The country wants to position itself as a strategic actor for the global green transition. Given the high production of renewable energies, Brazil is a potential producer and exporter of green hydrogen, mainly to the European Union. In addition, it has reserves of several critical minerals, such as niobium (currently it produces 92% of the global total) or rare earths (estimated to own 23% of world reserves).

Following ODG’s work on rare earths and COPs, we planned a tour of strategic meetings across the territory to meet communities, before the conference (11-22 November). From October 27 to November 11, 2026, two members of ODG travelled through Brazilian territory to meet resistance struggles to rare earth extractivism. We created new connections, exchanged knowledge and built joint mobilization strategies. The tour passed through the States of Bahia and Goiás, stopped in São Paulo to participate in the anti-extractivist meeting co-organised with the Ecosocial and Intercultural Pact of the South, and ended in Belém, in the State of Pará.

Extreme Southern Bahia: popular organising against mining

We met with activists from MAM, the Movement for the Popular Sovereignty of Mining, in Salvador de Bahia, to exchange experiences of resistance to extractivism and understand the political context. Afterards, we travelled to the southern region of this state. There, between the municipalities of Caravelas and Prado, we co-organized a Training School on rare earths, with the MAM and the MST (Movement of Rural Workers Without Land). There is a rare earth project in the area, owned by Energy Fuels, a US company that intends to extract ilmenite, rutile, zircon and monazite (which would contain rare earths). The company has an exploration permit but not yet for extraction. The seventeen concessions acquired by the company affect territories of the Pataxó indigenous people, as well as protected areas of artisan fishing and various settlements and land of the MST. Until now, the project was little known to local communities, but thanks to the school they began to articulate the resistance.

A total of 40 people participated in the school: members of the MST, the MAM, local councillors and representatives of indigenous communities. We shared the ODG’s work on rare earths, the experience of the communities of Madagascar fighting Energy Fuels portrayed in the report Neocolonialism in the name of the green transition, and we screened the documentary Land for Living (2025), which shows the voices of people resisting against three rare earth extraction projects in Madagascar.

Lastly, we went to Caravelas guided by a school participant, to see an area which would be directly impacted by the construction of mining infrastructures. We also met an artisan fisherman from the protected reserve.

São Paulo: Green colonialism and post-extractivist transitions event

We continued the tour to Sao Paulo, to meet members of the Ecosocial and Intercultural Pact of the South, at the event Green Colonialism and post-extractivist transitions. ODG researcher Julia Marti gave a presentation at the table on Ecosocial Transformations and Post-extractivist Futures, highlighting the importance of opening a dialogue between feminist and territorial struggles, and the emancipatory potential to transform the care and reproduction system of life.

Goiás: from niobium mining to the invisible threat of rare earths

From São Paulo we went to Catalão, in the State of Goias, a region that has suffered for years the impacts of the extraction and processing of niobium, which is also considered critical, especially for military applications. Brazil is the world’s leading producer of niobium (90% of the total). We visited the existing open pit niobium mines, which have displaced 1,500 peasant families since their start 50 years ago. We were accompanied by Marco, a peasant whose family had been displaced at the beginning of the mine and who, now, will have to relocate again. Currently, there is a phosphate and niobium mine, operated by Mosaic (from the United States), and another operated by a Chinese company called China Molybdenum Corp, which had previously been owned by Anglo American. Both companies have shown interest in extracting rare earths from their mines.

In fact, in the area there is a rare earth laboratory run by the Goiás administration, the government of Brazil and the university, a unique project of this kind in Brazil. However, the potential threat posed by the extraction of rare earths for the environment, daily life and health of communities is invisible and, for now, has not aroused large waves of resistance. Rare earths represent a very new subject and there is little knowledge. Mining (so far, of niobium and phosphates) is a reality in the area and the demands of the communities relate to better monetary compensations and the right to decide, but there is no frontal opposition. We interviewed Marco, an affected peasant, and Ricardo, a researcher at the University of Goiás (the capital) on mining. We also screened the short documentary Land for Living in Goiás, and discussed it with a group of researchers from the university of the capital.

Belém: social mobilisation for climate justice

The final destination of the tour was the city of Belem, to participate in the People’s Summit, the mobilizations for climate justice which took place across the city and to follow and do communication work around the COP30 negotiations. A young Malagasy activist joined is in Belem; we shared mobilisation spaces and networking. Among others, we participated in actions of the Debt for Climate Campaign and the Fossil Free Politics coalition. We were also at the big rally that filled the streets of Belem on Saturday, November 15 to call for climate justice.

After this experience, ODG is committed to continuing to collaborate with the groups we have met,  and to support the communities which defend their territories against rare earths’ extractivism, as well as to facilitate connections between the peoples of Madagascar and Brazil.

• For more pictures, see our Flickr.
• For more detailed information on Brasil’s green hydrogen and rare earths related plans, see the long read.

