organized speaker tours, reached out to media, held lobby meetings and developed key information. This is based on their strengthened capacities in lobby and advocacy; through support and guidance by FoEE.
FoE partners in Togo used their strengthened lobby & advocacy capacity & strategic information (both supported & provided by FoEE) to engage in lobby towards the Togo government on the ECT modernisation negotiations and the ECT expansion plans in Africa.
Nineteen African partners (regional, Ghana, Togo, Nigeria, DRC, Uganda, Mozambique, Senegal, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe) together with Milieudefensie, Banktrack and Oil Change International, published in March 2022 the report "Locked out of a Just Transition: fossil fuel financing in Africa" showing the scale of financial support provided by commercial banks, development finance institutions and Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) that flows to the fossil fuel industry in West, Central, East and Southern Africa. The African partners developed a.o. the case studies and advocated for a shift from ECA support for fossil fuel development to ECA support for sustainable energy development. Their involvement was based on their strengthened lobby and advocacy skills, knowledge on ECAs and other key information on Just Transition provided by FGG partner Milieudefensie together with Banktrack and OCI.
Five CSOs in Honduras, Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia and Argentina and a regional network continued advocating against the expansion of the fossil fuel industry in Latin America. They did so based on their strengthened advocacy capacities through advocacy workshops and strategic information provided by Milieudefensie.
They monitored the fossil fuel industry attempts to extend the extraction frontier to new areas inland (Bolivia) and off-shore in deep sea waters (Honduras, Colombia, Argentina, Brazil). In many of the countries the CSOs conducted studies. For example a study to expose the economic, social & environmental impact of oil exploration in the Honduran Caribbean region and a participatory research on the (potential) impacts on local fisher communities.
The groups initiated campaigns such as the ‘Not One More Well’ campaign in coastal Brazil, resisting the oil industry expanding off-shore, they emphasized the importance of the Escazú Agreement (a regional agreement on environment and human rights protection in Bolivia), organized ‘People Caravans’ uniting affected communities, and promoted Just Energy Transition to reach community leaders from the Colombian Caribbean Islands.
The groups supported the position of environmental and human rights defenders in their areas.
Research by the CSO in Brazil, through capacity support by Milieudefensie, revealed the participation of Dutch investors in the Porto Central in Brazil. Until 2021 there was no transparency about the participation of Van Oord, which owns 10% of the oil venture, nor of the Dutch ECA Atradius.
In 2022 the Oilwatch Latin America Network brought together civil society organizations and local community leaders who are on the front lines confronting the oil industry in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela and Costa Rica.
A CSO in Togo, through their strengthened advocacy skills (supported by Milieudefensie) advocated against oil spills in coastal areas and supported local communities who are affected by sea level rise and pollution.
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will contribute to increased lobby and advocacy capacities of 23 CSOs in LLUMICs from Africa, South East Asia and Latin America (including Morocco, Ghana, Togo, Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, South Africa, Indonesia, Honduras, Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina and Uruguay) (a.o. capacities to conduct and publish research, develop strategies, implement communication and media strategies, and have access to decision-makers and media) that these CSOs in collaboration with FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will use in advocacy on trade and investment agreements (especially EU-Mercosur and the Energy Charter Treaty); on mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence (mEHRDD) legislation (especially the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights; and EU and Dutch mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence laws that are being developed); and government and corporate policies and practices related to fossil fuel expansion in LLUMICs (especially corporate capture of governmental climate and energy policy development; export credit agency financing; and the alignment of the fossil fuel industry with the Paris Climate Accord). The relevance of the mutually increased capacities of the CSOs involved is a.o. in the causes of the local environmental problems in the LLUMICs which are addressed in the joint advocacy. These causes are often related to the global economic system, and (the lack of) international structures. These can only be effectively addressed in an international collaboration in which the participating CSOs mutually strengthen each other's capacities in understanding the contexts at the local, national and international levels, and in developing effective strategies to achieve change at all relevant levels. [CSOs involved in capacity development on trade and investment agreements are counted under subindicator x as well, as advocacy on this dossier aims at preventing the negative impacts of FTAs and investment treaties on democratic decision-making, and on the position of civil society vis-à-vis the corporate sector; CSOs involved in capacity development on mEHRDD law are counted under subindicator x as well, as advocacy on this dossier aims at increasing the power of civil society vis-à-vis corporations].
CSO from: Brazil, Indonesia, Uruguay and Mozambique (FoE Europe)
Colombia, Honduras, Bolivia, Argentina, Uganda (2), Togo, Ghana (2)
FoEE supports partners in their corporate accountability lobby and advocacy work on the UN treaty and on the EU CSDDD. This will allow these groups to educate civil society in their countries about the UN treaty and the need for (global) rules for TNCs. It will also allow them to reach out to media in order to generate pressure and to reach out to decision makers.
MD supports partners in their research, advocacy and campaigning:
· against expansion of fossil fuel industry in Latin America & Africa
· to end all Dutch ECA support for fossil fuel investments and monitor the impacts of fossil fuel support already provided
· Climate litigation
· litigation against environmental pollution & corporate violations of human rights
FoEE supports partners’ capacities through provision of key information & research and through coordination, facilitation of contacts to decision makers, strategic advise, media opportunities, joint actions and lobby targets.
MD will strengthen its partners’ capacities through finances, strategic information & networking
A
strengthened capacities
2g
# targeted civil society actors with strengthened capacities relevant to advance gender justice
[See indicator 2]
E
private sector actors respecting human rights and the environment
5E
# key actors who support and/or promote FGG policy/practice recommendations
Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs from all regions will achieve that companies and investors improve their policies and conduct with respect to climate, environment, nature and people in LLUMICs.
[Explanation for score 0: We realise that in our results monitoring we have been focusing on indicator 6E (actual policy/practice change in corporate conduct), and didn't harvest outcomes for indicator 5E (support for the changes we propose). We aim at revisiting the reported 2021 outcomes when reporting on 2022 and include in the 2022 report possible scores on 5E from 2021].
Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs from all regions will achieve that companies and investors improve their policies and conduct with respect to climate, environment, nature and people in LLUMICs.
Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs from all regions will achieve that key actors in the private sector, governments, institutions, trade unions, the academics and broader, will urge companies and investors to improve their policies and conduct with respect to the climate, and to the environment, nature and people in LLUMICs, and to adopt and implement policies in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. We aim at five instances of key actors as listed above supporting our policy recommendations to the private sector.
F
governments, government-backed agencies, donors, private sector actors increasing policy space and support for fair and green practices
5Fg
# of instances in which the supported and/or promoted recommendation by a partner aims to contribute to gender justice
A
strengthened capacities
1
# of CSOs included in the FGG programme
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will contribute to increased lobby and advocacy capacities of 15 CSOs in LLUMICs from all regions in the Global South (a.o. research, strategy development, communications, media, and lobby access) that these CSOs in collaboration with FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will use in lobby and advocacy on trade and investment agreements, the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights, and government and corporate policies and practices related to fossil fuel expansion in LLUMICs.
[See indicators 2 and 3].
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will contribute to increased lobby and advocacy capacities of 15 CSOs in LLUMICs from all regions in the Global South (a.o. research, strategy development, communications, media and lobby access) that these CSOs in collaboration with FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will use in lobby and advocacy on trade and investment agreements, the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights, and government and corporate policies and practices related to fossil fuel expansion in LLUMICs.
[See indicator 2&3]
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will contribute to increased lobby and advocacy capacities of 23 CSOs in LLUMICs from all regions in the Global South (a.o. research, strategy development, communications, media and lobby access) that these CSOs in collaboration with FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will use in lobby and advocacy on trade and investment agreements, the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights, and government and corporate policies and practices related to fossil fuel expansion in LLUMICs.
A
strengthened capacities
2
# targeted civil society actors with strengthened capacities for lobbying and advocacy
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will contribute to increased lobby and advocacy capacities of 15 CSOs in LLUMICs from all regions in the Global South (a.o. research, strategy development, communications, media and lobby access) that these CSOs in collaboration with FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will use in lobby and advocacy on trade and investment agreements, the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights, and government and corporate policies and practices related to fossil fuel expansion in LLUMICs.
[2.FoEE1(6,6x)]: In October 2021 FoE Europe co-published a briefing 'Global solutions to global problems: Why EU legislation and a UN instrument on corporate acccountability must be complementary', presented to members of the Global Campaign to Reclaim Peoples Sovereignty, Dismantle Corporate Power and Stop Impunity (a network of over 250 social movements, CSOs, trade unions and communities affected by the activities of transnational corporations). The briefing presents the upcoming EU law on sustainable corporate governance, and highlights expected good elements, loopholes and weaknesses, the time-line for the law making process, and how it relates to the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights. The briefing aims at increasing the capacity of Southern CSOs for lobby of EU and UN institutions. [Counted are the 5 CSOs from the Global Campaign with whom FoE Europe cooperates most closely, 2 from African and 3 from Latin American LLUMICs]. [Counted under subindicator x as well, as this activity aims at increasing the power of civil society vis-à-vis corporations by developing mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence (mEHRDD) law]. [2.MD2(+17)]: Milieudefensie together with Banktrack and OCI contributed to the development of research capacities of 18 CSOs from Africa (regional), Ghana, Togo, Nigeria, DRC, Uganda, Mozambique, Senegal, Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe, in a collaboration aiming at showing the environmental, social and economic impact of ECA-supported fossil fuel development in Africa, and advocating a shift from ECA support for fossil fuel development to ECA support for sustainable energy development. A research report was eventually published in 2022 and will be reported upon in the next year's report under indicator 3. [One CSO already counted above]. [2.MD3(+10,+10x)]: Milieudefensie contributed to the development of thinking amongst CSOs and experts about the subjects of (i) a duty of care for fossil fuel companies as regards their climate impact, a topic considered relevant for combating climate change, a.o. by LLUMIC CSOs participating in FoE International's Climate Justice and Energy Programme, and (ii) a duty of care for transnational corporations for the environmental and human rights impacts of their subsidiaries, a topic considered relevant for combating climate change, a.o. by LLUMIC CSOs participating in FoE International's Economic Justice Programme. Milieudefensie contributed to the knowledge of the global environmental CSO community via publications, seminars (a.o. 'The future of climate change litigation' in the official programme of the UNFCCC COP26, hosted by Milieudefensie) and webinars about the judicial developments on the matters, a.o. resulting from a court case against a Dutch oil company on its climate impact [initiated by Milieudefensie in 2018, outside the framework of this programme] and a court case against a Dutch oil company on oil pollution in Nigeria [initiated by Nigerian farmers and fishermen together with Milieudefensie in 2008, outside the framework of this programme]. Both court cases came to a verdict in 2021 [Counted are the CSOs with whom Milieudefensie cooperates most closely on the topics and that have not already been counted above: 3 from Asian and 7 from Latin American LLUMICs. Counted under subindicator x as well, as this activity aims at increasing the power of civil society over corporations by developing knowledge of the judicial possibilities amongst CSOs to defend their interests]. [2.MD/FoEE4(4,3x,0g)]: Milieudefensie and FoE Europe contributed to capacity development of 4 additional CSOs. Description included under indicator 3. [3 CSOs also counted under subindicator x].
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will contribute to increased lobby and advocacy capacities of 15 CSOs in LLUMICs from all regions in the Global South (a.o. research, strategy development, communications, media and lobby access) that these CSOs in collaboration with FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will use in lobby and advocacy on trade and investment agreements, the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights, and government and corporate policies and practices related to fossil fuel expansion in LLUMICs.
FoEE partners in Brazil and Uruguay strengthened their knowledge of the EU-Mercosur FTA, their networks, and their communication skills through intense collaboration with and financial support from FoEE.
FoEE partners in Mozambique, the Netherlands, France, the UK, the US and Italy strengthen their capacity to challenge LNG projects in Mozambique and financial support provided to these projects by Export Credit Agencies in Europe through intense collaboration, access to decision makers and media and financial support from FoEE.
FoEE partners in Togo strenghtened their capacity through financial support and through information provision for their work on the Energy Charter Treaty from FoEE.
A new ‘EU NGO coalition on Raw Materials’ and a ‘Yes to Life No to Mining’ group have been strengthened by FoEE through access to decision makers and media, expertise and joint statements. (count 2)
Five CSOs (non FoE members) in Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Honduras) and a regional network organisation have strengthened their networking & advocacy capacities through financial support, strategic information and advocacy workshops provided by Milieudefensie. These CSOs and regional network organisation are engaged in advocacy against the expansion of the fossil fuel industry in Latin America.
A CSO in Ecuador strengthened its knowledge and strategic capacities on the judicial possibilities and specific steps to take in relation to ‘litigation’ against polluting companies. Milieudefensie provided them with strategic guidance, information including key lessons learned.
