Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Big Tech’s digital trade agenda is a danger for farmers and food systems

Published

on

Criticism against Big Tech’s digital crusade is growing, along with demands for greater regulation. Yet, through underhand tactics such as trade deals, tech companies are blocking reform. Their recent focus on agriculture threatens our food systems. In order to rein in their growing power over them, it is crucial to expose what is happening behind the scenes and build movements to stop it.

It is not easy to evade the power and influence of Big Tech companies in everyday life, even for those living in rural communities in the global South where internet access is often limited.

Anyone searching for information on the internet, whether in Brazil, India or Kenya, will most likely use Google’s search engine.1 If they are in China, they will probably use Baidu’s. If they need to connect with their family or friends, they will probably use one of Meta’s social media or messaging platforms, like Facebook, which controls 75% of the global social media market, and 83% in Africa.2 When ordering food delivery in Brazil, they will most likely turn to the iFood platform (which holds 80% of the market), and if in Southeast Asia, they will almost certainly use Grab.3

Such digital monopolies enable tech companies to gather huge amounts of data from billions of people. This power is in turn being used to expand their control over developments in artificial intelligence (AI). Today, eight of the ten largest corporations in the world are tech companies. Each of them has a market value greater than the GDP of 93% of all countries.4

People around the world are waking up to the dangers of this corporate power. The Big Tech companies and their billionaire owners are taking over the media, backing far-right political parties, providing support to militaries committing war crimes, and collaborating with governments to curtail human rights.5 And they have an agenda for the food system too. Big Tech companies are converging with the largest agribusiness corporations, vacuuming up the data of small-scale food producers, workers and consumers with barely any oversight or limitations and then using that data against their interests.

Mass data grabbing across the food system

The world’s largest seed, pesticide and fertiliser companies have access to a constant stream of data from farms stretching across tens of millions of hectares– from Brazil to China– by way of digital apps installed on the smart phones and tractors of farmers. The information is stored on the clouds of Big Tech companies, like Microsoft’s Azure and Amazon’s AWS.

The clouds also store data from a growing number of government programmes collected to develop national digital databases and services for farmers. The Indian government’s new digital database, Agri Stack, for example, was developed with Microsoft and gives the company detailed information on 80 million Indian farmers, from land records to health histories.6 Agri Stack is the blueprint for other national digital farm registries that the Gates Foundation and the World Bank are pushing forward in several countries, beginning with Ethiopia and Kenya.7 Farmers increasingly have little choice but to hand over their data to corporations in order to access extension services, get loans and subsidies, or purchase inputs and machinery.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food and others have been raising concerns about how this corporate control over data can harm farmers.8 Agribusiness companies, for example, can use their chatbots and digital apps to push farmers into buying their seeds, pesticides and fertilisers. When the chatbot advice fails, there is little farmers can do to get compensation, and even just switching to another platform can be difficult. The clear overall trend is that corporations are using their digital platforms to entrench a top-down flow of information that gives farmers less and less autonomy over how they farm.

Companies can also sell data they collect on farmers to third-parties who may use that information in ways that harms the interests of farmers. This is what happened with the Bayer-Microsoft collaboration in India, where farmer data was sold to food companies who then used the data to squeeze farmers on prices.9

And it is not just on the farm. Mass data harvesting is happening at all points of the food system, with ever more integration. China’s largest online retailer, Alibaba, for instance, connects its newly created digital agriculture division with its e-commerce and food delivery platforms that generate data on the preferences and behaviour of over 800 million consumers.10 Retailers can use online and in-store sales data to build profiles of their consumers and then encourage them to buy certain products or adjust prices to what they determine each customer will be willing to pay– a practice called surveillance pricing.11 Online food delivery platforms are also notorious for using their access and control over data on their drivers to coerce them into working long hours for low pay.12

There is growing criticism and resistance to these and other tactics used by tech companies. So, to fight back against any measures that might restrain their ambitions, tech companies are investing big time in influencing politicians. In 2025 alone, they spent US$170 million on lobbying in the European Union and US$109 million in the US.13 They also rely on another less visible but equally important tool to entrench their agendas and shield themselves from public accountability: digital trade deals.