With the support of Rosa Luxemburgo Foundation.

The post Anti-extractivist tour in Brazil 2025 appeared first on ODG.

A week after the EU signed its first Clean Trade and Investment Partnership with South Africa, focusing on green hydrogen and critical minerals, 134 civil society organisations from across the globe are calling on the EU and its Member States to scrap their neocolonial green hydrogen import plans.

The EU intends to import 10 million tonnes of green hydrogen by 2030 from countries like South Africa, Chile, and Namibia. However, in an open letter released today, groups warn that the plan replicates the injustices of the fossil fuel era, sacrificing communities in the Global South for Europe’s decarbonisation goals.

According to the letter, the EU’s scramble for hydrogen will have devastating consequences for communities wherever it takes place. Large-scale, export-oriented hydrogen projects require vast amounts of land and water, leading to widespread land and water grabbing, often without the free, prior, and informed consent of local communities.

Yegeshni Moodley, Climate and Energy Campaigner at groundWork and one of the co-authors of the open letter, said: “Europe’s hydrogen plans reek of green colonialism, offering little tangible benefit to host countries like South Africa, robbing communities of their available resources to transition to clean, safe energy.”

These impacts are laid out in a new documentary by Corporate Europe Observatory, premiering in Brussels on 27 November, which features interviews with South African communities on the front lines of proposed hydrogen projects.

While the EU talks about green hydrogen made from renewable electricity, campaigners also fear that it is a Trojan horse for hydrogen made from fossil fuels, as there will not be enough green electricity to make hydrogen and decarbonise the economy.

Pascoe Sabido, Researcher and Campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory and one of the co-authors of the open letter, said: “The EU wants to import vast quantities of green hydrogen to decarbonise its own economy, but it has utterly ignored the voices of those directly impacted by the projects. It needs to scrap its unrealistic plans and start listening to frontline communities rather than the hydrogen lobby, which is little more than the fossil fuel industry in disguise.”

Tell the EU: No to Green Hydrogen Imports

134 civil society organisations call on European leaders to scrap the EU Commission’s target of importing 10 million tonnes of green hydrogen by 2030 and end all financial support for green hydrogen imports. Instead, EU governments must meet their climate goals through domestic efforts and by rapidly phasing out fossil fuels.

The European Union wants to import 10 million tonnes of green hydrogen by 2030, targeting countries such as Chile, Colombia, Morocco, Namibia, Tunisia, and South Africa. This goal, aggressively pushed by corporate and fossil fuel industry interests and their lobby groups, is not only unrealistic. It is unjust, inefficient, and rooted in a neocolonial model that prioritises flawed European energy agendas over the rights, needs, and futures of communities in the Global South. And despite the promise to increase European energy security, shifting from one imported commodity to another will only deepen Europe’s energy reliance on its peripheries. The EU cannot claim to lead a green and just transition while advancing energy colonialism abroad.

More than 80 groups from Africa, Europe and the world already said no to the SoutH2 Corridor, intended to transport hydrogen from North Africa to Germany. They recognised the problem was not limited to one pipeline, exposing the flaws of large scale, export oriented hydrogen production projects and calling for governments to “stop investing in large scale hydrogen production and transport projects that are blocking the construction of a just energy model for communities across Europe and Africa.” Nor is the problem limited to one continent.

Wherever it takes place, large-scale production of green hydrogen requires enormous amounts of land, water, and renewable energy. For producing countries, this means displacing communities, grabbing land, overexploiting scarce water sources, and redirecting renewable energy that could be used for local development. All of this is done in the name of meeting Europe’s decarbonisation targets, while offering little to no benefit to the people on the ground. If green hydrogen is to be developed, it should be for local use, not European factories, but renewable energy must first and foremost be used to meet local needs and rights, not as a commodity to be extracted and shipped abroad. Europe cannot transition its own economy on the backs of those in the Global South.

Why We Say No to Green Hydrogen Imports

Impacts on producing countries’ communities

• Land and water grabbing: export-driven hydrogen projects require vast amounts of land and water, often acquired through dispossession of local communities with no free, prior, and informed consent.
• Access to energy: renewable energy infrastructure is being built not for local benefit, but for European markets, while local populations often lack adequate access to energy.
• No local decent jobs or real development: despite the promises of governments and big companies, these projects will create few employment opportunities and fail to significantly contribute to local economies, while simultaneously destroying existing livelihoods.

A neocolonial and extractivist model

• Not a just transition: these imports reflect a continuation of extractivist practices, where natural resources are taken from the Global South to power the economies of the Global North, while the social, environmental and economic costs are left behind.
• All European: most of the companies involved will be European, the technology European, the consumers European, and therefore the profits also “European”, going straight into the pockets of a few large multinational corporations.
• Debt and risk on producing countries: Donor countries provide mainly loans and guarantees for European corporations and banks, while governments in producing countries are expected to use public funds to provide the counter-guarantees needed to de-risk private investments, pushing debt burdens onto already struggling public finances of governments in the Global South.