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will contribute to increased lobby and advocacy capacities of 23 CSOs in LLUMICs from Africa, South East Asia and Latin America (including Morocco, Ghana, Togo, Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, South Africa, Indonesia, Honduras, Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina and Uruguay) (a.o. capacities to conduct and publish research, develop strategies, implement communication and media strategies, and have access to decision-makers and media) that these CSOs in collaboration with FoE Europe and Milieudefensie will use in advocacy on trade and investment agreements (especially EU-Mercosur and the Energy Charter Treaty); on mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence (mEHRDD) legislation (especially the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights; and EU and Dutch mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence laws that are being developed); and government and corporate policies and practices related to fossil fuel expansion in LLUMICs (especially corporate capture of governmental climate and energy policy development; export credit agency financing; and the alignment of the fossil fuel industry with the Paris Climate Accord). The relevance of the mutually increased capacities of the CSOs involved is a.o. in the causes of the local environmental problems in the LLUMICs which are addressed in the joint advocacy. These causes are often related to the global economic system, and (the lack of) international structures. These can only be effectively addressed in an international collaboration in which the participating CSOs mutually strengthen each other's capacities in understanding the contexts at the local, national and international levels, and in developing effective strategies to achieve change at all relevant levels. [CSOs involved in capacity development on trade and investment agreements are counted under subindicator x as well, as advocacy on this dossier aims at preventing the negative impacts of FTAs and investment treaties on democratic decision-making, and on the position of civil society vis-à-vis the corporate sector; CSOs involved in capacity development on mEHRDD law are counted under subindicator x as well, as advocacy on this dossier aims at increasing the power of civil society vis-à-vis corporations].
Partners from: Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, Mozambique, Colombia, Honduras, Bolivia, Uganda (2), Togo, Ghana (2)
FoEE will provide groups in Mercosur coutries with expertise, access to decision makers, financial support, research, joint strategising and activities. This will allow them to educate civil society in their countries about the relevance and risks of the trade deal. It will also allow them to reach out to media in order to generate pressure. They will lobby their own governments but also (together with FoEE) the EU and its member states about the need to re-open the negotiations instead of signing an additional protocol.
FoEE is providing specific reports on lack of due diligence measures by Total and on ISDS risks for Mozambique in the area of fossil fuels. FoEE also supports FoE Mozambique to increase its legal capacity to provide materials and evidence for the court cases and for developing campaign materials to illustrate the impacts of the LNG projects and access to media in the home countries of the gas companies involved.
Milieudefensie will assist civil society groups in countries in Africa & Latin America where the fossil fuel industry is (planning to) expand(ing) its operations off- & onshore. MD will strengthen the capacities of these groups through financial support, networking and sharing of strategic information on global developments regarding legal obligations for corporates to operate in line with the Paris Climate Agreement.
Milieudefensie will continue its collaboration with African and Latin American groups to end all Dutch ECA support for fossil fuel investments and monitor the impacts of fossil support already provided.
Milieudefensie will strengthen the capacity of FoE members and other LLUMC groups on the strategy of ‘climate litigation’. We will do this through sharing of knowledge, data and publications and sharing lessons on challenges and potential relevance of climate litigation on (intended) contributions to dangerous climate change by fossil fuel companies in other parts of the world.
On top of this, in 2024, Milieudefensie will continue to provide strategic support to civil society groups in, amongst others, LLUMC countries on litigation regarding environmental pollution and corporate violations of human rights. Main activities will include: research, developing publications and enhance accessibility of data and key information to civil society groups
Themes: Deforestation, extractives, human rights, climate change, agriculture, (Feminist) Just Energy Transition, Public financial institutions/Export Credit Agencies.
A
strengthened capacities
2x
# targeted civil society actors with strengthened capacities contributing to and/or relevant for lobby and advocacy aiming at expanding/defending civic space
The work on trade and investment agreements and the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights with 10 CSOs aims at expanding and defending civic space, in the case of (existing or planned) BITs and FTAs by preventing that mechanisms such as ISDS grant rights to corporations over democratic institutions, and with that suppress an enabling environment for civil society. With the UN Treaty civil society aims for globally establishing rights for people vis-à-vis corporations which makes it possible for civil society also in countries with weaker laws and law enforcement to claim their rights in the case of environmental problems and the destruction of natural livelihood resources of people and communities resulting from corporate operations.
[See indicators 2 and 3].
The work on trade and investment agreements and the UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights with 10 CSOs aims at expanding and defending civic space, in the case of (existing or planned) BITs and FTAs by preventing that mechanisms such as ISDS grant rights to corporations over democratic institutions, and with that suppress an enabling environment for civil society. With the UN Treaty civil society aims for globally establishing rights for people vis-à-vis corporations which makes it possible for civil society also in countries with weaker laws and law enforcement to claim their rights in the case of environmental problems and the destruction of natural livelihood resources of people and communities resulting from corporate operations.
[See indicator 2].
[See indicator 2]
[See indicator 2]
B
agenda-setting, momentum-building and increased support
4
# key actors (government, private sector, other) who put FGG policy/practice recommendations on their agendas (e.g. meetings, debates, media coverage)
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs from all regions will contribute to agenda setting amongst the UN, the EP, the EC, Dutch and/or other national governments for their pleas against unsustainable and undemocratic trade agreements and other government policies negatively affecting climate, environment, nature and people in LLUMICs; for their pleas for UN, EU and Dutch mEHRDD legislation and against ECA support for fossil fuel development in LLUMICs; and among companies and investors for their pleas to improve their policies and conduct with respect to climate, environment, nature and people in LLUMICs. In the work on trade and investment agreements and the development of mEHRDD law there is collaboration with the Dutch MoFA. Collaboration on trade takes place in the Breed Handelsberaad.
[4.FoEE1(2,2x)]: In November 2021 FoE Europe, in the framework of the Fossil Free Politics campaign, in the run-up to the UNFCCC COP26 in Glasgow, informed EU and LLUMIC CSOs about the corporate capture of climate negotiations. This a.o. resulted in 138 CSOs signing on to a statement to the UNFCCC, the EU and the UK government, 'A Fossil Free Politics COP26 open letter to decision-makers', calling on to address the elephant in the room which is holding back global climate ambition: the fossil fuel industry and its lobbying, and demanding the adoption of a strong conflict of interest policy at the UNFCCC. Furthermore, FoE Europe in the Fossil Free Politics campaign approached EU decision-makers (from the European Commission and the European Parliament) when they were listed as speakers at various media events sponsored by the fossil fuel industry and asked them to withdraw their participation as these events present an inadequate picture of the role of fossil fuel companies in (combatting) climate change. Three MEPs and one European Commissioner have taken on the recommendation and committed that they will not take part in such events anymore. [Counted under subindicator x as well, as this activity aims at increasing the influence of civil society on governmental decision making by decreasing the corporate influence on governmental decision making against the public interest]. [4.FoEE/MD2(1)]: In the report of the COP26 held in November 2021 in Glasgow, for the first time at a UNFCCC COP, fossil fuels have been explicitly mentioned as a cause of the climate problem. The Conference of the Parties in its 'Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-sixth session, held in Glasgow from 31 October to 13 November 2021' calls upon parties to "phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies". While the formulation is still weak, the fact that the elephant in the room has warily been indicated, is a significant step forward to politically acknowledging that the fossil fuel era must end in order to prevent dangerous climate change. [4.FoEE3(1)]: In October 2021, the online public launch of a report published by FoE Europe, 'Green mining is a myth: the case for cutting EU resource consumption', moved the topic of mining and systemic EU overconsumption of metals and minerals into the political spotlight. During the event, the European Commission's Head of Unit for Energy-Intensive Industries - Raw Materials (DG GROW) supported part of FoE Europe's demands and stated that the EU needs to “ramp up measures” to reduce consumption. [4.FoEE4(1,1x)]: Together with a.o. ECCJ and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), FoE Europe successfully mobilised the EU public (300.000 EU citizens, plus 200.000 from elsewhere) to participate in the European Commission's public consultation for an EU Sustainable Corporate Governance legislation (that closed in February 2021). They gave a strong signal to EU decision-makers that the intended law shall hold companies civilly, administratively, and criminally liable for human rights violations and environmental harms resulting from the activities of their subsidiaries and other companies in their value chains; that victims of corporate human rights violations and environmental harms in third countries have better access to justice in the EU; and that companies’ obligation to respect the climate and the environment is integrated alongside respect for human rights. Furthermore, in September 2021, in a YouGov opinion poll coordinated by FoE Europe among 20.000 people in eight European countries, over 80% of those interviewed stated that they want a strong Sustainable Corporate Governance law. With its advocacy FoE Europe responds to the requests from LLUMIC CSOs participating in FoE International's global Economic Justice Programme. The CSO advocacy is necessary also to counteract business lobbies against the proposed EU law that seeks to hold companies accountable for human rights abuses and environmental destruction, as explained in the report published in June 2021 by ECCJ, CEO and FoE Europe: 'Off the hook? How business lobbies against liability for human rights and environmental abuses'. [Counted under subindicator x as well, as this activity aims at increasing the power of civil society vis-à-vis corporations by developing mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence (mEHRDD) law]. [4.MD5(5)]: In five Latin American countries (Honduras, Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia and Argentina) CSOs supported by Milieudefensie [see 3.MD2] with organising meetings and through communication and media work achieved that dozens of local communities, CBOs of peasants and fishermen/women, also in parts of these countries where the CSOs had not been active before, municipalities, universities, human rights organisations as well as the media discussed the existing and upcoming environmental and economic threats of (planned) offshore and onshore fossil fuel exploitation in these countries and in the region as a whole. [Counted is civil society in the five countries]. [4.MD6(4,4x)]: Milieudefensie through media work, via publications, by organising and participating in seminars and lobby and advocacy meetings, achieved awareness amongst CSOs [1], experts [1], politicians [1] and the media [1] (all at the Dutch, EU and global levels), about the outcome of its civil court case filed in the Netherlands together with three Nigerian communities and in collaboration with a Nigerian CSO, over environmental pollution in Nigeria resulting from operations of a Nigerian subsidiary of a Dutch oil company. These actors discussed the relevance of this outcome for the development of mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence (mEHRDD) legislation in the Netherlands and Europe, while CSOs and politicians used it in the development of policy proposals. The findings, also in earlier stages of the judicial process that started in 2008, have been used in inputs from CSOs (including Milieudefensie, FoE Europe and other FGG members), scientists, civil servants and politicians to mEHRDD law-making processes at the Dutch national, EU and UN levels, such as for instance during the seminar 'Suing Goliath, the struggle for justice in cases of corporate abuse abroad' organised 3 June 2021 by ECCJ and FoE Europe and the Responsible Business Conduct Working Group of the European Parliament, the findings of which were published in September 2021 by ECCJ in the report 'Suing Goliath: An analysis of civil proceedings brought against EU companies for human rights abuses and environmental harm in their global operations and value chains, and key recommendations to improve access to judicial remedy' that aims to serve as a partial follow-up to the European Parliament’s study on ‘Access to legal remedies for victims of corporate human rights abuses in third countries’ from February 2019. In January 2021 in its verdict the Dutch court established a duty of care, mandatory due diligence, and corporate responsibility in a broader sense, for parent companies, and with that parent company liability for the operations of their subsidiaries abroad. It was the first time a Dutch court decided such. The impact of the verdict in Nigeria is that the parent oil company will have to see that its subsidiary will install state-of-the-art leak detection systems, which will limit the damage to the environment and to the livelihood resources of Niger Delta citizens (fields, fishing waters, drinking water) in the frequently occurring event of an oil spill, whether its cause is equipment failure such as corrosion, or sabotage. [The court case itself is not part of the FGG programme, while capacity development of the Nigerian communities and CSO, as well as connecting the findings in the judicial process to research and advocacy for mEHRDD legislation development processes, are part of this programme]. [Counted under subindicator x as well, as the use of the findings in the court case aims at increasing civic space via Dutch and European mEHRDD that strengthen the judicial position of victims of corporate abuse vis-à-vis the relevant corporations, a.o. by removing the barriers to justice victims currently face]. [4.MD7(5,5x)]: In May 2021 and subsequent months Milieudefensie achieved world-wide media attention [1] for, and debate amongst CSOs [1]; judicial, economic and climate experts [1]; politicians [1]; and corporate decision-makers [1] about the relevance of the outcome of a climate court case filed by Milieudefensie in the Netherlands in 2019 against a Dutch oil company. With the May 2021 verdict a climate responsibility for corporate actors was established, which had been lacking until then, and which significantly increases the scope of the Paris Climate Accord, that itself is not arranging obligations for the corporate sector. In an analysis of FGG member SOMO: "The [...] ruling is the first ever worldwide to impose a clear and measurable emissions reduction target on a company and its value chain. It also contains a number of ground-breaking decisions for the future of corporate accountability. The judgment affirms that companies of all sizes, at all times, have an individual responsibility to prevent human rights violations and environmental damage in their operations and entire value chain, and failure to do so can be considered an unlawful act. The verdict shows the UNGPs are up to defining the standard of care to which companies must adhere. It also underlines the need for mandatory due diligence legislation that further defines the obligations of companies to prevent human rights violations and environmental damage, and enables public regulators and judges to enforce such legislation. The ruling also makes it very clear that preventing climate change harm is an essential element of responsible business conduct as defined by the UNGPs [United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights] and the OECD Guidelines [for Multinational Enterprises]. Finally, the verdict shows that companies’ financial objectives cannot prevail over their obligation to respect human rights, the climate and the environment." The relevance of this verdict for the FGG programme is that it upgrades soft law standards on corporate conduct, the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines, to judicially relevant standards for corporations. The findings are used in CSO advocacy for responsible business conduct at the Dutch, EU and UN levels, such as for instance via the publication 'How to make corporations effectively respect the environment and climate: key elements for EU binding legislations' that contains recommendations to the ongoing process for a sustainable corporate governance directive in the EU. Furthermore, CSOs shared the findings of the verdict with other companies, also in other economic sectors, to advocate for improved climate policies, such as was done by several Dutch and international development and environmental CSOs in July 2021, in a letter to the Dutch financial sector 'Oproep tot daadkrachtige klimaatactie in aanloop naar Klimaattop Glasgow', and in September 2021 via a seminar organised by Milieudefensie for the financial sector on the implications of the verdict. [The court case itself is not part of this programme, but media and advocacy work around it are, as these support FGG advocacy for mEHRDD law]. [Counted under subindicator x as well, as knowledge amongst CSOs and politicians globally of the duties of corporations, and of the judicial possibilities to hold corporations to account for their climate, environmental and human rights impacts, enhances civic space when CSOs successfully apply the judicial strategies shared]. [See also indicator 2.MD2].