Unpacking Big Tech’s digital trade agenda

Digital trade gets addressed in the e-commerce or digital chapters included in free trade agreements (FTA), or directly in bilateral or regional digital trade agreements. These texts are heavily influenced by tech corporations, especially where it comes to ensuring their control over data, restricting the access of others to their source codes and algorithms, and limiting the ability of governments to tax digital services.

The corporate agenda is heavily backed by the US government, which is home to the majority of Big Tech companies. The industry’s demands are included in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and all other agreements negotiated by the US. But they are also included in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the negotiations for the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), in which the US is not a party. With some nuances, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the European Union follow a similar path (see Box).

The tech company agenda embedded in these trade deals has important consequences for food systems. For instance, in order for governments to ensure farmers, consumers and food workers have rights and control over their data, it is necessary for that data to be stored in locations under their jurisdiction. This is key not only in terms of personal privacy, but also to prevent it from falling into the hands of those who could harm them. There have been some limited movements in this direction, such as laws to protect people’s privacy in the European Union, Argentina, Brazil, and Kenya.14 Unfortunately, data generated on farms (on land, seeds, plant and animal genetics, weather) is considered non-personal and not covered by the laws, even though personal information can be gathered when data on yields is combined with location, for example.

Such government initiatives, no matter how limited, are all being fiercely opposed by the industry, which wants to be able to exploit and sell data to third parties without restriction. Not having a local, physical presence in the countries where data is extracted is also a way for tech companies to evade liabilities for their workers, especially when it comes to delivery workers, where risks of work place injuries are high. These are some of the main reasons why tech companies are pushing for data to be able to move freely across borders. In digital trade jargon, this is known as “freedom for cross-border data flows” and aims to prevent “forced data localisation”.

Access to source codes (the lines of code written by programmers to instruct machines to perform a specific task) and algorithms (pieces of code that include the steps needed to solve a problem) is also an issue for food systems. Farmers around the world have always repaired their own tools. It is a traditional part of farming. But this has become much more difficult with the adoption of digital tools, such as agricultural drones and connected tractors. Repairing these requires access to the manufacturers’ source codes, which is strictly protected by intellectual property rights. In the US, farmers lose US$3 billion a year to tractor downtime and pay US$1.2 billion more in excess repair costs because of these restrictions.15 Food delivery workers also suffer because they are unable to access the opaque algorithms that decide how much they are paid or even if they’ve been terminated.16 Consumers also find algorithms that manipulate consumption to be a black box.

There are many important reasons why companies should have to make public their source codes and algorithms but digital trade agreements can pre-empt measures aimed at doing so. Most digital trade agreements restrict public or government access to company source codes and algorithms, and the few that include exceptions, tend to be weak and vague.17

Food systems are also impacted by Big Tech’s use of digital trade deals to avoid paying taxes.18 These corporations have long benefitted from a temporary moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions established in 1998 by the WTO. Under the moratorium, states are allowed to collect domestic taxes, but cannot use tariffs to tax products entering their territory. A study found that between 2017 and 2020 Global South countries, most of which are net importers of digital services, lost US$56 billion in tax they could not apply to those imports.19 It means governments have fewer resources with which to implement food and agriculture policies for the benefit of their populations and other essential services.

To reinforce tax avoidance, all digital trade deals signed to date have systematically prohibited taxes on electronic transmissions. Those pushed by the US with El Salvador and Guatemala have, more recently, included a commitment from both Central American countries to support the US’s push to make the WTO moratorium permanent. However, at the WTO, Brazil led an effort that succeeded in getting the moratorium dropped in March 2026.20 The big question now is whether governments will seize on this development to implement border taxes or bind themselves to similar restrictions under bilateral digital trade deals.

The need for a convergence of struggles

Fortunately, movements challenging the power of tech corporations are mushrooming around the world and starting to work together towards common objectives.