Sustaining a fossil fuel economy

• Trojan horse for fossil fuels: oil and gas companies publicly promote green hydrogen while privately ensuring fossil hydrogen is considered “clean” and “low carbon”, prolonging the extraction of gas and locking-in failed technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS).
• Business as usual for big polluters: fossil fuel-reliant polluters like ArcelorMittal have used the promise of green hydrogen tomorrow to continue with business as usual today.
• Prolongs fossil fuel infrastructure: so-called “hydrogen-ready” infrastructure is being used to transport, store and burn fossil gas, which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
• Delays the transition: instead of rapidly phasing out coal, oil and gas and investing in local, democratic publicly-owned renewable energy systems, the EU is keeping fossil fuel corporations in control.

Economic nonsense

• Expensive and inefficient: producing and exporting green hydrogen over long distances is economically unviable. It requires enormous subsidies and infrastructure costs.
• Paid by taxpayers and local communities: European taxpayers will subsidise hydrogen imports while being exposed to increasing energy insecurity and climate disasters. In the Global South, communities pay through land loss, water stress, and long-term debt. Meanwhile large corporations profit on both sides.

We call on the European Union and its Member States to:

1. Scrap the target of 10 million tonnes of green hydrogen imports by 2030 and commit to meeting national climate goals through domestic efforts and rapidly phasing out fossil fuels.
2. End all public subsidies and financial support for green hydrogen import infrastructure and export-oriented hydrogen production projects abroad.
3. Support countries in the Global South with their own just transitions, rooted in sustainability, social justice and ensuring local energy democracy. The same big polluters that caused the climate crisis should be paying for it.

The EU must not pursue a green transition that replicates the injustices of the fossil fuel era. Green hydrogen imports are a false solution that serve corporate agendas while deepening global inequality. They should not be at the heart of free trade deals, energy partnerships or clean trade and investment partnerships. A truly just energy transition is global in scale, not European, and it must centre people and communities, not corporate profits. We demand an energy future rooted in climate justice and equity for all.

No to green hydrogen imports. No to energy colonialism. Yes to just energy models for communities in the Global South, in Europe and everywhere.

Original article and media contact

The post More than 130 groups call on EU to scrap green hydrogen import targets appeared first on ODG.

Article by Clàudia Custodio Martínez, researcher in climate justice, Debt Observatory in Globalisation 

The 30th edition of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (more commonly known as COP30) ended on the evening of Saturday, 22 November—a full day behind schedule, and with widespread dissatisfaction. There is a recurring feeling of emptiness whenever a summit draws to a close. Two weeks of meetings, protests, dashes through dark hallways, tropical temperatures and wildly misadjusted air conditioning end in disappointing agreements. What happened in Belém, the Brazilian host city? Has any progress been made in the fight against climate change?

The climate conferences that have been held since 1995 are the only space for countries to work together on addressing the crisis. Every state in the world (or at least those recognized by the UN) has a voice, and decisions are made by consensus. In addition to countries, participants include NGOs, companies, universities, representatives from local governments, members of the media, as observers. However, after thirty years of insufficient progress and in a context of escalating geopolitical tensions, the COPs have lost their legitimacy. The withdrawal of the United States, historically the world’s foremost emitter of greenhouse gases, is just another sign of how multilateralism is teetering on the edge of the abyss. The results of COP30 must be read in this context. The role of the presidency—held this year by Brazil—is to navigate differences between countries to reach agreements and move towards the goals of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

this conference was characterized by a great deal of opacity

Despite the gravity of the climate crisis, the agreements made at climate change summits are characterized by ambiguity and a lack of concreteness. Decision-making by consensus means that texts are watered down until they are acceptable to all those present. Seen from the outside, it is hard to understand why battles are fought over the verbs and concepts that appear in the final text. But in the setting of the United Nations, language matters. An analysis by Carbon Brief of this COP’s framework text (the Mutirão) clearly illustrates this: of 101 verbs, 69 are not active. Simply put, this means that they do not require that anything be done. For example, “Recognizes the centrality of the best available science […] provided by the IPCC” means just that: recognizing it, but not acting on it.

The firestorm on the penultimate day of the negotiations added plenty of drama to a COP that, due to a lack of information, was losing the media’s interest. Indeed, this conference was characterized by a great deal of opacity: negotiations behind closed doors were justified by the presidency as “shuttle diplomacy”—a strategy for negotiations between countries with evident geopolitical tensions. This method hindered the work of the observers: we were unable to access the texts slated for approval until the near-final drafts were ready. At the same time, this did nothing to find solutions to the most controversial issues.