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs from all regions will contribute to agenda setting amongst the UN, the EP, the EC, Dutch and/or other national governments for their pleas against unsustainable and undemocratic trade agreements and other government policies negatively affecting climate, environment, nature and people in LLUMICs; for their pleas for UN, EU and Dutch mEHRDD legislation and against ECA support for fossil fuel development in LLUMICs; and among companies and investors for their pleas to improve their policies and conduct with respect to climate, environment, nature and people in LLUMICs. In the work on trade and investment agreements and the development of mEHRDD law there is collaboration with the Dutch MoFA. Collaboration on trade takes place in the Breed Handelsberaad.
As part of the Fossil Free Politics campaign and proposed by FoEE, all Green 10 members (10 main green organisations at the EU level, including FoEE as well as, among other organisations,Greenpeace, WWF, Birdlife, EEB) agreed not to participate in fossil fuel sponsored media events as such events mainly serve to legitimise fossil fuel companies. FoEE co-initiated and implemented the Fossil Free Politics Campaign and proposed to the Green 10 members.
The Dutch parliament agreed to investigate the decision-making process of the Dutch government and Atradius to provide ECA funding for an LNG project in Mozambique, after MD and FoEE, together with Both ENDS and SOMO, through a joint letter and other advocacy, called upon the Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation to end the support for this project.
As proposed by FoEE, the Greens and the Left parties in the EP send an open letter to EU Vice President Timmermans about the excessive amount of corporate lobbyists at COP 26 in Glasgow.
As proposed by FoEE, two MEPs asked Parliamentary Questions to the European Commission about protecting the EU from too much influence from fossil fuel companies.
The material footprint target, advocated by FoEE, will be included by the European Commission in the EU Circular Economy Action Plan monitoring framework, resulting in reduction targets for use of materials.
Milieudefensie published a letter to the individual Board members of a fossil fuel company to warn them for their personal climate liability. It was the first time that board members of a big polluting company were publicly told that they can be held responsible for flawed climate action. This resulted in a debate in Dutch national media (such as newspapers NRC & the Volkskrant, tv NOS news & RTL, radio NPO 1), international media (such as Al Jazeera, Reuters, Euronews & Times Live South Africa) and in (inter)national academia on individual responsibilities and accountability of Members of the Board of fossil companies for causing dangerous climate change.
Milieudefensie published a report on the expansion of oil & gas extraction infrastructure (including off-shore) which, together with results of hearings in the US on oil & gas companies’ climate policies, led to questions by a Member of Parliament in NL. Milieudefensie formulated the questions for the MP.
Milieudefensie published a report on Shell’s Nature Based Solutions Strategy which got much attention from Dutch national media such as BNN/VARA Vroege Vogels, & Radio 1 Nieuws BV
Dutch national media (such as RTL Nieuws (radio) and national newspaper NRC) have put the issue of fossil fuel companies’ contribution to climate change on their agenda. Several radio programs and newspapers published articles, resulting from Milieudefensie’s public speaking engagements including a speech on climate justice at a shareholders meeting of a fossil fuel company. During this meeting there were many questions from shareholders on the (consequences of) the 2021 judicial verdict against this company. As a result of this media attention, public awareness on the impact of fossil fuel companies on climate change has been raised.
Knowledge amongst CSOs and experts about the subjects of (i) a duty of care for fossil fuel companies as regards their climate impact, and (ii) a duty of care for transnational corporations for the environmental and human rights impacts of their subsidiaries has increased thanks to Milieudefensie’s activities.
Knowledge of the global environmental CSO community increased via publications such as the above about the judicial developments resulting from the verdict in 2021 in a court case against a Dutch oil company on its climate impact (initiated by Milieudefensie and other organisations/individiduals in 2018, outside the framework of this program) and the verdict in the same year.
As a result of the verdict in the court case by Nigerian communities, in 2022 Shell agreed to make compensation payments to the Nigerian farmers and fishermen. The oil company did not start a cassation proces.
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs from all regions will contribute to agenda setting amongst the UN, the EP, the EC, Dutch and/or other national governments (Africa, Latin America, Europe) for their pleas against unsustainable and undemocratic trade and investment agreements (especially EU-Mercosur and the Energy Charter Treaty) and other government policies negatively affecting the climate, and environment, nature and people in LLUMICs, as well as the relevant governmental policy development processes and the corporate influence on these; for their pleas for UN, EU and Dutch mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence (mEHRDD) legislation; and among companies and investors for their pleas to improve their policies and conduct with respect to the climate, and environment, nature and people in LLUMICs. We aim at eight instances of key decision-making bodies as listed above putting our recommendations on their agendas, seven of which with a relevance for increasing civic space. [Results on trade and investment agreements are counted under subindicator x as well, as advocacy on this dossier aims at preventing the negative impacts of FTAs and investment treaties on democratic decision-making, and on the position of civil society vis-à-vis the corporate sector; results on mEHRDD law are counted under subindicator x as well, as advocacy on this dossier aims at increasing the power of civil society vis-à-vis corporations].
As part of the Fossil Free Politics campaign and proposed by FoEE, all Green 10 members (10 main green organisations at the EU level, including FoEE as well as, among other organisations,Greenpeace, WWF, Birdlife, EEB) agreed not to participate in fossil fuel sponsored media events as such events mainly serve to legitimise fossil fuel companies. FoEE co-initiated and implemented the Fossil Free Politics Campaign and proposed to the Green 10 members. (count 10)
The Dutch parliament agreed to investigate the decision-making process of the Dutch government and Atradius to provide ECA funding for an LNG project in Mozambique, after MD and FoEE, together with Both ENDS and SOMO, through a joint letter and other advocacy, called upon the Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation to end the support for this project. (count 1)
As proposed by FoEE, the Greens and the Left parties in the EP send an open letter to EU Vice President Timmermans about the excessive amount of corporate lobbyists at COP 26 in Glasgow. (count 2)
As proposed by FoEE, two MEPs asked Parliamentary Questions to the European Commission about protecting the EU from too much influence from fossil fuel companies. (count 2)
The material footprint target, advocated by FoEE, will be included by the European Commission in the EU Circular Economy Action Plan monitoring framework, resulting in reduction targets for use of materials. (count 1)
Milieudefensie published a letter to the individual Board members of a fossil fuel company to warn them for their personal climate liability. It was the first time that board members of a big polluting company were publicly told that they can be held responsible for flawed climate action. This resulted in a debate in Dutch national media (such as newspapers NRC & the Volkskrant, tv NOS news & RTL, radio NPO 1), international media (such as Al Jazeera, Reuters, Euronews & Times Live South Africa) and in (inter)national academia on individual responsibilities and accountability of Members of the Board of fossil companies for causing dangerous climate change.
(count 2: media & academia)
Milieudefensie published a report on the expansion of oil & gas extraction infrastructure (including off-shore) which, together with results of hearings in the US on oil & gas companies’ climate policies, led to questions by a Member of Parliament in NL. Milieudefensie formulated the questions for the MP.
(count 1)
Milieudefensie published a report on Shell’s Nature Based Solutions Strategy which got much attention from Dutch national media such as BNN/VARA Vroege Vogels, & Radio 1 Nieuws BV
(count 1: media)
Dutch national media (such as RTL Nieuws (radio) and national newspaper NRC) have put the issue of fossil fuel companies’ contribution to climate change on their agenda. Several radio programs and newspapers published articles, resulting from Milieudefensie’s public speaking engagements including a speech on climate justice at a shareholders meeting of a fossil fuel company. During this meeting there were many questions from shareholders on the (consequences of) the 2021 judicial verdict against this company. As a result of this media attention, public awareness on the impact of fossil fuel companies on climate change has been raised.
(count: 1 (media)
Knowledge amongst CSOs and experts about the subjects of (i) a duty of care for fossil fuel companies as regards their climate impact, and (ii) a duty of care for transnational corporations for the environmental and human rights impacts of their subsidiaries has increased thanks to Milieudefensie’s activities.
Knowledge of the global environmental CSO community increased via publications such as the above about the judicial developments resulting from the verdict in 2021 in a court case against a Dutch oil company on its climate impact (initiated by Milieudefensie and other organisations/individiduals in 2018, outside the framework of this program) and the verdict in the same year.
As a result of the verdict in the court case by Nigerian communities, in 2022 Shell agreed to make compensation payments to the Nigerian farmers and fishermen. The oil company did not start a cassation proces.
(count 1; private sector)
Actors are: Dutch Parliament & Dutch Government
Themes:
· The Dutch parliament will place the issue of ISDS as mechanism that hinders international just energy transition on their agenda.
· Feminist approaches to foreign policy, trade and investment policies, specifically among Dutch policy makers
B
agenda-setting, momentum-building and increased support
4x
# of instances in which the recommendation a key actor puts on its agenda aims to contribute to expanding/defending civic space
See indicator 4. Agenda setting on trade agreements and mEHRDD legislation also counts as x.
[See indicator 4].
See indicator 4. Agenda setting on trade agreements and mEHRDD legislation also counts as x.
[See indicator 4]
[See indicator 4]
[See indicator 4]
B
agenda-setting, momentum-building and increased support
4g
# of instances in which the recommendation a key actor puts on its agenda aims to contribute to gender justice
[See indicator 4]
[See indicator 4]
C
governments increasing democratic decision-making
5C
# key actors who support and/or promote FGG policy/practice recommendations
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs will find support within the EP, the EC, and the Dutch and/or other national governments for their pleas against unsustainable and undemocratic trade agreements and other government policies negatively affecting climate, environment, nature and people in LLUMICs, such as ECA support for fossil fuel development in LLUMICs.
[5C.FoEE/MD1(2,2x)]: Advocacy (a.o. publication of research, media work, meetings with representatives of the European Commission, MEPs, and Dutch parliamentarians and Ministries, as well as a petition with more than 1 million signatures from EU citizens to stop the Energy Charter Treaty) from FoE Europe, Milieudefensie, FGG members TNI, SOMO and Both ENDS, and LLUMIC CSOs from a.o. Ivory Coast, Ghana, Togo, Nigeria, Congo-Kinshasa, DRC, Uganda, Kenya, Burundi, Mozambique, South Africa, West Bank and Gaza Strip, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Philippines, Mexico, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Brazil and Uruguay [see also 3.FoEE1], further contributed to sustainability and human rights issues getting a prominent place in trade and investment negotiations at the EU and Dutch government levels. It has become very hard in the EU to get an FTA or BIT ratified if there are strong environmental and social concerns. The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) has become a contested multilateral investment treaty as it undermines the necessary energy transition away from fossil fuels. The EU-Mercosur process has become characterized by concerns about deforestation and human rights violations, and in its current form is not acceptable to the Dutch parliament, the European Parliament, several EU member states and the European Commission. As regards the ECT renewal process, the European Commission's DG for Climate Action after advocacy work from FoE Europe (considering that the ECT is undermining the Paris Climate Agreement and the European Green Deal) brokered a deal within the European Commission and with EU member states. The European Commission subsequently in January 2021 launched a 'European Union text proposal for the modernisation of the Energy Charter Treaty' aiming to arrange a gradual phase-out the protection of fossil fuels under the ECT. While there are still significant loopholes in the EC proposal, it does acknowledge FoE Europe's and LLUMIC CSOs' demand that fossil fuel protection under investment treaties needs to be ended. In Dutch parliament in June and September motions were filed demanding the Dutch government to leave the ECT. As regards EU-Mercosur, in 2021 the European Commission's DG for Trade started negotiations with the Mercosur countries to agree on additional measures to address the environmental, social and economic problems raised by the CSOs. The Dutch government in October 2021 in its 'Response from The Netherlands to the European Commission’s request for input on strengthening the Trade and Sustainable Development dimension of the EU - Mercosur trade relationship' stressed that "it is necessary that additional actions and long term cooperation focuses on halting deforestation and climate change". Furthermore, the Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation Mr. De Bruijn, in December 2021 informed Dutch Parliament on the Dutch government's input to the EU's 'Review of the 15-point Action Plan on Trade and Sustainable Development', which included the proposal to strengthen the enforcement of the sustainability chapters in trade agreements. In its input to the EU the Netherlands states that it "remains committed to including the Paris Agreement as an essential element in trade agreements". The Minister also wrote to Dutch parliament that the input from CSOs participating in the Breed Handelsberaad (which includes FGG members Both ENDS, SOMO and Milieudefensie) had been taken into consideration in de development of the governement's position. [Counted are the European Commission and the Dutch government]. [Counted under subindicator x as well, as the work aims to prevent the negative impacts of FTAs and investment treaties on democratic decision-making, and on the position of civil society vis-à-vis the corporate sector]. [5C.FoEE2(1)]: The European Parliament, in two separate opinion reports, stressed for the need for the EU to bring in measures that will reduce systemic EU overconsumption of resources. In its 'Report on the New Circular Economy Action Plan' (CEAP, January 2021), the EP calls on the European Commission to set "binding EU targets for 2030 to significantly reduce the EU material and consumption footprints". In its 'Report on a European strategy for critical raw materials' (October 2021), the EP stresses the role of the "minimisation of resource consumption". In the monitoring framework of the CEAP proposal the EP included a material footprint as an indicator, aiming at the Commission to set binding targets on reducing EU resource consumption, one of FoE Europe’s key recommendations in line with the demands from LLUMIC CSOs participating in FoE International's global programmes and the global Yes to Life No to Mining network [see 3.FoEE2]. [5C.MD3(1)]: In November 2021, during the UNFCCC COP26 in Glasgow, Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation Mr. De Bruijn announced that the Netherlands would endorse the 'Statement on International Public Support for the Clean Energy Transition'. The undersigning countries "commit to align their international public support towards the clean energy transition and out of unabated fossil fuels", and a.o. to end new direct public support for the international fossil fuel energy sector by the end of 2022. In a letter to Dutch Parliament from 12 November 2021 Minister De Bruijn confirmed that in 2022 the cabinet will present a new policy to end public financing of fossil fuel projects abroad, especially export credit insurance. For many years, Both ENDS, OCI, Milieudefensie and FoE Europe together with CSOs from a.o. Ghana, Togo, Nigeria, Uganda, Mozambique, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, have been advocating at the Dutch, UK and EU governments and via the media for an end to state support for fossil fuel operations in developing countries via export credit agencies such as the Dutch ADSB. The relevance of ending Northern support for fossil fuel development in the Global South is that fossil fuel development locks developing countries into a fossil economy, hampering the development of clean and renewable energy. The ECA-supported investments in fossil fuel development make these countries economically dependent on energy sources that many countries in the world are committed to phase out, which poses serious economic debt risks, undermining the countries' long-term resilience. Milieudefensie, Both ENDS and LLUMIC CSOs showed this in the report published November 2020, 'A Just Energy Transition for Africa? Mapping the impacts of ECAs active in the energy sector in Ghana, Nigeria, Togo and Uganda'. The report provided a Southern perspective on the effect of ECA support, which had previously been lacking (it was assumed amongst governments that investment in the fossil fuel sector would be beneficial to development, access to energy, employment a.t.l., which the research showed was not the case). Furthermore, the organisations have been arguing that the Dutch ECA policy is incompatible with the Paris Climate Agreement. Their findings were supported by independent scientists in the study 'Paris Alignment of Export Credit Agencies. Case study #2: the Netherlands (Atradius Dutch State Business)' (Perspectives Climate Research, October 2021). A.o. based on the outcome of the Export Finance for Future (E3F, a ministerial initiative for climate action chaired by the Netherlands) Second Summit, held 24 November 2021, the CSOs are not yet convinced of the dedication of the governments involved (Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) to swiftly live up their commitment to stop export finance for fossil fuel projects and shift this money to clean energy projects.