Some efforts are focused on digital justice and digital rights, such as the Just Net Coalition, the European network defending rights and freedoms online and the Global Digital Justice Forum, which includes digital rights networks, feminist groups, corporate watchdogs, communication rights campaigners, trade unions, and cooperatives.21 Groups such as Citizen Lab and AlgoRace are tackling digital surveillance and the impacts of AI on migrant and racialised communities. The People vs Big Tech movement aims to challenge the power of tech corporations on issues like digital policy, consumers’ rights, climate change, LGBTQ+ rights, and feminism.22

They are also many worker-led efforts to stop corporations from using digital platforms to exploit workers and violate their rights. These include actions by workers at Amazon warehouses in the US and India and food delivery drivers working for Ele.me (Ali Baba) in China.23 In both the European Union and the UK, 12 food delivery workers organisations have been speaking out against serious abuses on platforms such as Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats, and have called for a public register of the algorithms used.24 Facebook (Meta) content moderators in Colombia and Ghana have also been mobilising.25 And there is a growing movement fighting against the expansion of data centres because of their impacts on local communities and voracity for energy, water and critical minerals, which is causing an increasing number of social and environmental conflicts worldwide.26

People in the food sovereignty movement are also active on digital issues. For example, African farmers are speaking out against the privatisation and corporate capture of their data, arguing that data cannot be separated from its relationship to territories and communities.27 The European Coordination Via Campesina recently published a critique of corporate led digitalisation that calls for inclusive research and innovation to support the transition to agroecology.28 A growing farmers’ movement is also claiming the right to repair machinery and the right to build their own tools and share the information freely.29 During the pandemic, small farmers and vendors from Indonesia to Brazil showed their capacity to coordinate efforts with driver’s cooperatives and used their own digital tools to ensure people had access to food.

In order for the movements fighting Big Tech to challenge digital trade agreements, alliances are needed with those that have long been fighting against free trade agreements.

From their side, peasant movements such as La Via Campesina have been fighting free trade agreements across different regions.30 They have increasingly joined forces with other groups, including trade unions, environmentalists, women’s groups and indigenous peoples. A recent example of this is the broad coalition of sectors that fought intensely against the EU-Mercosur agreement. During the 3rd Nyeleni Forum, which brought together movements from a wide range of sectors (farmers, migrants, trade unions, healthcare workers, environmentalists and women), the digitalisation of food systems was identified as a new colonial frontier. Building on this, there could be greater convergence with groups to denounce the impacts of corporate digitalisation and to stop digital trade agreements that advance the interests of corporations.

The global advance of digital trade agreements

Academic and activist Jane Kelsey says the standard corporate demands in most digital trade negotiations can be traced back to the “Digital 2 Dozen” principles published by the US Trade Representative in 2014.31 These shaped the e-commerce chapters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (later the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership -CPTPP), and became a model for later agreements.32 Even after leaving the CPTPP in 2017, the US pursued even stronger Big Tech protections in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in 2020.

The US Chamber of Commerce, whose members include large agribusiness and tech corporations, systematically promotes ‘high-standard’ digital trade agreements, particularly among the “Digital Dozen” countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Taiwan, the UK and ASEAN members).33 Several major deals have followed, including agreements involving the US, Japan, Singapore, Australia, Chile, the UK- and the EU.34 China, the UAE and India, are also advancing digital trade negotiations, but with different priorities.