Anyone who does not follow the negotiations at the COPs may find it surprising that the main cause of global warming—the burning of fossil fuels—does not appear in the final agreement. This is nothing new; in fact, not even the Paris Agreement mentions it. Nevertheless, COP28 in Dubai did manage to recognize a desire to “transition away from fossil fuels”. At this conference, Lula announced that we would soon have a roadmap to implement that transition. The struggle to put it together came to naught: although more than 80 countries voted in favour, the 193 negotiating parties failed to reach a consensus (due to opposition from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia), and any references to fossil fuels disappeared. In the final plenary, everyone was shocked when Colombia stated that it would refuse to approve the mitigation work programme (the package that, in theory, would allow for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) unless it included the acknowledgement that fossil fuels must be abandoned to achieve it. After the commotion and a one-hour break for consultations, the presidency dismissed Colombia’s request, stating that it had been made too late and, as a result, the documents had already been approved. Meanwhile, Colombia had already announced that it would organize the first International Congress for the Phase-Out of Fossil Fuels… and that anyone who wanted to attend was welcome to come.

the necessary funding was not secured

Another central issue at this COP was the elaboration of a list of indicators to measure adaptation to climate change. Fifty-nine were eventually passed, although several countries found them insufficient and vague. Furthermore, the necessary funding was not secured. Adapting to climate change is a matter of life and death—and yes, it costs money. We know this well when we talk about adapting buildings so they can serve as climate refuges, or preventing disasters like the DANA floods that devastated the Valencian Country. Nevertheless, the countries of the Global North refused to commit to contributing what was requested. The final text calls on wealthy countries to triple existing adaptation funds by 2035, without specifying the baseline and using extremely vague language.

Brazil did not even achieve a commitment to halt deforestation—holding the COP in the heart of the Amazon rainforest was not enough. At the start of the conference, a new fund to protect tropical forests was presented (TFFF, or the Tropical Forest Forever Facility), and some countries signed on. Nevertheless, this fund is voluntary; it is backed by private capital, and was criticized by citizen groups for relying on market mechanisms to raise funding. By contrast, a roadmap to curb deforestation—which would have been more effective—was not included in COP30’s final results.

We have no choice but to continue organizing to move towards climate justice in a hostile context.

In spite of these bleak circumstances, a bit of good news from COP30 was the approval of a coordination mechanism for a just transition. This was achieved thanks to the hard work of citizen organizations, which widely celebrated the agreement to “develop” the mechanism. To unblock the phase-out of fossil fuels, we need a just transition that ensures that no one is left behind. This is the first time that the protection of rights (labour rights, human rights, the right to a healthy environment, the right to free, prior, and informed consent…) has been included to this degree in the results of a COP. Although it is worrying that references to critical minerals and the impacts of their extraction were eliminated from the final text due to pressures from countries like Russia and China, there are many other reasons to celebrate. The mechanism for a just transition is the first step towards placing social justice at the centre of climate action.

Also worth celebrating is that the Peoples’ Summit brought together more than 10,000 activists who believe that the climate crisis will not be solved through negotiations among elites. It had been four years since a civil-society summit was held alongside a COP; the last three host countries had not permitted it. This counter-summit was extremely powerful, with representatives from a wide range of citizen movements and indigenous communities from across Brazil—and, most of all, from across the Amazon. The defence of territorial rights played a key role in preparing the demands, and the participants even succeeded in forcing Brazil to recognize ten new indigenous land demarcations.

Ten years ago, in Paris, we took to the streets for climate justice, and a historic agreement was reached. This agreement had many shortcomings, and even failed to mention fossil fuels. Nevertheless, in the end, it was ratified by all countries and has served as a point of reference in the difficult path towards addressing the climate emergency. COP30 in Brazil fell short and made it clear that changes are needed—among other things, in how the COPs function. But abandoning multilateralism entirely is not an option in the face of a global crisis. We have no choice but to continue organizing to move towards climate justice in a hostile context.

The post COP30 fails once again in its attempt to halt the climate emergency appeared first on ODG.

* The DANA (Depresión Aislada en Niveles Altos, lit. Isolated Depression at High Levels, also known as a “cut-off low”) is a weather event that led to the catastrophic floods of October 2024 in Valencia.

On 29 October 2024, a flash flood claimed the lives of 229 residents of Valencia’s “Horta Sud” district and changed the lives of thousands of people forever. The risks posed by this cold drop had been detected days earlier by the AEMET. The lack of action on the part of the public administration exacerbated this danger, to the point of leaving hundreds of people going about their daily lives with no escape route: they did not receive the warning that should have been issued by the Valencian Regional Government. The most impoverished areas were the most affected and hardest hit by the floods.