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs will find support within the EP, the EC, and the Dutch and/or other national governments for their pleas against unsustainable and undemocratic trade agreements and other government policies negatively affecting climate, environment, nature and people in LLUMICs, such as ECA support for fossil fuel development in LLUMICs.
Seven European countries (Spain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Luxembourg and Poland) declared that they are not satisfied with the outcomes of the ECT modernisation negotiations and announced publicly that they would leave the ECT in 2023.
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs will find support within the EP, the EC, and the Dutch and/or other national governments (Africa, Latin America, Europe) for their pleas against unsustainable and undemocratic trade and investment agreements (especially EU-Mercosur and the Energy Charter Treaty) and other government policies negatively affecting climate, environment, nature and people in LLUMICs. We aim at five instances of key decision-making bodies as listed above supporting our recommendations, four of which with a relevance for increasing civic space. [Results on trade and investment agreements are counted under subindicator x as well, as advocacy on this dossier aims at preventing the negative impacts of FTAs and investment treaties on democratic decision-making, and on the position of civil society vis-à-vis the corporate sector].
· MEPs and MPs at national level make supportive statements for Fossil Free Politics demands (10)
· MEPs and MPs at national level make critical statements on the EU Mercosur agreement (10)
· EU member states that continue to raise concerns about the EU Mercosur agreement (4)
Themes:
Corporate capture
EU Mercosur Agreement
C
governments increasing democratic decision-making
5Cx
# of instances in which the supported and/or promoted recommendation by a key actor aims to contribute to expanding/defending civic space
See indicator 5C. Agenda setting and support concerning trade agreements also count as x.
[See indicator 5C].
See indicator 5C. Agenda setting and support concerning trade agreements also count as x.
[See indicator 5C].
[See indicator 5C]
[See indicator 5C].
C
governments increasing democratic decision-making
5Cg
# of instances in which the supported and/or promoted recommendation by a partner aims to contribute to gender justice
[See indicator 5C].
[See indicator 5C].
C
governments increasing democratic decision-making
6C
# instances in which key actors adopt and/or implement FGG policy/practice recommendations
The European Commission launched the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive February 2022. CSDDD is a new EU law to regulate human rights, environmental and climate impacts of companies. FoEE together with other FGG members have been advocating and campaigning for such regulation for years.
Following 3 years of FoEE campaigning and advocacy, the European Council followed our demand not to approve the result of the ECT modernisation.
Following 3 years of FoEE campaigning and advocacy, the European Parliament agreed on our demand and adopted a resolution that calls on the EU and Member States to exit the ECT.
After many years of lobby and advocacy by Mileudefensie together with Both ENDS and Oil Change International the Dutch government has developed a policy to end all public fossil support abroad.
MD together with BE & OCI created political pressure through:
- ensuring that southern civil society organisations had access to and could provide input into the Dutch policy process
- working strategically in international CSO coalitions to help build peer pressure amongst countries to develop ambitious policies and hold each other to account
- providing civil society expertise in policy engagements with the relevant NL Ministries
- linking climate scientists to the policy development process
- ensuring evidence-based expertise input
- engaging in joint research efforts with southern partners to provide evidence-based advocacy materials on why such a policy is needed
- maintain political pressure towards the government by supporting MPs with the formulation of parliamentary questions
Specific contribution of MD has been to insert a Just Transition frame in the (inter)national ECA work.
The EU and at least 9 member states leave the Energy Charter Treaty (on top of the countries that already announced to take these steps in 2023).
Trade and investment Agreements
C
governments increasing democratic decision-making
6Cx
# of instances in which the adopted and/or implemented policies/practices by key actors contribute to expanding/defending civic space
[See indicator 6C]
[See indicator 6C]
C
governments increasing democratic decision-making
6Cg
# of instances in which the adopted and/or implemented policies/practices by key actors contribute to gender justice
[See indicator 6C]
[See indicator 6C]
D
governments regulating the private sector
5D
# key actors who support and/or promote FGG policy/practice recommendations
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs from all regions will find support within the EP, the EC, and the Dutch and/or other national governments for their pleas for UN, EU and Dutch mEHRDD legislation.
[5D.FoEE1(1,1x)]: On 10 March 2021 the European Parliament passed a resolution with recommendations to the European Commission for legislation on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability. The resolution calls for a law to hold EU transnational corporations accountable for their impact on human rights and the environment overseas. The resolution proposes legislation for parent company liability (civil and administrative) for the impacts on the environment and people of operations of their subsidiaries, a human rights and environmental due diligence obligation for the full value chain of all companies, better access to European courts for victims of corporate operations around the world, and strong sanctions and fines for companies that break the rules. The resolution also calls for including climate change impacts in the law. The European Commission subsequently drafted a proposal for a Directive on Sustainable Corporate Governance. The proposal was expected to be launched Autumn 2021 but has been delayed untill February 2022 [Not counted]. FoE Europe together with a.o. ECCJ has been actively campaigning on this topic with numerous meetings with MEPs, European Commissioners, cabinet members of most DGs, publising research that highlights the need for an EU law on corporate accountability, media work, bringing cases of affected LLUMIC communities to decision-makers and the media, and involving the public. Milieudefensie contributed a.o. by participating in the European Commission's public consultation, and by informing FoE Europe and ECCJ about options for climate due diligence. [Counted under subindicator x as well, as this activity aims at increasing the power of civil society vis-à-vis corporations by developing mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence (mEHRDD) law]. [5D.MD2(2,2x)]: 11 March 2021 four political parties presented to Dutch Parliament a Dutch Bill for Responsible and Sustainable International Business Conduct (Wet verantwoord en duurzaam internationaal ondernemen). The law imposes a duty of care to prevent negative impacts on people and the environment of all companies in all economic sectors that are registered in the Netherlands or sell products or services on the Dutch market. This duty of care also applies to negative impacts in companies’ global value chains. The bill furthermore imposes a due diligence obligation on all companies over a certain size, and also applies to letterbox companies. The bill arranges that companies are obliged to provide remedy to affected rights-holders and explicitly states that failure to do so is considered violation of the law. The bill includes administrative, civil and criminal liability and enforcement. Milieudefensie contributed to the development of this bill via the Dutch CSOs' MVO Platform (as a member of the platform's Steering Group and Working Group on Legislation), and successfully proposed that the bill explicitly states that the arrangements for environmental harm also hold for greenhouse gas emissions and the climate. Climate was also included in the 'Bouwstenen voor IMVO-wetgeving' letter to Dutch Parliament from Dutch Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation De Bruijn from 5 November 2021. 2 December 2021, in a debate in Parliament Minister De Bruijn announced that due to the “very disappointing” and “indefinite” delays at the European Commission, the Dutch government will immediately start work on ambitious national binding due diligence legislation based on the OECD Guidelines and UNGPs. 15 December 2021 in its coalition agreement the new Dutch government confirmed that “In the EU, the Netherlands promotes international corporate social responsibility legislation and implements national ICSR legislation that takes into account a level playing field with neighboring countries and implementation of possible EU regulations.” Milieudefensie based its inputs in the policy process on the positions and findings of Southern CSOs represented in FoE International's Economic Justice Programme, Climate Justice & Energy Programme, and Forests & Biodiversity Programme. Milieudefensie contributed to the development of judicial thinking required for this law, and to public and political support in the Netherlands for mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence (mEHRDD) legislation a.o. with research, conducted in collaboration with a Nigerian CSO, on the responsibility of a Dutch oil company for environmental damage in Nigeria, and with research on the judicial responsibility of the same Dutch oil company for its climate impact, and furthermore with a public campaign and a petition that gathered more than 40.000 signatures. [Counted are Dutch Parliament and the Dutch government]. [Counted under subindicator x as well, as this activity aims at increasing the power of civil society vis-à-vis corporations by developing mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence (mEHRDD) law].
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs from all regions will find support within the EP, the EC, and the Dutch and/or other national governments for their pleas for UN, EU and Dutch mEHRDD legislation.
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs will achieve that the EP, the EC, and the Dutch and/or other national governments (Africa, Latin America, Europe) adopt and implement mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence (mEHRDD) legislation that includes a climate duty and that includes a judicial liability for companies for violations of climate, environmental and human rights standards; as well as take action to limit the corporate influence on governmental policy development processes relevant for the climate, and the environment, nature and people in LLUMICs. We aim at four instances of key decision-making bodies as listed above supporting our policy recommendations, all of which with a relevance for increasing civic space. [Results on mEHRDD law are counted under subindicator x as well, as advocacy on this dossier aims at increasing the power of civil society vis-à-vis corporations; expected results on the issue of corporate capture of decision-making processes and simultaneously increasing civil society actors’ participation in such processes are counted under subindicator x as well, as these results improve the quality of decision-making for the benefit of the people].
The EU and at least 9 member states leave the Energy Charter Treaty (on top of the countries that already announced to take these steps in 2023).
Trade and investment Agreements
D
governments regulating the private sector
5Dx
# of instances in which the supported and/or promoted recommendation by a key actor aims to contribute to expanding/defending civic space
See indicator 5D. Agenda setting and support concerning mEHRDD legislation also counts as x.
See indicator 5D. Agenda setting and support concerning mEHRDD legislation also counts as x.
[See indicator 5D].
[See indicator 5D]
See indicator 5D
D
governments regulating the private sector
5Dg
# of instances in which the supported and/or promoted recommendation by a partner aims to contribute to gender justice
See indicator 5D
D
governments regulating the private sector
6D
# instances in which key actors adopt and/or implement FGG policy/practice recommendations
[6D.MD1(1)]: In June 2021 the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport, ILT) stated that the practice of oil companies in the Netherlands to export low quality fuels to Africa, contributing to severe air pollution in West African cities, is in violation with the duty of care of the Dutch Environmental Management Act (Wet milieubeheer). ILT announced it will address the companies operating in the Netherlands about this, so that in the future fuels will be exported that are comparable to European quality requirements, with the aim of preventing further environmental and health damage in Africa. This happened after in 2016 and 2017 Milieudefensie had supported the Swiss NGO Public Eye and six CSOs in four West African countries by addressing in the Netherlands the export of poor quality fuels that cause severe air pollution in West African cities (these refined fuels, which have a high sulphur content, mainly originate from Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp). Milieudefensie's press and advocacy work resulted in massive media attention in the Netherlands in September 2016, and support for the Swiss and West African CSOs' pleas from Dutch MPs, the Dutch Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Ms. Ploumen (who called the practice ‘a crying shame’ on Dutch public television), and the Municipality of Amsterdam (the owner of the city's large port). On 5 December 2016, Minister Ploumen, together with the Nigerian Minister for the Environment, organised the conference ‘Clean Fuels for West Africa’ with the participation of EU member states, West African states, UNEP, OECD, the Dutch ports, fuel companies, West African CSOs and Milieudefensie. Dutch parliament remained attentive on the topic in subsequent years (in some cases informed by Milieudefensie). [Counted also under 6SCS2].