The USMCA guarantees cross-border data flows, including personal information, and bans data localisation. Its provisions have influenced other agreements, even those without US participation such as the CPTPP and African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) negotiations, sometimes conflicting with national laws, including those in Kenya and Nigeria.35

The European Union also supports free data flows and bans data localisation but insists on protections for personal data. Its legislation is actually regarded as one of the strongest data privacy laws in the world, which has put it in the crosshairs of Big Tech and the Trump administration.36 But implementation has been tortuous, and safeguards in international deals are often unclear.37 The EU’s data privacy body has acknowledged this in reference to the EU-Singapore deal, where there are no regulations on what corporations can do with people’s data.38

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which includes ten ASEAN member states, as well as Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea, includes similar provisions to CPTPP’s. 39 Its rules are not legally binding though, and allow more restrictions for national security interests. This is particularly relevant for China, who supports the freedom of cross-border trade in goods enabled by the internet rather than the freedom of all data flows. Some say this is a reflection of the interests of Chinese e-commerce platforms, like Alibaba.40

The USMCA, CPTPP and digital trade deals pushed by the European Union ban forced transfer of source codes and algorithms, while RCEP doesn’t include specific protection. Public-interest exceptions in these deals tend to be weak.41

In regards to taxes on electronic transmissions: the US continues pushing to make the WTO moratorium on custom duties on electronic transmissions permanent, while the EU, AfCFTA and RCEP allow room for internal taxation.42 Yet RCEP’s signatories are committed to adjusting their practices in line with any future changes at the WTO level.