What has happened during the year since the tragedy? Who has been able to access the financial resources allocated for recovery after the emergency? Has normality been restored to the streets of Algemesí, Benetússer, Paiporta, Alfafar, Picanya, Massanassa, Catarroja…? We have investigated the funds allocated to repair the damage caused by the DANA and to rebuild the towns covered with mud. The results of this investigation are presented in the Sota Focus report in La Directa 593, written by Ester Fayos and Eloi Latorre. According to the article, while the devastation in homes, businesses, and public spaces in the poorest neighbourhoods remains, large companies and establishments have resumed operations with the support of direct aid, guarantees, and public loans.

See the English version here:

“Life after DANA”, report by Ester Fayos, in collaboration with ODG
“Reconstruction contracts: plenty of urgency and little transparency”, report by Eloi Latorre, in collaboration with ODG.

‘Directa 593’

The Spanish government made €16.6 billion available, and the Valencian Regional Government set aside €772.5 billion. This emergency recovery budget is to be distributed among individuals, self-employed workers and affected businesses. Of the Spanish allocation, as of last July, Pedro Sánchez’s government had paid out almost €6 billion, 37% of the total. Carlos Mazón’s government had distributed more than €283 million by August, 36% of the allocation. So far, it is large companies rather than the local population that have received a direct, rapid and almost unconditional flow of money.

This is like that under the assumption that to ensure the well-being of the population we need to keep the capitalist wheel turning and growth from stagnating. It is not questioned that large companies are bailed out, or that they should be subject to any obligations, such as guaranteeing jobs or promoting reconstruction adapted to climate change, points out Júlia Martí, ODG researcher in ecofeminism and the defence of the commons. Together with Marta Pérez Fargas, the political coordinator of ODG, they have traced all asignments for construction works and services by the authorities linked to the impacts of this episode of extreme weather.

Specifically, ODG has investigated emergency contracts, which were activated immediately after the rains, but which have not always been allocated to basic life-sustaining needs. These are services that can be assigned with just a phone call, without the need to sign papers or tender, and the company can start working immediately. Due to the lack of information, especially from the Valencian Regional Government, it is very difficult to know the terms of the contract and to verify whether it has been carried out as agreed. It is therefore almost impossible to audit either the contracted company or the contracting authority.

Rut Moyano, member of the Local Emergency and Reconstruction Committee (CLER) of Benetússer, talks about the impact of the DANA on the population in episode 30 of the Desenredades podcast: “Mud floods and speculation”. Normality is still far from returning to the streets of “Horta Sud”. Firstly, because hundreds of residents have deceased, who are no longer here and will not return. At the time of the disaster, this survivor recalls, “literally, the neighbours saved our lives. It was the community that had the capacity to respond immediately. But as the months have passed, now a year, the lack of coordination between administrations has become increasingly evident. And above all, it is clear that there are priorities. Private companies are already up and running again,‘ says Moyano. ’There have been spare parts and labour to repair the lifts in shopping centres. But many residents are forced to remain locked down to their homes because their lifts have not yet been repaired and they cannot use the stairs,” she complains.

The government’s list of priorities has even placed a recreational motorcycling track before schools, health centres, sports centres and parks and squares in the affected towns. The emotional impact is compounded by economic difficulties and bureaucratic obstacles to accessing scarce aid, which does not cover the cost of recovering from such a disaster. Spaces for socialising and guaranteeing rights remain inaccessible to a large part of the residents of “Horta Sud”. Faced with this inaction, it is once again the neighbourhood that is making efforts to recover their homes, their neighbourhoods and their rights, as demonstrated by the CLERs and the massive citizen mobilisations that have been taking to the streets in the last year to demand justice, reparations and dignity.

The post One year after the DANA appeared first on ODG.

In an increasingly warming world, the 30th edition of the Conference of the Parties (COP30) returns to Brasil since the Earth Summit that took place in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, when the United Nations Framework Convention was adopted. Ten years after
the Paris Agreement, countries will meet in Brazil to, according to the presidency, put forward its the implementation.

Governed by Lula Da Silva, the country wants to stand out from the presidencies of previous COPs and demonstrate its climate ambition, while not giving up on promoting new oil extraction projects in Brazilian territory. The government is going for a capitalist green transition, following the dynamics promoted by the Global North but also China, which see decarbonization as a business opportunity.

This time the city designated to host the summit has been Belem, located in the state of Pará in the Amazon. The decision has spurred much criticism, due to the lack of infrastructure to host an event of this size and the high prices of accommodation. The controversies are multiple. Celebrating COP30 in the middle of the Amazon gives visibility to the importance of forests as carbon sinks and to the populations that defend them. At the same time, the COP has been used to justify the construction of infrastructure such as roads and buildings, which have generated environmental destruction and forced the relocation of people who lived near the affected areas. Furthermore, in a city where 60% of the population lives in favelas, hotels have been built at inaccessible prices to accommodate the delegations participating in the summit.