FoE Europe and Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs from all regions will have contributed to progress within the EP, the EC, and the Dutch and/or other national governments (Africa, Latin America, Europe) for their pleas for UN, EU and Dutch mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence legislation; and against export credit provision for fossil fuel development, which negatively affects the climate and/or the environment, nature and people in LLUMICs. We aim at three instances of key decision-making bodies as listed above adopting and/or implementing our policy recommendations, two of which with a relevance for increasing civic space. [Results on mEHRDD law are counted under subindicator x as well, as advocacy on this dossier aims at increasing the power of civil society vis-à-vis corporations; expected results on the issue of corporate capture of decision-making processes and simultaneously increasing civil society actors’ participation in such processes are counted under subindicator x as well, as these results improve the quality of decision-making for the benefit of the people.]
Key actors:
European Council, European Commision & European Parliament adopt the CSDDD (3)
The Dutch Government adopts national WVDIO law (1)
EU member states on fossil phase out policies in line with the Glasgow statement (3)
OECD (1)
Policy or practices:
· A strong EU CSDDD law is adopted, including strong provisions on liability and access to courts for victims and climate obligations for companies
· Dutch national regulation on corporate sustainability due diligence is adopted and includes strong wording on climate obligations, deforestation and the financial sector and increases possibilities for local communities and Environmental, Human Rights Defenders (EHRD) to hold companies accountable
· EU member states adopt fossil phase out policies in line with the Glasgow statement.
· By the end of 2024, OECD develops ambitious climate guidance on climate due diligence and including a feminist just transition perspective
Rules for business and corporate conduct; extractives
D
governments regulating the private sector
6Dx
# of instances in which the adopted and/or implemented policies/practices by key actors contribute to expanding/defending civic space
[See indicator 6D]
[See indicator 6D]
D
governments regulating the private sector
6Dg
# of instances in which the adopted and/or implemented policies/practices by key actors contribute to gender justice
[See indicator 6D]
E
private sector actors respecting human rights and the environment
5Ex
# of instances in which the supported and/or promoted recommendation by a key actor aims to contribute to expanding/defending civic space
E
private sector actors respecting human rights and the environment
5Eg
# of instances in which the supported and/or promoted recommendation by a partner aims to contribute to gender justice
E
private sector actors respecting human rights and the environment
6E
# instances in which key actors adopt and/or implement FGG policy/practice recommendations
Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs from all regions will achieve that companies and investors improve their policies and conduct with respect to climate, environment, nature and people in LLUMICs.
[6E.MD1(3)]: Three Dutch investors (pension funds) announced in 2021 that they quit investments in fossil fuel producers. In the framework of the Eerlijke Geldwijzer (EGW), in September and October 2021 Milieudefensie coordinated the publication of two studies on the energy portfolios of investors, 'Climate change commitments of financial institutions active in the Netherlands' and 'Fossil fuel versus renewable financing by financial institutions active in the Netherlands' revealing that per ultimo 2020 still 88% or 34 billion euros of Dutch banks', insurance companies' and pension funds' investments in the energy sector are in fossil fuels. The studies concern an update of EGW's energy investment studies from 2010, 2015 and 2018. Milieudefensie is involved in the EGW to improve the investment policies of the financial sector in line with the demands from LLUMIC CSOs in FoE International's global Programmes on Economic Justice; Climate Justice & Energy; Forests & Biodiversity; and Food Sovereignty. Milieudefensie advocates at the Dutch and EU government levels for a legal obligation for financial institutions to report on their climate impact, and to align their portfolios with the 1.5 degree goal of the Paris Climate Agreement. [Count for 6SCS1 is 2; count for 6SCS2 is 3].
Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs from all regions will achieve that companies and investors improve their policies and conduct with respect to climate, environment, nature and people in LLUMICs.
Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs from all regions will achieve that in 2023 in five instances companies and investors improve their policies and conduct with respect to the climate, and the environment, nature and people in LLUMICs, two of which will be implemented already in 2023.
E
private sector actors respecting human rights and the environment
6Ex
# of instances in which the adopted and/or implemented policies/practices by key actors contribute to expanding/defending civic space
E
private sector actors respecting human rights and the environment
6Eg
# of instances in which the adopted and/or implemented policies/practices by key actors contribute to gender justice
F
governments, government-backed agencies, donors, private sector actors increasing policy space and support for fair and green practices
5F
# key actors who support and/or promote FGG policy/practice recommendations
F
governments, government-backed agencies, donors, private sector actors increasing policy space and support for fair and green practices
5Fx
# of instances in which the supported and/or promoted recommendation by a key actor aims to contribute to expanding/defending civic space
F
governments, government-backed agencies, donors, private sector actors increasing policy space and support for fair and green practices
6F
# instances in which key actors adopt and/or implement FGG policy/practice recommendations
F
governments, government-backed agencies, donors, private sector actors increasing policy space and support for fair and green practices
6Fx
# of instances in which the adopted and/or implemented policies/practices by key actors contribute to expanding/defending civic space
F
governments, government-backed agencies, donors, private sector actors increasing policy space and support for fair and green practices
6Fg
# of instances in which the adopted and/or implemented policies/practices by key actors contribute to gender justice
SCS
governments, government-backed agencies, donors, private sector actors increasing policy space and support for fair and green practices
6SCS1
# of laws, policies and norms, implemented for sustainable and inclusive development
Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs from all regions will achieve that companies and investors improve their policies and conduct with respect to climate, environment, nature and people in LLUMICs.
[See indicators 6C-6F].
Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs from all regions will achieve that companies and investors improve their policies and conduct with respect to climate, environment, nature and people in LLUMICs.
[See indicators 6C-6F].
[See indicators 6C-6F].
SCS
governments, government-backed agencies, donors, private sector actors increasing policy space and support for fair and green practices
6SCS2
# of laws, policies and norms/attitudes, blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development
Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs from all regions will achieve that companies and investors improve their policies and conduct with respect to climate, environment, nature and people in LLUMICs.
[See indicators 6C-6F].
Milieudefensie together with LLUMIC CSOs from all regions will achieve that companies and investors improve their policies and conduct with respect to climate, environment, nature and people in LLUMICs.
[See indicators 6C-6F].
[See indicators 6C-6F].
CSDDD law (EU), WVDIO law (NL), OECD climate guidance
Process
process
l
learning sessions organised by FGG members and partner organisations
Reflection is an integral part of Milieudefensie's and FoE Europe's and other partners' continuous PMEL cycles. Evaluation and learning are not just organised at the end of projects and programmes, but are done continuously during all phases of projects and programmes. Lessons are reflected in adaptations of plans in the course of projects and programmes, and in the design of plans for subsequent projects and programmes, as well as in how things are organised.
[L.FoEE/MD1]: No specific learning sessions have been organised.
Reflection is an integral part of Milieudefensie's and FoE Europe's and other partners' continuous PMEL cycles. Evaluation and learning are not just organised at the end of projects and programmes, but are done continuously during all phases of projects and programmes. Lessons are reflected in adaptations of plans in the course of projects and programmes, and in the design of plans for subsequent projects and programmes, as well as in how things are organised.
MD together with its partners organized a learning session to identify key lessons learned and key succes factors from the campaign to end public fossil fuel support abroad.
Reflection is an integral part of Milieudefensie's and FoE Europe's and other partners' continuous PMEL cycles. Evaluation and learning are not just organised at the end of projects and programmes, but are done continuously during all phases of projects and programmes. Lessons are reflected in adaptations of plans in the course of projects and programmes, and in the design of plans for subsequent projects and programmes, as well as in how things are organised.
Reflection is an integral part of FoE Europe's and Milieudefensie's and other partners' continuous PMEL cycles, for instance and not excluding on our work on Shell and mEHRDD legislation. Evaluation and learning are not just organised at the end of projects and programmes, but are done continuously during all phases of projects and programmes. Lessons are reflected in adaptations of plans in the course of projects and programmes, and in the design of plans for subsequent projects and programmes, as well as in how things are organised.
Process
process
g
lines of work in which FGG members and partners build upon gender analysis and incorporate gender justice in their strategy
Milieudefensie's and FoE Europe's work aims at environmental, economic and social justice. Gender justice is an integral part of this. Gender justice is relevant in all lines of work, whether in the environmental, economic and/or social problems that are addressed (how these problems affect men and women, and how these affect the community as a whole through its impact on women specifically), or in developing solutions for these problems (how can these solutions contribute to gender justice, and prevent aggravation or emergence of (new) gender injustices).
[G.FoEE/MD1]: In the FGG programme FoE Europe's and Milieudefensie's work aims at system change. With this change the organisations aim to solve systemic environmental and climate problems that impact nature and people in the Global South. This impact, that concerns people's and communities' livelihood resources, human rights, community rights, land rights and other rights situation, and social and economic circumstances, has been documented by many research reports (UN, academics, CSOs) to cause or aggravate gender injustice. This happens while a fault of the system is that women are underrepresented in decision-making. Also FoE International in the past decades has issued many studies on gender that inform our goals, strategies and interventions, e.g. 'Women and food sovereignty', 'For the land that feeds us', 'Why Gender Justice and Dismantling Patriarchy?', 'If it’s not feminist, it’s not just'.
Milieudefensie's and FoE Europe's work aims at environmental, economic and social justice. Gender justice is an integral part of this. Gender justice is relevant in all lines of work, whether in the environmental, economic and/or social problems that are addressed (how these problems affect men and women, and how these affect the community as a whole through its impact on women specifically), or in developing solutions for these problems (how can these solutions contribute to gender justice, and prevent aggravation or emergence of (new) gender injustices).
FoEE’s report on the impacts of fossil fuel/LNG investments in Mozambique paid specific attention to the impacts on women, for instance related to relocation, loss of income, human rights violations.
The Report "Locked out of a Just Transition: fossil fuel financing in Africa" published by Milieudefensie, Banktrack & Oil Change International in March 2022 analyses the specific impact on women of the financial support to the fossil fuel industry in West, East and Southern Africa.
In general, Milieudefensie's and FoE Europe's work aims at environmental, economic and social justice. Gender justice is an integral part of this. Gender justice is relevant in all lines of work, whether in the environmental, economic and/or social problems that are addressed (how these problems affect men and women, and how these affect the community as a whole through its impact on women specifically), or in developing solutions for these problems (how can these solutions contribute to gender justice, and prevent aggravation or emergence of (new) gender injustices).
In the FGG programme FoE Europe's and Milieudefensie's work aims at system change. With this change the organisations aim to solve systemic environmental and climate problems that impact nature and people in the Global South. This impact, that concerns people's and communities' livelihood resources, human rights, community rights, land rights and other rights situation, and social and economic circumstances, has been documented by many research reports (UN, academics, CSOs) to cause or aggravate gender injustice. This happens while a fault of the system is that women are underrepresented in decision-making. Also FoE International in the past decades has issued many studies on gender that inform our goals, strategies and interventions, e.g. 'Women and food sovereignty', 'For the land that feeds us', 'Why Gender Justice and Dismantling Patriarchy?', 'If it’s not feminist, it’s not just'.
Gender justice is relevant in all lines of work, whether in the environmental, economic and/or social problems that are addressed (how these problems affect men and women, and how these affect the community as a whole through their impact on women specifically), or in developing solutions for these problems (how can these solutions contribute to gender justice, and prevent aggravation or emergence of (new) gender injustices).
Process
process
o
the extent to and ways in which FGG involves local groups in the design and implementation of the FGG programme
Milieudefensie and FoE Europe base their international work on the four FoE International's programmes, in the steering groups of which Southern and Northerns groups are represented (the programmes being 'Economic Justice', 'Climate Justice & Energy', 'Forests & Biodiversity' and 'Food Sovereignty'). Furthermore, Milieudefensie's and FoE Europe's international work is done in direct collaboration with FoE and non-FoE groups in the Global South and their local consituencies (such as local communities). The initiative for this collaboration can come from groups in LLUMICs, as well as from Milieudefensie or FoE Europe. Collaboration materialises in the strategizing, planning, implementation and evaluation phases of projects and programmes. Only grassroots organisations (strongly rooted in civil society, with strong ties with local communities and local organisations) can become a national member organisation of the FoE network. When Milieudefensie or FoE Europe collaborate with non-FoE groups, these groups often are of a similar type as FoE sister organisations.
[O.FoEE/MD1]: All FGG work of FoE Europe and Milieudefensie is part of and aims to contribute to the implementation of the strategies and achieving the goals of one or more of FoE International's global programmes Economic Justice; Climate Justice & Energy; Forests & Biodiversity; and Food Sovereignty. The goals and strategies of these programmes are jointly developed by the FoE member groups who participate in them, from the Global South and North. Furthermore, the work consists of specific collaborations between FoE Europe and/or Milieudefensie on the one hand, and specific CSOs from LLUMICs on the other hand (from within and from outside the FoE network). Such collaboration is developed by all partners involved. It can be initiated by LLUMIC groups as as well as by FoE Europe or Milieudefensie. The latter occurs for instance if these organisations find a new development in the Global North that poses a (potential) threat to the environment and people in LLUMICs. In 2021 Milieudefensie and its Latin American partners have been working on developing their concept of 'case work'. There is a joint need for all partners in the North/South collaboration to rise above the level of individual, local cases (one location and community affected by one operation of a company). This is because the problem of fossil fuel expansion in the Global South is larger than problems at the local level. Across the region, the same problems are at play at the local and national levels, and therefore at the regional level, as the oil/gas industry is employing the same tactics everywhere. The industry is acting in violation of the Paris Climate Agreement by still expanding the fossil frontier in the Global South. The 'case' thus has become: The continued expansion of oil and gas extraction by the fossil fuel industry in the Global South.