See as well: Bilaterals.org, “Resisting Big Tech empires (and their trade rules)”, 30 April 2026
1 See: ITU, “Measuring digital development: Facts and Figures 2025”, https://www.itu.int/hub/publication/D-IND-ICT_MDD-2025-3/; Statista, “Most popular reasons for using the internet worldwide as of 2nd quarter 2025”, 27 November 2025, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1387375/internet-using-global-reasons
2 Statcounter, “Social media stats worldwide”, March 2026, https://gs.statcounter.com/social-media-stats
3 See: José Soeiro, Kenzo Soares Seto and Víctor Riesgo Gómez, “Varieties and similarities of platform capitalisms: a comparative approach of labor regulation in Brazil, Portugal and Spain”, Frontiers in Sociology, Vol. 10, 28 March 2025, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2025.1454324; and Dylan Loh, “Grab’s ASEAN food delivery share rises to 55% in 2025: survey”, 28 January 2026, https://asia.nikkei.com/business/food-beverage/grab-s-asean-food-delivery-share-rises-to-55-in-2025-survey
4 See: Forbes India, “Top 10 biggest companies in the world by market cap in 2025”, 27 November 2025, https://www.forbesindia.com/article/explainers/top-10-largest-companies-world-market-cap/86341/1; and Worldometer, “GDP by country (2026) – IMF”, https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/
5 Adrienne Fichter et. al. “How tenaciously Palantir courted Switzerland”, 18 February 2026, https://www.republik.ch/2026/02/18/how-tenaciously-palantir-courted-switzerland
6 Harikishan Sharma, “What is AgriStack, which FM Nirmala Sitharaman has termed as the ‘next UPI’?”, 13 February 2026, https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/agristack-sitharaman-next-upi-10528472/
7 See: World Bank, GF, and BCG, “Digital agriculture roadmap playbook”, 2025, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099053025063021993/pdf/P508004-f943a09b-c45f-4c93-b554-9dd1decd1e7c.pdf; Ethiopian Ministry of agriculture and ATI, “Digital agriculture roadmap 2032”, April 2025, https://www.moa.gov.et/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Digital-Agriculture-Roadmap-Ethiopia.pdf; and Data Driven Digital Agriculture, “Launch of the Digital Agriculture Roadmaps DARs Playbook and Lessons Learned”, 16 December 2025, https://youtu.be/E4h_3fsT8So?si=d-S7fc6wYsMq1G9C
8 See: UN, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Michael Fakhri. Corporate power and human rights in food systems”, 21 July 2025, https://docs.un.org/en/A/80/213; ETC Group, “Commons to code: how platforms rewire agriculture and reshape power”, 9 November 2025, https://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/commons_to_code_how_platforms_rewire_agriculture_and_reshape_power_0.pdf; IPES-Food, “Head in the cloud.”, February 2026, https://ipes-food.org/report/head-in-the-cloud/; GRAIN, “When big tech came for the farm: A blueprint of resistance from Asia’s small farmers”, 16 January 2023,https://grain.org/e/6940
9 GRAIN, “Techno feudalism takes root on the farm in India and China”, 24 October 2024, https://grain.org/e/7196
10 See: Mary Ma, “Agriculture: A new battlefield for China’s internet giants”, 27 February 2023, https://technode.com/2023/02/27/agriculture-a-new-battlefield-for-chinas-internet-giants/; and DBS, “Alibaba Group. Quick view”, 20 March 2026, https://www.dbs.com.hk/treasures/aics/stock-coverage/templatedata/article/equity/data/en/DBSV/012014/9988_HK.xml
11 Mayu Tobin-Miyaji, “Kroger’s surveillance pricing harms consumers and raises prices, with or without facial recognition”, 14 February 2025, https://epic.org/krogers-surveillance-pricing-harms-consumers-and-raises-prices-with-or-without-facial-recognition/
12 Arif Novianto, “Resistance is Possible: Lives of Grab Workers in Indonesia”, Asian Labour Review, January 2023, https://labourreview.org/grab-in-indonesia/
13 See: Corporate Europe Observatory, “Revealed: Tech industry now spending record €151 million on lobbying the EU”, 27 October 2025, https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/revealed-tech-industry-now-spending-record-eu151-million-lobbying-eu; and Emily Birnbaum and Maggie Eastlan, “Silicon Valley pours out lobbying cash and flattery to win over deal-minded Trump”, 22 January 2026, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-22/big-tech-leaders-spend-record-109-million-to-win-over-deal-minded-trump
14 See: Friends of the Earth, “Big brother is feeding you”, December 2025, https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Digital-factsheet-2.pdf; ETC Group, “Commons to code: how platforms rewire agriculture and reshape power”, 2025, https://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/commons_to_code_how_platforms_rewire_agriculture_and_reshape_power_0.pdf; and Biba Kenya, “Connecting communities or corporations?”, May 2025, https://bibakenya.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Connecting-Communities-or-Corporations-Digital-AgricultureData-Harvests-and-Food-sovereignty-in-Keny.pdf
15 Kevin O’Reilly, “Report: tractor ‘right to repair’ would save U.S. farmers $4.2 Billion”, 11 April 2023, https://pirg.org/media-center/report-tractor-right-to-repair-would-save-u-s-farmers-4-2-billion/
16 See: Privacy International, “Time to deliver answers: An open letter to Just Eat Takeaway, Uber and Deliveroo”, 13 January 2025, https://privacyinternational.org/advocacy/5509/time-deliver-answers-open-letter-just-eat-takeaway-uber-and-deliveroo; and “New research exposes deepening exploitation of Uber drivers by algorithmic pay”, 19 June 2025, https://www.ier.org.uk/news/new-research-exposes-deepening-exploitation-of-uber-drivers-by-algorithmic-pay/