This COP is also marked by increased geopolitical tensions, war escalation, trade disputes between countries and the erosion of multilateralism. The absence of the United States will also be noticeable: on the one hand, it can facilitate reaching agreements between countries and, on the other, it places more responsibility on other historical emitters such as the EU and China.

Discover the pitfalls and opportunities of COP30 in Brasil

The post COP30 in Brasil: pitfalls and opportunities 10 years after the Paris Agreement appeared first on ODG.

15.000 personas de 150 países, representantes estatales, más de 1.000 entidades de la sociedad civil y 6.000 delegadas del sector privado han participado en la Cuarta Conferencia de Naciones Unidos sobre Financiación para el Desarrollo (Ffd4 en sus siglas de inglés). De todas estas participantes, solamente las delegaciones oficiales de la ONU tenían voz y voto para aprobar el Documento final que tenía que salir de este encuentro, el llamado Compromiso de Sevilla. Los temas claves de esta conferencia incluían la deuda soberana, la fiscalidad internacional, la financiación de la cooperación al desarrollo y la reforma de las instituciones financieras internacionales. Así lo resumía Mar Sala, en una colaboración con la periodista audiovisual, para explicar qué ha pasado estos días en Sevilla.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Mar Sala 🎥 (@mar.sala)

Sin embargo, el documento ya estaba cerrado antes de que empezase esta cita multilateral. Pero podría haber sido un resultado distinto, ya que tras los focos, el Sur Global decantaba la balanza hacia una reforma sustancial del sistema económico-financiero y de su gobernanza. Lo ha impedido el bloqueo de los países del Norte Global, en especial la UE y el Reino Unido. Así lo resume Nicola Scherer, investigadora del ODG en justicia financiera, en un artículo para Público:

“Las grandes protagonistas —invisibilizadas— han sido las alianzas entre Estados del Sur Global, en concreto el Grupo Africano (54 Estados), el Grupo de los Países más empobrecidos (LDC, 44 Estados) y la Alianza de Pequeños Estados Insulares (AOSIS, 39 Estados). Durante las negociaciones han apoyado demandas transformadoras: crear un convenio marco de Naciones Unidas vinculante sobre Deuda Soberana y otro para la cooperación internacional al desarrollo; democratizar el Fondo Monetario Internacional y el Banco Mundial, dando voz y veto a los países del Sur Global; la necesidad de controlar los poderosos fondos de inversiones privados (como Blackrock, JP Morgan, etc.) y regular las agencias de rating (Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s y Fitch Rating). Por desgracia, estas demandas han sido finalmente rebajadas en el Compromiso de Sevilla, o directamente excluidas, en la última ronda de negociación que se llevó a cabo quince días antes de la Conferencia a puerta cerrada”.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Observatori del Deute en la Globalització (@observatori_odg)

La sociedad civil hemos denunciado la falta de ambición del Compromiso de Sevilla con una manifestación histórica, ya que a excepción de las COP, ha sido la primera vez que se autoriza una movilización política dentro del recinto que acoge una cimera de la ONU. Esta acción también denunciaba la disparidad de trato que ha recibido el poder corporativo y financiero, ya que mientras la sociedad civil tenía su Foro Social dos días antes del programa oficial y en un hotel alejado del FIBES, la ONU permitió al sector privado organizar su Business Forum los mismos días de la Conferencia y en el mismo recinto de Naciones Unidas. Para Scherer, esto refleja a plena luz del día la complicidad entre multinacionales y agencias financieras, y el espacio político de decisión global. 

Como explica Stéfano Prato, portavoz del Mecanismo de la sociedad civil en esta FfD4, “no hay democracia real si la sociedad civil, con todas sus voces, experiencias e historias, no puede participar de manera profunda y significativa en el proceso” del Compromiso de Sevilla. “Nos vemos expulsados exclusivamente a un rol de audiencia, en el que solamente podemos escuchar lo que los Estados miembros están discutiendo. Mientras, tienden la alfombra roja a la participación del sector privado”, señala en el segundo vídeo colaborativo con Sala.

Como contrapropuesta a medidas más ambiciosas, los países acreedores del Norte Global ofrecen falsas soluciones como los canjes de deuda por naturaleza, es decir, la cancelación puntual de una parte de la deuda externa de los países empobrecidos a cambio de acción climática (la protección de un bosque, una reserva marina…). Estos canjes de deuda han resultado ineficientes para resolver la crisis de deuda, y han sido criticados por ser poco trasparentes, perpetuando dinámicas de poder de los países acreedores sobre los países endeudados.  Por otra parte, también denunciamos la falta de concreción en la implementación del Compromiso de Sevilla, ya que no hay sobre la mesa una hoja de ruta clara, con fechas y herramientas de fiscalización que marquen los próximos pasos a seguir para los Estados participantes en la FfD4. Os resumimos las conclusiones en este vídeo con Mar Sala:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Mar Sala 🎥 (@mar.sala)

El Foro Feminista y el Foro Social

Una de las cuestiones clave en esta conferencia de la ONU ha sido el vínculo entre deuda y emergencia climática. Se ha visto especialmente en el marco del Foro Feminista y del Foro Social, organizados fuera del programa oficial de la FfD4, con la participación de centenares de entidades de todas partes del mundo.