Milieudefensie and FoE Europe base their international work on the four FoE International's programmes, in the steering groups of which Southern and Northerns groups are represented (the programmes being 'Economic Justice', 'Climate Justice & Energy', 'Forests & Biodiversity' and 'Food Sovereignty'). Furthermore, Milieudefensie's and FoE Europe's international work is done in direct collaboration with FoE and non-FoE groups in the Global South and their local consituencies (such as local communities). The initiative for this collaboration can come from groups in LLUMICs, as well as from Milieudefensie or FoE Europe. Collaboration materialises in the strategizing, planning, implementation and evaluation phases of projects and programmes. Only grassroots organisations (strongly rooted in civil society, with strong ties with local communities and local organisations) can become a national member organisation of the FoE network. When Milieudefensie or FoE Europe collaborate with non-FoE groups, these groups often are of a similar type as FoE sister organisations.
FoEE’s work on the EU Mercosur trade agreement, the ECT and the work on LNG projects in Mozambique is developed in close cooperation with our partners in the respective Southern countries. The same is for our work on the UN Treaty. This includes developing joint positions and demands, agreeing on strategies, running joint actions and doing advocacy together. In some cases it also included FoEE providing financial support.
Milieudefensie’s work to stop fossil fuel subsidies and the expansion of the fossil fuel industry is co-developed with and informed by its local CSO partners in Latin America and West Africa who a.o. closely monitor the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure in their regions and analyze the (potential) impact on local communities.
In general, Milieudefensie and FoE Europe base their international work on the four FoE International's programmes ('Economic Justice', 'Climate Justice & Energy', 'Forests & Biodiversity', 'Food Sovereignty'), in the steering groups of which Southern and Northerns groups are represented Furthermore, Milieudefensie's and FoE Europe's international work is done in direct collaboration with FoE and non-FoE groups in the Global South and their local consituencies (such as local communities). The initiative for this collaboration can come from groups in LLUMICs, as well as from Milieudefensie or FoE Europe. Collaboration materialises in the strategizing, planning, implementation and evaluation phases of projects and programmes. Only grassroots organisations (strongly rooted in civil society, with strong ties with local communities and local organisations) can become a national member organisation of the FoE network. When Milieudefensie or FoE Europe collaborate with non-FoE groups, these groups often are of a similar type as FoE sister organisations.
All FGG work of FoE Europe and Milieudefensie is part of and aims to contribute to the implementation of the strategies and achieving the goals of one or more of FoE International's global programmes Economic Justice; Climate Justice & Energy; Forests & Biodiversity; and Food Sovereignty. The goals and strategies of these programmes are jointly developed by the FoE member groups who participate in them, from the Global South and North. Furthermore, the work consists of specific collaborations between FoE Europe and/or Milieudefensie on the one hand, and specific CSOs from LLUMICs on the other hand (from within and from outside the FoE network). Such collaboration is developed by all partners involved.
FoE Europe's and Milieudefensie's international work is done in direct collaboration with FoE groups and non-FoE groups in the Global South and their local consituencies (such as local communities). The initiative for this collaboration can come from groups in LLUMICs, as well as from Milieudefensie or FoE Europe. Collaboration materialises in the strategizing, planning, implementation and evaluation phases of projects and programmes. Only grassroots organisations (strongly rooted in civil society, with strong ties with local communities and local organisations) can become a national member organisation of the FoE network. When Milieudefensie or FoE Europe collaborate with non-FoE groups, these groups often are of a similar type as FoE sister organisations.
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-PoV-Coordination
Milieudefensie
GLA-PoV-Coordination
This activity file monitors the program management costs of the GLA program
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Support to the exercise of democracy and diverse forms of participation of citizens beyond elections (15151); direct democracy instruments such as referenda and citizens' initiatives; support to organisations to represent and advocate for their members, to monitor, engage and hold governments to account, and to help citizens learn to act in the public sphere; curricula and teaching for civic education at various levels. (This purpose code is restricted to activities targeting governance issues. When assistance to civil society is for non-governance purposes use other appropriate purpose codes.)
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
200000
200000
202500
203900
209100
126871
126871
146849
1015500
146849
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-PoV-Ghana
Milieudefensie
GLA-PoV-Ghana
The GLA in Ghana works in two forested landscapes: Atewa Forest Landscape in the Eastern Region and the Juaboso-Bia Sefwi-Wiawso Forest Landscape in the Western North Region.
The Atewa Forest is in the Akyem Abuakwa area of south eastern Ghana near Kibi and south west of the Kwahu Plateau, which forms the south western boundary of Lake Volta. It consists of a protected upland evergreen forest reserve and a surrounding buffer zone that includes closed and open forest canopy, grasslands and herbaceous areas, cocoa and other crop plantations, as well as rich deposits of gold and bauxite. The forest within the range functions as the source of three important rivers, the Densu, Birim and Ayensu.
The Juaboso-Bia Sefwi-Wiawso Cocoa-Forest landscape has a good proportion of Ghana’s few remaining intact tropical high forests within the moist evergreen and moist semi-deciduous forest zones. Reserved forest in the landscape are the Krokosua Hills Forest Reserve, Bia Tributaries North Forest Reserve, Bia-Tawya Forest Reserve, Sui River Forest Reserve and Bia Biosphere Reserve. The reserves harbour many plant species including some of the most important timber species and species of special conservation interest. The Bia Biosphere Reserve is among the only three listed biosphere reserves in Ghana and is home to a number of primates and a good number of elephant populations. It also serves as a wildlife corridor between Ghana and La Cote d’Ivoire. About 30% the cocoa produced in Ghana is cultivated by small-holder farmers in this landscape. Both landscapes have forests designated as Globally Significant Biodiversity Areas (GSBA).
The two landscapes are threatened by three main drivers of deforestation: planned Bauxite (Atewa) and (illegal gold) mining, (illegal) logging and forest encroachments for cocoa farming (both landscapes). The landscapes need immediate intervention and commitment from government, private sector, CSO and local communities to halt deforestation and secure their public goods by jointly addressing the principal drivers. These drivers are exacerbated in both landscapes by challenges associated with land and tree tenure, management and use. For example, the lack of a holistic and effectual land use plan for Ghana poses a significant challenge to the successful implementation of interventions that seek to limit unsustainable land use practices. Hence, land cover types have been greatly modified through unsustainable land use practices, with agriculture extending into forest reserves.
Local communities in the landscape are often neglected in decisions about publicly and privately led forest interventions. Women and youth are always relegated to the background during dialogue at the local level and by extension at the national level. Community monitors are threatened by illegal actors while being exposed by the public sector agencies who receive reports of illegalities.
The Green Livelihood Alliance in Ghana aims to mobilize Local Community and Civil Society campaigns, capacity strengthening, and advocacy based on empirical evidence to create a social movement that defends forests and biodiversity, and supports communities to protect their environmental rights that reduce the drivers of deforestation. The program will campaign for climate justice, execute non-violent direct actions and participate in Ghanaian, regional and international movements that implement dialogue and dissent strategies towards local communities, public and private actors. We will achieve this by mobilising people and bringing together the knowledge needed to address complex governance issues for climate-smart landscapes through a landscape approach involving local communities, private, public and civil society actors.
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Support to the exercise of democracy and diverse forms of participation of citizens beyond elections (15151); direct democracy instruments such as referenda and citizens' initiatives; support to organisations to represent and advocate for their members, to monitor, engage and hold governments to account, and to help citizens learn to act in the public sphere; curricula and teaching for civic education at various levels. (This purpose code is restricted to activities targeting governance issues. When assistance to civil society is for non-governance purposes use other appropriate purpose codes.)
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
49700
49200
50400
50600
50500
46114
46114
250400
200700
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-PoV-Indonesia
Milieudefensie
GLA-PoV-Indonesia
Indonesia’s state forest land (Kawasan Hutan) covers about 63.7 percent of Indonesia's land area. These forests are extensively and intensively developed by industrial oil palm and timber/pulp plantations, extractive industries and infrastructure. Such expansion has been destroying forests, including their biodiversity, and many times led to the confiscation of lands from the indigenous or local communities. Consent and dialogue between companies and indigenous communities are greatly rigged as the communities are often forced to let go of their lands. As the issue persists, the government leaves big gaps in supporting and assisting IPLCs to fulfil their rights, especially tenurial and territorial rights. For customary area/lands (Wilayah Adat), out of 40M ha indicative ancestral domain, only 1.5M ha have been recognised formally. Within state forest areas, of 900,000 ha indicative customary forest (CF) areas, only 35,000 ha have been granted with rights. Villages at the lowest administrative entity are posed with unclear boundaries, with only 34% of 72,000 villages having legal boundaries.
As a result, IPLCs in Indonesia are left with very limited capacities to conduct their livelihoods, let alone effectively and sustainably manage their forests and other natural resources; while at the same time, the large scale actors and corporations continue to compromise environmental sustainability and human rights without sanctions from the authorities. To make matters worse, groups or individuals, including community leaders, who have engaged in activities to defend the rights of indigenous people and their territories, face criminalization, intimidation, forced arrest or even attacks that may cause their deaths.
Four landscapes on Indonesia’s three largest islands have been selected as GLA intervention areas: Mudiak Baduo (720,000 ha, with 900,000 inhabitants ) on Sumatra, Ketapang-Kayong Utara (K-KU) (3,560,000 ha; 590,000 inhabitants ) and Kayan (3,699,371 ha, 40,000 inhabitants) on Kalimantan, and Lariang (900,000 ha; 496,000 inhabitants ) on Sulawesi. The landscapes represent four forested areas with ongoing development involving large scale agrocommodities, mainly oil palm, and extractive industries of coal and bauxite mining. Even though they share common features, these landscapes represent a variety of cultures and socio-economic conditions, each influencing how issues between the IPLCs and the drivers of deforestation in the areas are connected.
Parallel to that, the programme substantially focuses on the national level, where decision making is concentrated, and where GLA operates in coalition with different organisations and movements to capitalise the programme and upscale towards wider impacts.
The Green Livelihoods Alliance in Indonesia aims to support IPLCs in the four landscapes to obtain sovereign control over their lands and natural resources, and conduct ecologically and socially responsible livelihoods. The programme lobbies and campaigns for the government to halt new licenses in forest and peatlands, and for the private sector operating in the four landscapes to rightfully implement environmental and social standards and respect labour and human rights. At the same time, GLA aims for the financial sector to apply sustainable financial principles and standards to their investments in agrocommodity and extractive industries. Finally, GLA supports (W)EHRDs in Indonesia to freely express their opinions, safely participate in public affairs, and lobbies for their rightful protection by the law.
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Support to the exercise of democracy and diverse forms of participation of citizens beyond elections (15151); direct democracy instruments such as referenda and citizens' initiatives; support to organisations to represent and advocate for their members, to monitor, engage and hold governments to account, and to help citizens learn to act in the public sphere; curricula and teaching for civic education at various levels. (This purpose code is restricted to activities targeting governance issues. When assistance to civil society is for non-governance purposes use other appropriate purpose codes.)
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
206250
208250
211400
216600
219000
171598
1061500
171598
828300
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-PoV-Philippines
Milieudefensie
GLA-PoV-Philippines
The Philippines is a biodiversity rich and culturally diverse country with an estimated 14-17 million Indigenous Peoples (IPs) belonging to 110 ethno-linguistic groups. The country’s last remaining rainforests are located in indigenous territories and in areas managed by upland rural poor communities (IPLCs). IPLCs have had significant contributions to maintaining the last remaining forest cover of the country. The majority of IPLCs are dependent on extraction of forest resources for their daily survival. Poverty has driven communities towards unsustainable practices such as charcoal making (“uling”) and mono-cropping of cash crops.
Since 2004, the government has been actively promoting large-scale mining for nickel, copper, gold and other metals and minerals. The pressure to open up also the last remaining forests for resource extraction, energy and infrastructure projects and plantation development is very present. The Philippine Development Plan, including the national COVID-19 post-recovery plan, is largely geared towards investments in agribusiness ventures and extractives.
While the regulatory regime does feature stringent environmental regulation and compliance mechanisms, decisions around natural resources in practice are in favor of large-scale development projects, both driven by foreign and local investments. Indigenous rights to Free Prior Informed Consent are ideally effective governance counter-balance to the economic drive towards full resource exploitation but the consent process, many times, has neither been free, nor informed, nor done prior to approving economic development priorities.
Recent changes in policy and practice have further constricted the civic space for indigenous peoples and community organisations, NGOs and other civil society groups to freely and safely operate. There is a need to push back and widen civic space through asserting civil liberties, challenging laws and policies which violate freedoms, and pushing for laws that compel the government to protect (women) environmental defenders and communities.
The programme aims to support IPLCs to install and strengthen sustainable and inclusive forest management mechanisms in four major forest landscapes: Sierra Madre of Luzon, Southern Palawan, Northern Mindanao and South Central Mindanao. It seeks to strengthen inclusive forest governance in indigenous and community-conserved areas. National lobby efforts are directed at influencing the government to address destructive mining as a key driver of deforestation, enact green bills (alternative mining law, forestry, land use), and defend environmental human rights defenders, IPLC governance and forest conservation. Such issues shall be amplified in social and mainstream media, and national level alliances and networks.