17 EDRi, “Digital trade: the new frontline in the fight for our rights”, 7 May 2025, https://edri.org/our-work/digital-trade-the-new-frontline-in-the-fight-for-our-rights/
18 Jane Kelsey, “Digital trade rules and big tech: surrendering public good to private power”, PSI, February 2022, https://pop-umbrella.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/f2bddc3d-c353-4846-a23b-82dec9a9e6d7_2020_-_ASIA_DIG_REPORT_3__1_.pdf
19 Rashmi Banga, “WTO Moratorium on custom duties on electronic transmissions: how much tariff revenue have developing countries lost?”, South Centre, 3 June 2022, https://www.southcentre.int/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/RP157_WTO-Moratorium-on-Customs-Duties-on-Electronic-Transmissions_EN.pdf
20 Sofia Scasserra, “The night Brazil said no to Trump (and changed the internet forever)”, 2 April 2026, https://www.tni.org/en/article/the-night-brazil-said-no-to-trump-and-changed-the-internet-forever
23 See: UNI Global Union, “Thousands of Amazon workers and allies strike and protest in dozens of countries on Black Friday”, 26 November 2025, https://uniglobalunion.org/news/make-amazon-pay-day-2025/; “Everyone loses in the rage of China’s delivery wars”, 31 July 2025, https://www.economist.com/china/2025/07/31/everyone-loses-in-the-rage-of-chinas-delivery-wars
24 Privacy International, “Time to deliver answers: An open letter to Just Eat Takeaway, Uber and Deliveroo”, 13 January 2025, https://privacyinternational.org/advocacy/5509/time-deliver-answers-open-letter-just-eat-takeaway-uber-and-deliveroo
25 See: Eiffel Abedin, “Content moderation is a new factory floor of exploitation – labour protections must catch up”, 26 June 2025, https://www.ihrb.org/latest/content-moderation-is-a-new-factory-floor-of-exploitation-labour-protections-must-catch-up; and Stephanie Höppner, “Africa’s content moderators want compensation for job trauma”, 1 May 2025, https://www.dw.com/en/africas-content-moderators-want-compensation-for-job-trauma/a-72401025
26 See: Mariam Mayet, “Critical minerals, fertilisers, agrochemicals, digital power, and the erosion of food sovereignty”, 23 April 2026, https://acbio.org.za/corporate-expansion/critical-minerals-fertilisers-agrochemicals-digital-power-and-the-erosion-of-food-sovereignty/; UNCTAD, “Digital economy report 2024”, 2024, https://unctad.org/publication/digital-economy-report-2024; and Blake Montgomery, “Datacenters meet resistance over environmental concerns as AI boom spreads in Latin America”, 11 November 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/nov/10/data-centers-latin-america
27 ETC Group, “What does data justice mean for African small-holder farmers?”, 8 December 2025, https://www.etcgroup.org/content/what-does-data-justice-mean-african-small-holder-farmers
28 ECVC, “The challenges digitalisation brings to peasant agroecology: An ECVC perspective”, 28 April 2025, https://www.eurovia.org/publications/ecvc-position-on-digitalisation
29 See: https://farmhack.org/; and Kat de Naoum, “Right to repair farm equipment: legislation, challenges, and advantages”, 16 February 2026, https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/right-to-repair-farm-equipment/
31 Jane Kelsey, “Digital trade rules and big tech: surrendering public good to private power”, PSI, February 2022, https://pop-umbrella.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/f2bddc3d-c353-4846-a23b-82dec9a9e6d7_2020_-_ASIA_DIG_REPORT_3__1_.pdf
32 The current signatories of CPTPP are: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United Kingdom and Vietnam. Other applicants are: Costa Rica, Taiwan, Ecuador, Uruguay, Ukraine, Indonesia, Philippines, UAE, and Cambodia. China’s application has been opposed by Japan and Australia. See: https://www.bilaterals.org/?-tpp
34 Marília Maciel, “The WTO joint initiative stabilised ‘agreement on electronic commerce’: looking at the broader picture”, 30 July 2024, https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/the-wto-joint-initiative-stabilised-agreement-on-electronic-commerce-looking-at-the-broader-picture/
35 See: CPTPP, “Chapter 14. Electronic commerce”, https://www.bilaterals.org/IMG/pdf/14._electronic_commerce.pdf; AfCFTA, “Protocol on the agreement establishing the African continental free trade area on digital trade”, https://www.bilaterals.org/IMG/pdf/en_-_afcfta_protocol_on_digital_trade.pdf; and World Bank, “Digital trade regulatory readiness (DTRR) database”, https://www.worldbank.org/en/data/interactive/2025/09/10/digital-trade-regulatory-readiness-dtrr-database
36 Raphael Satter and Alexandra Alper, “Exclusive: US orders diplomats to fight data sovereignty initiatives”, 25 February 2026, https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-orders-diplomats-fight-data-sovereignty-initiatives-2026-02-25/?trk=public_post_comment-text
37 Naomi Grossman, “The Meta ruling that could change Europe’s data playbook”, 21 December 2025, https://vinciworks.com/blog/the-meta-ruling-that-could-change-europes-data-playbook/
38 Javier Ruiz Diaz, “The EU-Singapore digital trade agreement: gambling away our digital sovereignty”, The Left, November 2025, https://www.martin-schirdewan.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/4031639-EUROPEAN-PARLIAMENT-Booklet-Signapore_03.pdf
41 EDRi, “Digital trade: the new frontline in the fight for our rights”, 7 May 2025, https://edri.org/our-work/digital-trade-the-new-frontline-in-the-fight-for-our-rights/
Source: grain.org