“La  deuda y la emergencia climática están muy relacionadas. Forman parte de un círculo vicioso”, expone Carola Mejía, de Latindadd. “Los países altamente endeudados están destinando más de su presupuesto a pagar sus deudas, que a educación, sanidad, y a la agenda climática. Tienen menos dinero público para responder ante emergencias”, como los fenómenos climáticos extremos, que van en aumento. “Cuando pasa un evento así, tienen que recurrir a más deuda”, denuncia Mejía.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Mar Sala 🎥 (@mar.sala)

Bonus track: ¿Cómo es el backstage de una conferencia de la ONU?

Como último contenido, os compartimos un Vlog sobre estos días de FfD4, captando el ambiente dentro del recinto y preguntando qué impactos tienen eventos de estas dimensiones para la población local.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Observatori del Deute en la Globalització (@observatori_odg)

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Este proyecto está cofinanciado por la Unión Europea. Sus contenidos son solo responsabilidad del ODG y no reflejan necesariamente las opiniones de la Unión Europea.

The post Falta de ambición en un Compromiso de Sevilla aguado #FfD4 appeared first on ODG.

Today, we are launching the Era of Justice campaign -a call to the public in Europe to join forces and support the global movement for a fairer, more equitable world. The campaign is about the interconnections between economic justice, climate justice and gender justice. It aims to mobilise European citizens (particularly, young people) to take action and hold European leaders to account.

The campaign is a collaboration between ACEP, CNCD.11.11.11, CCFD – Terre Solidaire, erlassjahr, Eurodad, Financial Justice Ireland, Reflex, Za Zemiata, and ODG – Debt Observatory in Globalisation. In the next four years, this coalition will launch actions to support the global movement for structural change and interconnected justice. 

The first action is focused on influencing European leaders ahead of the 4th UN Financing for Development Conference (FfD4) in Sevilla, Spain. It is the first time an FfD conference has been held on European soil. This conference will be a once-in-a-decade opportunity for governments to back meaningful change to the global economic system.

Find out more at eraofjustice.org. It is a campaign hub which offers ways for citizens to raise their voices in support of economic, climate and gender justice, including social media templates, videos, petitions and soon training opportunities.

_______________________________________________

This campaign is co-funded by the European 
Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of the ODG and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

The post Era of Justice: economic, climate and gender justice, starting at FfD4 appeared first on ODG.

In Madagascar there is currently an existing rare earthsmining operation, in Tolagnaro, and two projects that are not yet active, in Toliara and in the Ampasindava peninsula. Rare earths mining on this island is an example of neocolonialism in the name of the green transition driven by the Global North. The impact of raw materials mining on resource-rich territories in the Global South is added on the top of historical debt of the colonial and extractivist legacy. The energy and digital transition is driven by green extractivism.

The short documentary was filmed during field work on the island, and the editing was done by the audiovisual cooperative Bruna. It is available on our Youtube channel in Malagasy, with subtitles in Catalan, Spanish, English and French. In July 2024, two people from the ODG staff travelled to Madagascar on a fact-finding mission to deepen understanding of community experiences at the frontline of potential rare earths mining projects in the country. This research would not have been possible without collaboration with the local organization CRAAD-OI. All information is based on more than 18 interviews with communities, traditional leaders, activists and researchers in the country.

Would you like to organize a screening? The documentary is available as a tool for debate and awareness for groups and organizations. If you would like to set up a film forum, you can get in touch via formacio@odg.cat, and we can organize it together.

Neocolonialism in the name of the green transition

s the climate crisis accelerates, the green transition has become a catchphrase. At the same time, polarization is increasing, along with the advancement of digital capitalism, and securitization is once again on the agenda of world powers. In this context, and in a world with limited resources, controlling raw materials is key. Both the short film and the publication with the results of the research are available online. This research arises from the need to shedlight on both who stands to benefit and who bears the burden of the new race for raw materials and the global dynamics that accelerate these processes in the name of the transition to a “green” and low carbon world.

“it is a fake narrative to say that the energy transition is “the perfect world”, because somewhere, someone is going to pay for it with their life and their blood”.

The objective is to expand the previous work of the Observatory of Debt in Globalization (ODG) of critical analysis of the energy transition and the corporate capture of it, as we did with our research on the extraction of lithium in Chile and Argentina. It also continues the joint work done with international allies under the umbrella of the Rare Earth Elements Group and the Observatory of Critical Minerals, co-created by the ODG as members of ENCO.