Key strategies are strengthening the capacity of IPLCs and Civil Society in documenting human rights violations, community journalism, gender equality and social inclusion, climate change, rights and security to build alliances and engage in effective lobby and advocacy to improve policy development and enforcement, transparency and support for forest restoration and sustainable, viable and climate resilient livelihoods
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Support to the exercise of democracy and diverse forms of participation of citizens beyond elections (15151); direct democracy instruments such as referenda and citizens' initiatives; support to organisations to represent and advocate for their members, to monitor, engage and hold governments to account, and to help citizens learn to act in the public sphere; curricula and teaching for civic education at various levels. (This purpose code is restricted to activities targeting governance issues. When assistance to civil society is for non-governance purposes use other appropriate purpose codes.)
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
53700
53800
54500
55400
56000
19380
47708
47708
19380
181600
273400
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-PoV-Liberia
Milieudefensie
GLA-PoV-Liberia
Liberia hosts large areas of the Upper Guinean Forest ecosystem, recognised globally for its extremely high biodiversity. The country has committed to conserving 30 percent of its natural forests, essential for the livelihoods of local communities who directly depend on these forests and significant in the global fight against climate change.
Despite national policy commitments made by the government at the national and international level and the emergence of numerous private sector initiatives to halt deforestation, Liberia has made little progress reducing deforestation in recent years. Rather, the drivers of deforestation, including illegal and destructive logging and industrial agriculture, are gaining in power and speed.
Illegal logging in government-allocated logging concessions covering more than 1 million hectares and industrial-scale logging under community forestry licenses are accelerating at an alarming rate. Huge blocks of forest land inhabited by local communities have been handed out to agro-business. The political elite is grabbing lands from communities for plantations as well.
More than 60 percent of Liberia’s 5 million population relies on agriculture for their livelihoods and food for their households. The sector employs more than 80 percent of Liberians with women constituting more than half of the labour force. Instead of supporting smallholders, the government has allocated large tracts of land to concessions for oil palm cultivation. As a result, forest communities in several counties have been devastated by the impacts of industrial oil palm.
Environmental and Human Rights Defenders (EHRDs) and local activists that demand respect for community and human rights, and improvements in the overall well-being of communities affected by the oil palm companies, have been harassed, intimidated, and have suffered unlawful arrests. In instances where communities have stood up for their rights, they have been targeted by the state and state-security apparatuses.
Liberia’s legal framework governing forests has institutionalised the participation of Local Communities and Civil Society in forest governance. Liberia has also made important progress on land tenure reforms. The country adopted a Land Rights Policy in 2013 formally recognising customary collective community land rights. It passed into law in 2018, providing communities with formal ownership over their customary lands.
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Support to the exercise of democracy and diverse forms of participation of citizens beyond elections (15151); direct democracy instruments such as referenda and citizens' initiatives; support to organisations to represent and advocate for their members, to monitor, engage and hold governments to account, and to help citizens learn to act in the public sphere; curricula and teaching for civic education at various levels. (This purpose code is restricted to activities targeting governance issues. When assistance to civil society is for non-governance purposes use other appropriate purpose codes.)
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
25800
26000
26700
27600
27000
133100
22320
28048
22320
28048
SCS1 # of laws and policies for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
This result shows the number of laws and policies that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
# of laws for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of laws that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no laws have been better implemented sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
1 Law was implemented as a result of the GLA program effort where 7 Customary communities Bomi county gained legal status of their by the Government of Liberia
# of governmental policies for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of governmental policies that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no governmental policies have been better implemented for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to better implement 2 government policies for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on deforestation and/or community & human rights violations.
With the effort of the GLA partners the OIL PALM strategy was developed and now ther is a bill before the Legislature for passage
# of private sector company policies for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of private sector policies that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no private sector company policies have been better implemented for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
# of by-laws for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of by-laws that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no by-laws have been better implemented for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to better implement 1 by-laws for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on deforestation and/or community & human rights violations.
# of international agreements for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of international agreements that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no international agreements have been better implemented for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
SCS2 # of laws, policies and norms/attitudes, blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development
This result shows the number of laws, policies and norms/attitudes, blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development
# of private sector company policies blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of private sector company policies blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no private sector company policies have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
# of governmental policies blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no governmental policies have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
# of laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no laws have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
# of international agreements blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the of international agreements blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no international agreements have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
# of by-laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of by-laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no by-laws have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
2 by-laws were blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement at midline. For example, in 2023 the Community Rights Support Facility (CRSF) with funding support from the Green Livelihoods Alliance through the Sustainable Development Institute (SDI) presented seven clans in Bomi County to the Liberia Land Authority for certification.
SCS3 # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage.
This result shows # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage, as result of GLA efforts
# of advocacy initiatives carried out by CSOs, for, by or with their membership/constituency
Measures the advocacy initiatives carried out by CSOs, for, by or with their membership/constituency at national and international level
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no spaces were created to engage at national and international level as a result of for CSO engagement in the programme
The aim of the programme is to increase the level of influence or participation in decision making by CSOs and IPLCs in more processes. In addition, the programme aims to increase the level of participation by women and young women/men in all processes. No specific target is defined in this case.
CSOs succeeded in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage at national and international level 5 times. For example: During the FSC general assembly, a complaint was submitted to call upon the FSC to withdraw Samling’s certificates to address violations of traditional and human rights, destruction of high conservation value forests and significant conversion of forests. The complaint was also highlighted by local and international media.
# of advocacy initiatives carried out by CSOs, for, by or with their membership/constituency at sub-national level
Measures the advocacy initiatives carried out by CSOs, for, by or with their membership/constituency at sub-national
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no spaces were created to engage at sub-national level as a result of for CSO engagement in the programme
The aim of the programme is to increase the level of influence or participation in decision making by CSOs and IPLCs in more processes. In addition, the programme aims to increase the level of participation by women and young women/men in all processes. No specific target is defined in this case.
CSOs succeeded in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage at sub national level 5 times.
SCS5 # of CSOs with increased L&A capacities
This result shows the CSOs working in GLA with increased L&A capacities
# of youth led CSOs with increased L&A capacities
Measures the number of 1st and 2nd ring partners that are led by youth and have increased L&A capacities
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no CSO has yet increased L&A capcities as a result of the programme.
No 1st ring youth led CSO partners that are expected to increase their capacity over the course of the GLA2 programme in Liberia. No 2nd ring youth led CSO partners have been included in this target value, as the GLA is a flexible adaptable program this can't be well estimated in advance.
NA
No specific annual target is set for this indicator
# of women led CSOs with increased L&A capacities
Measures the number of 1st and 2nd ring partners that are led by women and have increased L&A capacities
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no CSO has yet increased L&A capcities as a result of the programme.
These are 1st ring women led CSO partners that are expected to increase their capacity over the course of the GLA2 programme in Liberia. No 2nd ring women led CSO partners have been included in this target value, as the GLA is a flexible adaptable program this can't be well estimated in advance.
NA
No specific annual target is set for this indicator
In 2022, one 1st ring CSO partner and one 2nd ring CSO partner have increased capacity on Lobby & advocacy, among other topics.
# of CSOs (not youth or women led) with increased L&A capacities
Measures the number of 1st and 2nd ring partner that are not specifically led by women or youth and have inreased L&A capacities
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no CSO has yet increased L&A capcities as a result of the programme.
These are 1st ring 'not youth not women led' CSO partners that are expected to increase their capacity over the course of the GLA2 programme in Liberia. No 2nd ring 'not youth not women led' CSO partners have been included in this target value, as the GLA is a flexible adaptable program this can't be well estimated in advance.
Two 1st ring CSO increased capacity on "Knowledge and skills to use different advocacy techniques, also in a changing environment" among other capacities.
No specific annual target is set for this indicator
# of CSOs which are both women and youth led with increased L&A capacities
Measures the number of 1st and 2nd ring partner that are led by both women and youth and have inreased L&A capacities
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no CSO has yet increased L&A capcities as a result of the programme.
No 1st ring 'women and youth led' CSO partners are expected to increase their capacity over the course of the GLA2 programme in Liberia. No 2nd ring 'women and youth led' CSO partners have been included in this target value, as the GLA is a flexible adaptable program this can't be well estimated in advance.
NA
No specific annual target is set for this indicator
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-PoV-Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
GLA-PoV-Milieudefensie
The Green Livelihoods Alliance (2021 - 2025) is an alliance of Gaia Amazonas, IUCN NL, Milieudefensie, NTFP-EP, SDI and Tropenbos International, with Fern and WECF as technical partners. The Green Livelihoods Alliance (GLA) aims to ensure that tropical forests and forest landscapes are sustainably and inclusively governed to mitigate and adapt to climate change, fulfil human rights and safeguard local livelihoods. In twelve countries in South America, Africa and Asia, as well as internationally, the Alliance works with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) and social movements to: - increase the participation of IPLCs in policy and decision-making regarding land rights and forest governance - strengthen lobby and advocacy to hold governments and industries accountable for deforestation and human rights violations. A crucial prerequisite is to ensure the operational space and security of IPLC leaders, CSO activists, women’s rights and environmental and human rights defenders (EHRDs).
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Support to the exercise of democracy and diverse forms of participation of citizens beyond elections (15151); direct democracy instruments such as referenda and citizens' initiatives; support to organisations to represent and advocate for their members, to monitor, engage and hold governments to account, and to help citizens learn to act in the public sphere; curricula and teaching for civic education at various levels. (This purpose code is restricted to activities targeting governance issues. When assistance to civil society is for non-governance purposes use other appropriate purpose codes.)
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
2324300
2345000
2380000
2416200
2445300
590700
1993112
11910800
Milieudefensie
302900
250400
1061500
273400
8283300
1015500
133100
1993112
2193472
2193472
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-PoV-International-regional
Milieudefensie
GLA-PoV-International-regional
Our work at the regional and international level seeks to contribute to the long-term objectives of all three pathways in the Theory of Change:
A. IP&LCs sustainably govern increased areas of forest;
B. Governments and agro-commodity, extractives, energy and infrastructure sectors no longer drive deforestation and address citizens’ concerns to protect forests and human rights;
C. Citizens enjoy human and women’s rights and safely participate in social movements.
Key strategies that we will use towards these outcomes are collaborative lobby and advocacy with IPLCs towards international (e.g. UNFCCC, CBD, OECD, UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC), UN special mechanisms) and regional policy making bodies (e.g European Union, ASEAN, African Union (AU), ACHPR, IACHR, PARLASUR) as well as the Dutch government, finance, agro-commodity, extractives and energy sectors and international private sector oriented forums (e.g. GIIN, UNPRI); strengthening social movements and networks of solidarity; public awareness campaigns; and joint capacity strengthening, knowledge exchange and cross-learning, monitoring and research.
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Support to the exercise of democracy and diverse forms of participation of citizens beyond elections (15151); direct democracy instruments such as referenda and citizens' initiatives; support to organisations to represent and advocate for their members, to monitor, engage and hold governments to account, and to help citizens learn to act in the public sphere; curricula and teaching for civic education at various levels. (This purpose code is restricted to activities targeting governance issues. When assistance to civil society is for non-governance purposes use other appropriate purpose codes.)
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
1612500
1629500
1656000
1682000
1703300
8283300
1433015
1583347
1583347
1433015
2489800
SCS1 # of laws and policies for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
This result shows the number of laws and policies that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
# of by-laws for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of by-laws that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no by-laws have been better implemented for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to better implement 1 by-law for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on biodiversity and EU deforestation frameworks, investment standards and human rights.
# of international agreements for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of international agreements that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no international agreements have been better implemented for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to better implement 10 international agreements for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on ...
# of laws for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of laws that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no laws have been better implemented sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
2 governmental policies were blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement at midline. E.g. The November 2021 proposal for an anti-deforestation regulation from the European Commission does not provide a green lane for voluntary certification mechanisms.
# of governmental policies for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of governmental policies that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no governmental policies have been better implemented for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to better implement 1 government policies for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on biodiversity and EU deforestation frameworks, investment standards and human rights.
3 governmental policies have been better implemented for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement at midline. Dutch and 19 other national public financiers (ECAs) committed to stopping fossil finance by the end of 2022.
# of private sector company policies for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of private sector policies that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no private sector company policies have been better implemented for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to better implement 1 private sector policy for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on biodiversity and EU deforestation frameworks, investment standards and human rights.
5 private sector company policies for sustainable and inclusive development were better implemented as a result of CSO engagement at midline. E.g. Milieudefensie worked with civil society and affected communities in four countries where palm oil company Socfin engages SCS Global Services for RSPO certifications. We researched the certification process and found multiple violations. Milieudefensie then complaint with SCS and after unsatisfactory results, stepped up the complaint to ASI in June 2021, the accreditation service of Certification Bodies in RSPO. ASI accepted the complaint in July.
SCS2 # of laws, policies and norms/attitudes, blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development
This result shows the number of laws, policies and norms/attitudes, blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development
# of governmental policies blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no governmental policies have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
3 governmental policies were blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement at midline. For example ASEAN Ministers on Agriculture and Forestry (AMAF) formally adopted the ASEAN Guidelines on Recognition of Customary Tenure in Forested Landscapes during their 44th meeting last Oct. 26, 2022 in Lao PDR.
# of international agreements blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the of international agreements blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no international agreements have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to block, adopt or improve 14 international agreements for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on biodiversity and EU deforestation frameworks, investment standards and human rights.
# of laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no laws have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to block, adopt or improve 2 laws for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on biodiversity and EU deforestation frameworks, investment standards and human rights.