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Environmental and human rights advocates are urging the world to hold global investors accountable for their actions.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio Team

Communities and organizations defending their land, livelihoods, and environment demand that global investors and development finance institutions take responsibility for projects they believe harm people and the planet.

Environmental and human rights defenders from Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, and India gathered at the World Bank Group Annual Meetings to share stories of communities fighting to be heard and seeking justice for harm caused by development projects.

Ms. Ueangfa Chamket, representing Chachoengsao Re: Power in Thailand, described her community’s long battle to defend the land that sustains their way of life. For over twenty years, residents have stood firm against the Burapa power plant, first proposed as a coal-fired facility and later changed to a gas-fired plant.

She explained that this region is a lifeline for farming communities, whose fields not only ensure local food security but also supply Bangkok markets with fresh produce.

“Our communities are agricultural communities which practice organic farming and later sell some of our produce in Bangkok,” she said.

Chamket voiced concerns about the power plant’s environmental impact and its effects on local livelihoods, citing air pollution, dust, and strain on water resources. She warned these threats endanger both people’s health and the biodiversity that sustains the community.

The Burapa Power Plant Project is a proposed 540 MW fossil gas-fired combined cycle power plant under construction in Khao Hin Son, Phanom Sarakham, Chachoengsao Province, Thailand. The project began in 2007 as a 600 MW coal-fired power plant awarded to Advance Agro (now Double A Power/National Power Supply, NPS), according to research from Bank Track, an international organization that tracks private-sector commercial banks and their financed activities.

Despite strong opposition from local communities and four rejections of its Environmental and Health Impact Assessments, most recently in 2016, the project remains in Thailand’s National Power Development Plans.al-fired proposal was replaced by plans for the 540-megawatt Burapa natural gas-fired power plant at the same location. The developers subsequently signed a 25-year Power Purchase Agreement with the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT), alongside a long-term gas supply agreement with PTT PCL.

Chamket says residents refuse more industrial development unless their concerns are addressed, stressing their determination to resist the power plant and what they see as the taking of their local resources.

Beyond environmental worries, Chamket said the community felt shut out of key decisions, from consultations to public hearings. She questioned why residents’ voices mattered less than those of powerful financiers.

“They do not hear our comments and only listen to the funders and financiers of the project. We want to share in public hearing forums, but they block us by saying there is limited time, creating a situation where we cannot report the actual situation in the area,” she said.

Similar worries have surfaced in Prachinburi province, where communities are pushing back against industrial waste incineration projects promoted under the banner of a circular economy.

The Gulf Waste-to-Energy (GWTE) Circular Economy Project aims to build and operate 12 waste-to-energy power plants across five Thai provinces: Saraburi, Ayutthaya, Prachinburi, Rayong, and Chonburi.

Mr. Ridtidat Boonyaburanakit, of the Strong Prachinburi Community Network, described how the project area supports rice, cassava, maize, and poultry farming. He said residents struggle to be heard at public hearings.

“We do not have the opportunities for public hearings,” he said.

“We do not have opportunities for public hearings,” he said. AIIB, along with other lenders, backs the project. In February 2026, the ADB announced loan agreements totaling 16.6 billion Thai baht (approximately US$511.9 million) with 12 companies indirectly owned by Gulf Waste to Energy Holdings Company Limited, a subsidiary of Gulf Development Public Company Limited (GULF), with the intention of supporting energy generation from nonhazardous industrial waste, promoting diversion from landfills, and reducing illegal waste disposal activities in Thailand.