This documentary was co-funded by the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of the Observatori del Deute en la Globalització (ODG) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

The post ‘Land, for living. Resistance to green extractivism in Madagascar’ appeared first on ODG.

For two days, the member organizations and allies of the Eurodad network have met to work together on strategies that promote finance justice. This International Conference arrives a few months before the FfD4, scheduled for next July, in Seville. Around 200 people have been present at the #EurodadIC, and even more have joined us online.

“FfD4 should be a feminist agenda” panel

The Financing for Development agenda, with its focus on domestic resource mobilization, international development cooperation, private finance, sovereign debt and systemic issues, is deeply gendered. The fourth Financing for Development Conference (FfD4) takes place at a time of complex and interconnected crises that have made the feminist agenda for social, economic and climate justice more urgent and challenging. Women are more vulnerable during crises because of gender-based biases and beliefs that prevent them from accessing decision-making spaces and resources, pushing them to become overrepresented in the unprotected, precarious, and often neglected informal sector as well as in the most affected sectors such as healthcare services and the care economy. Another area of significant impact on the feminist agenda is widespread austerity across all countries. Public sector cuts have devastating impacts on women in particular. Climate chaos and environmental degradation has added pressure on resources that women and girls are dependent on for their health, safety and livelihoods.

These problems are compounded by the debt crisis. Emergency interventions like the Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI), the creation of a Resilience and Sustainability Trust, the issuance of IMF Special Drawing Rights of the value of US$650 billion, the Common Framework for Debt Treatments and the Debt Round Tables have provided some relief. However, the weakness or insufficiency of these responses are largely driven by structural weaknesses and inequalities in international financial architecture including a failure to address the extractivist nature of the dominant economic model, an important pillar of which is the exploitation of unpaid or highly undervalued work in the care economy in which women are overrepresented.

FfD4 comes at a unique moment of geopolitical challenges and opportunities to address these weaknesses and inequalities and move towards a feminist vision of social, economic and climate justice: a just transition that replaces the global extractive economy, and shifts to a regenerative economy, based on community resilience, social equity and ecological and social care and wellbeing. How can we make the most of this moment to advance the feminist agenda?

This session took place during Eurodad International Conference 2025 in Barcelona. Moderated by Isabel Iparraguirre (Alianza por la Solidaridad-ActionAid Spain). Speakers: Corina Rodríguez Enríquez (economist and executive committee member of DAWN), Shereen Talaat (director and founder of MENA Fem), Lidy Nacpil (Coordinator of Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development – AMPDD), Wangari Kinoti (global lead for women’s rights and feminist alternatives of ActionAid International), Júlia Marti Comas (commons and ecofeminisms researcher, Debt Observatory in Globalization – ODG).

“Financing for Development: how local struggles challenge global agendas” panel

We shared different perspectives on the priorities and needs of civil society and grassroots movements at local level. The aim was to make visible and discuss the importance of the issues of the Financing for Development Conference (FfD4) for their struggles. This session took place at Eurodad Conference 2025 in Barcelona and was co-organised by Debt Observatory in Globalization (ODG), Oxfam Intermón and Alianza por la Solidaridad-ActionAid Spain. Moderated by Sandra Vicente (journalist of El Diario). Speakers: Susana Ruíz (Tax Justice Policy Lead of Oxfam Intermón), Virginia Soler-Birch (activist and co-founder of the Climate Sessions), Montserrat Pineda Lorenzo (Director at Creación Positiva), Beatriz Cantero (Mujeres Pa Lante).

The post Eurodad International Conference 2025 appeared first on ODG.

The Critical Minerals Observatory is a new initiative from the European Network of Corporate Observatories (ENCO); a knowledge hub (critical space) to exchange ideas, resources and develop collaborative research. This Observatory will look at the strategies of transnational corporations and governments (in the Global North) to secure supplies of critical minerals in the name of the energy transition.

The aim is to provide civil society organizations, media, and public authorities with information and tools to better understand the impacts and strategies of transnational corporations and financial players in global supply chains of transition minerals. Through the development of data, case studies, and critical research reports, the Observatory seeks to strengthen public debate on these issues, supporting advocacy activities and mobilizing civil society and movements.

The observatory will highlight how these corporate strategies can affect people and the planet, creating new sacrifice zones, while giving more power to the wealthiest and ultimately undermining the energy transformation that Europe actually needs. It will also shed light on who rips the benefits, through the publication and dissemination of media articles and in-depth reports.

The Observatory is now online, featuring case studies of critical minerals and scrutinizing the corporate interests behind them.

The first contributions of ODG to this Observatory are:

• Rare Earths Elements Impacts and conflicts map
• The mine, the factory and the store
• To be launched soon: a case study of Rare Earths mining in Madagascar

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

The post The Critical Minerals Observatory is born appeared first on ODG.