5 laws were blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement at midline. For example, EU policy makers decided in the final negotiation process on a good anti-deforestation legislation which obliges companies to undergo due diligence rules in relation to deforestation risk commodities and countries. A strong EP position resulted in a fairly good outcome of the final law. First the EP committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (in January) and then the full EP plenary (September 2022) voted on a strong positing on the EU anti-deforestation law.
# of private sector company policies blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of private sector company policies blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no private sector company policies have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
# of by-laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of by-laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no by-laws have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to block, adopt or improve 1 by-laws for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on biodiversity and EU deforestation frameworks, investment standards and human rights.
SCS3 # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage.
This result shows # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage, as result of GLA efforts
# of advocacy initiatives carried out by CSOs, for, by or with their membership/constituency at sub-national level
Measures the advocacy initiatives carried out by CSOs, for, by or with their membership/constituency at sub-national
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no spaces were created to engage at sub-national level as a result of for CSO engagement in the programme
The aim of the programme is to increase the level of influence or participation in decision making by CSOs and IPLCs in more processes. In addition, the programme aims to increase the level of participation by women and young women/men in all processes. No specific target is defined in this case.
CSOs succeeded in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage at sub national level 1 time.
# of advocacy initiatives carried out by CSOs, for, by or with their membership/constituency
Measures the advocacy initiatives carried out by CSOs, for, by or with their membership/constituency at national and international level
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no spaces were created to engage at national and international level as a result of for CSO engagement in the programme
The aim of the programme is to increase the level of influence or participation in decision making by CSOs and IPLCs in more processes. In addition, the programme aims to increase the level of participation by women and young women/men in all processes. No specific target is defined in this case.
CSOs succeeded in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage at national and international level 52 times. For example: A documentary by Dutch journalist Bram Vermeulen showed the damage to local communities and the environment that has been caused by the work of Boskalis in Manilla. Milieudefensie Director Donald Pols linked the story behind the documentary to the need for corporate due diligence and the importance of binding legislation in a radio interview
SCS5 # of CSOs with increased L&A capacities
This result shows the CSOs working in GLA with increased L&A capacities
# of women led CSOs with increased L&A capacities
Measures the number of 1st and 2nd ring partners that are led by women and have increased L&A capacities
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no CSO has yet increased L&A capcities as a result of the programme.
These are 1st ring women led CSO partners that are expected to increase their capacity over the course of the GLA2 interntional programme. No 2nd ring women led CSO partners have been included in this target value, as the GLA is a flexible adaptable program this can't be well estimated in advance.
One 1st ring CSO has increased capacity on "Leadership and engagement among and with different groups to work collaboratively on advocacy activities" among others.
No specific annual target is set for this indicator
In 2022, two 2nd ring CSO partners increased capacity on Lobby & advocacy, among other topics.
# of youth led CSOs with increased L&A capacities
Measures the number of 1st and 2nd ring partners that are led by youth and have increased L&A capacities
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no CSO has yet increased L&A capcities as a result of the programme.
No 1st ring youth led CSO partners are expected to increase their capacity over the course of the GLA2 international programme. No 2nd ring youth led CSO partners have been included in this target value, as the GLA is a flexible adaptable program this can't be well estimated in advance.
NA
No specific annual target is set for this indicator
# of CSOs (not youth or women led) with increased L&A capacities
Measures the number of 1st and 2nd ring partner that are not specifically led by women or youth and have inreased L&A capacities
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no CSO has yet increased L&A capcities as a result of the programme.
These are 1st ring 'not youth not women led' CSO partners that are expected to increase their capacity over the course of the GLA2 International programme. No 2nd ring 'not youth not women led' CSO partners have been included in this target value, as the GLA is a flexible adaptable program this can't be well estimated in advance.
One 1st ring and 7 sencond ring CSOs have increased capacity on "Leadership and engagement among and with different groups to work collaboratively on advocacy activities" among others.
No specific annual target is set for this indicator
In 2022, one 1st ring CSO partner increased its capacity on Lobby & advocacy, among other topics.
# of CSOs which are both women and youth led with increased L&A capacities
Measures the number of 1st and 2nd ring partner that are led by both women and youth and have inreased L&A capacities
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no CSO has yet increased L&A capcities as a result of the programme.
No 1st ring 'women and youth led' CSO partners are expected to increase their capacity over the course of the GLA2 International programme. No 2nd ring 'women and youth led' CSO partners have been included in this target value, as the GLA is a flexible adaptable program this can't be well estimated in advance.
NA
No specific annual target is set for this indicator
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-PoV-Colombia
Milieudefensie
GLA-PoV-Colombia
Colombia is the second most biodiverse country on the planet, and has the privilege of being among the nine countries that share territory in the Amazon: the largest rainforest in the world. The Amazon region in Colombia covers 44.3%, and 64 of the country’s 115 native indigenous peoples live there. This natural and cultural heritage is invaluable for humanity and yet it faces great pressures that require diverse protection strategies to maintain its biological and cultural connectivity.
Today, the Amazon region is facing a rapid transformation driven by the construction of legal and illegal routes and hydroelectric plants, as well as the exploitation of hydrocarbons and mining, agricultural activities and illegal economies. In the scenario of these pressures, forest loss stands out as one of the most pressing challenges. According to the Atlas 'Amazonia Bajo Presión' - “Amazon Under Pressure” 2020, deforestation in the region reached 511,787 km2 in the last twenty years, (covering an area similar to the size of the continental territory of Spain), and 87.5% of this loss occurred outside Indigenous Territories and Natural Protected Areas of the Amazon.
The Colombian case is no less dramatic. For several years, Colombia has been part of the world ranking of countries with the greatest loss of forests, and in 2020 it ranked number six. In the midst of this breaking context, , the Colombian Amazon concentrates the greatest loss. For example, between 2000 and 2018, 66% of the country’s total deforestation occurred in this region, according to data from the Ideam Forest and Carbon Monitoring System.
Indigenous peoples and their knowledge systems have protected these vast territories for millennia, demonstrating that the most effective strategy to govern them, to protect the planet’s biodiversity and the health of ecosystems, is based on the traditional management derived from such systems.
In Colombia, the Forests for a Just Future Programme addresses the issue of deforestation -one of the country’s most serious environmental problems- and degradation, and unsustainable management of forests and wooded landscapes, in a context of climate change, gender inequality and inequity, and threats to the protection of human rights, as well as rights related to territory and local livelihoods.
This project is mainly developed in the Colombian Amazon: in the Northwest Colombian Amazon also known as the deforestation arc, which covers the departments of Caquetá, Guaviare and south of Meta; and also the Northest Colombian Amazon, which covers the departments of Amazonas, Vaupés and Guainía. The project also includes some actions in the Andean region (Santander), and Bogotá, as an advocacy hub to take actions with the National Government and State entities.
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Support to the exercise of democracy and diverse forms of participation of citizens beyond elections (15151); direct democracy instruments such as referenda and citizens' initiatives; support to organisations to represent and advocate for their members, to monitor, engage and hold governments to account, and to help citizens learn to act in the public sphere; curricula and teaching for civic education at various levels. (This purpose code is restricted to activities targeting governance issues. When assistance to civil society is for non-governance purposes use other appropriate purpose codes.)
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
59350
59650
60400
61400
62100
207300
60680
60680
34812
34812
302900
SCS1 # of laws and policies for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
This result shows the number of laws and policies that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
# of laws for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of laws that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no laws have been better implemented sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to better implement 1 laws for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on agro-industry and indigenous rights.
# of international agreements for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of international agreements that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no international agreements have been better implemented for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to better implement 3 international agreements for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on agro-industry and indigenous rights.
# of by-laws for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of by-laws that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no by-laws have been better implemented for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to better implement 5 by-laws for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on agro-industry and indigenous rights.
# of private sector company policies for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of private sector policies that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no private sector company policies have been better implemented for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
# of governmental policies for sustainable and inclusive development that are better implemented as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of governmental policies that are better implemented as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no governmental policies have been better implemented for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to better implement 1 government policies for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on agro-industry and indigenous rights.
SCS2 # of laws, policies and norms/attitudes, blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development
This result shows the number of laws, policies and norms/attitudes, blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development
# of by-laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of by-laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no by-laws have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to block, adopt or improve 2 by-laws for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on agro-industry and indigenous rights.
2 by-laws were blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement at midline. For example, the territorial management and administration of indigenous peoples is included as land use planning criteria in national legislation in February 2023.
# of private sector company policies blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of private sector company policies blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no private sector company policies have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
No target
# of governmental policies blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no governmental policies have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to block, adopt or improve 9 governmental policies for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on agro-industry and indigenous rights.
# of laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the number of laws blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no laws have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to block, adopt or improve 5 laws for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on agro-industry and indigenous rights.
# of international agreements blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
Measures the of international agreements blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of GLA efforts
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no international agreements have been blocked, adopted, improved for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement
The target of the GLA2 programme is to block, adopt or improve 1 international agreements for sustainable and inclusive development as a result of CSO engagement, specifically focusing on agro-industry and indigenous rights.
SCS3 # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage.
This result shows # of times that CSOs succeed in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage, as result of GLA efforts
# of advocacy initiatives carried out by CSOs, for, by or with their membership/constituency
Measures the advocacy initiatives carried out by CSOs, for, by or with their membership/constituency at national and international level
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no spaces were created to engage at national and international level as a result of for CSO engagement in the programme
No specific target formulated
CSOs succeeded in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage at national and international level 34 times. For example: The recognition of the indigenous territories as territorial entities as a key element for the protection of the Amazon that the national government has set as a goal.
# of advocacy initiatives carried out by CSOs, for, by or with their membership/constituency at sub-national level
Measures the advocacy initiatives carried out by CSOs, for, by or with their membership/constituency at sub-national
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no spaces were created to engage at sub-national level as a result of for CSO engagement in the programme
The aim of the programme is to increase the level of influence or participation in decision making by CSOs and IPLCs in more processes. In addition, the programme aims to increase the level of participation by women and young women/men in all processes. No specific target is defined in this case.
CSOs succeeded in creating space for CSO demands and positions through agenda setting, influencing the debate and/or creating space to engage at sub national level 10 times.
SCS5 # of CSOs with increased L&A capacities
This result shows the CSOs working in GLA with increased L&A capacities
# of women led CSOs with increased L&A capacities
Measures the number of 1st and 2nd ring partners that are led by women and have increased L&A capacities
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no CSO has yet increased L&A capcities as a result of the programme.
No 1st ring women led CSO partners are expected to increase their capacity over the course of the GLA2 programme in Colombia. No 2nd ring women led CSO partners have been included in this target value, as the GLA is a flexible adaptable program this can't be well estimated in advance.
NA
No specific annual target is set for this indicator
# of youth led CSOs with increased L&A capacities
Measures the number of 1st and 2nd ring partners that are led by youth and have increased L&A capacities
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no CSO has yet increased L&A capcities as a result of the programme.
No 1st ring youth led CSO partners are expected to increase their capacity over the course of the GLA2 programme in Colombia. No 2nd ring youth led CSO partners have been included in this target value, as the GLA is a flexible adaptable program this can't be well estimated in advance.
NA
No specific annual target is set for this indicator
# of CSOs (not youth or women led) with increased L&A capacities
Measures the number of 1st and 2nd ring partner that are not specifically led by women or youth and have inreased L&A capacities
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no CSO has yet increased L&A capcities as a result of the programme.
These are 1st ring 'not youth not women led' CSO partners that are expected to increase their capacity over the course of the GLA2 programme. No 2nd ring 'not youth not women led' CSO partners have been included in this target value, as the GLA is a flexible adaptable program this can't be well estimated in advance.
Four 1st ring CSOs with increased capacity on "Leadership and engagement among and with different groups to work collaboratively on advocacy activities" among other capacities. Seven 2nd ring partners strenghtened in "Issue-based knowledge (data) and information to build an advocacy campaign" among other capacities. The 2nd ring partners have been entered under SCS053 by default as not sure whether women or youth led.
No specific annual target is set for this indicator
In 2022, two 2nd ring CSOs increased capacity on lobby & advocacy, among other topics.
# of CSOs which are both women and youth led with increased L&A capacities
Measures the number of 1st and 2nd ring partner that are led by both women and youth and have inreased L&A capacities
At the beginning of the GLA2 programme no CSO has yet increased L&A capcities as a result of the programme.
No 1st ring 'women and youth led' CSO partners are expected to increase their capacity over the course of the GLA2 programme in Colombia. No 2nd ring 'women and youth led' CSO partners have been included in this target value, as the GLA is a flexible adaptable program this can't be well estimated in advance.
NA
No specific annual target is set for this indicator
NL-KVK-40530467-GLA-PoV-CentralCoordination
Milieudefensie
GLA-PoV-CentralCoordination
This activity file reports the finances of the GLA central coordination budget
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Milieudefensie
Support to the exercise of democracy and diverse forms of participation of citizens beyond elections (15151); direct democracy instruments such as referenda and citizens' initiatives; support to organisations to represent and advocate for their members, to monitor, engage and hold governments to account, and to help citizens learn to act in the public sphere; curricula and teaching for civic education at various levels. (This purpose code is restricted to activities targeting governance issues. When assistance to civil society is for non-governance purposes use other appropriate purpose codes.)
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Significant (secondary) policy objectives are those which, although important, were not the prime motivation for undertaking the activity.
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
Principal (primary) policy objectives are those which can be identified as being fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the activity. They may be selected by answering the question "Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?"
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
The score "not targeted" means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policy objective.
353050
356500
361100
365700
371352
281803
1807702
Milieudefensie
281803