On the ground, community leaders say the project has failed to meet its promises. Boonyaburanakit also reported security personnel intimidated residents who tried to join project discussions. Counsel Aaron Pedrosa, of the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice, highlighted the uphill battle communities face in holding investors accountable for environmental and social harm.

The Philippine Movement for Climate Justice is a coalition of more than 150 grassroots, sectoral, and other organizations working nationwide to advance climate justice.

Pedrosa said the coalition filed a case in 2017 against the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private-sector arm of the World Bank Group, over financing linked to 19 coal power projects in the Philippines through a financial intermediary, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation.

He explained this financing fueled the spread of coal power in the country, with 16 of 19 proposed projects ultimately built.

“This is happening in a country where for 13 years now, according to the recent Global Witness Report, we remain the deadliest place for land and defenders,” Pedrosa said, highlighting the dangers people face when defending their land and environment.

Despite the challenge of confronting powerful financial institutions, Pedrosa emphasized the need to keep fighting for accountability, vowing to persist even when justice seems out of reach in Bangkok also sparked debate over who ultimately shoulders the burden of environmental damage and climate disasters.

Sutharee WannasiSutharee Wannasiri, a senior community associate with Accountability Counsel and one of the event’s moderators, referred to recent flooding in Thailand and questioned who pays the price of such farmers cries, vendors, and families seeking shelter as those most vulnerable to the fallout, even as powerful institutions make decisions that shape their futures.

Her remarks linked communities’ opposition to individual projects to a broader concern, suggesting people facing environmental risks may have little influence over investment decisions that affect them.

Advocates demanded stronger accountability for harmful projects, insisting that affected communities must be heard and that investors and operators take responsibility for the outcomes of their choices.

Margaux Day, the policy director at Accountability Counsel, said investors could make better decisions by listening to communities with direct knowledge of their environments and livelihoods.

“Local communities are the experts in their own lives and environments, and if investors were to listen to them, then those projects would be more sustainable and successful because they would be more informed by the actual experts,” Day said.

Yet advocates argue that complaint mechanisms alone are not enough. Communities need a real voice before projects are approved, protection from intimidation when they speak up, and access to remedies when their rights and livelihoods are threatened.

“The polluter and the financier should fix it and pay for it and stop silencing the people for speaking the truth,” said Margaux Day, policy director at Accountability Counsel.

 

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Why are secure land rights key to Africa’s climate resilience and the protection of its natural treasures?

Published

on

By the Witness Radio Team.

Protecting forests, breathing new life into exhausted land, and confronting climate change hinge not only on policies but on whether those who live on the land truly hold secure rights to it.

The challenge is significant. Between 2015 and 2019, at least 100 million hectares of healthy, productive land were degraded worldwide each year, affecting about 1.3 billion people, according to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). A 2026 global assessment by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Land Coalition (ILC), and the French agricultural research organization CIRAD found that only 35 percent of the world’s land has formally documented ownership, tenure, or use rights. These figures highlight the scale of land degradation and the gaps in recognizing and documenting people’s land rights.

Across Africa, communities depend on farmland, forests, and grazing lands not just for food, but to keep their traditions and livelihoods alive. When climate and environmental policies ignore their rights to these resources, their power to protect the land and shape its destiny fades.

This is why land rights advocates across Africa are calling for land governance to be more deeply woven into climate action and conservation, insisting that securing people’s land rights is the foundation for protecting the environment.

The issue was discussed during an online webinar organized by ILC Africa in partnership with the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the German development agency GIZ. Practitioners and policy actors shared experiences from several African countries on integrating land governance into climate and environmental policies.

Ms. Johanna von Braun, People, Climate and Nature Lead at the International Land Coalition, explained that land rights are fundamental to achieving the objectives of the three major global environmental conventions addressing climate change, biodiversity loss and desertification.

She said secure land rights can support emissions reduction, help communities adapt to climate change and strengthen biodiversity conservation. In the Amazon, she noted, research shows that recognizing Indigenous peoples’ territories helps protect tropical forests and preserve carbon sinks.

“For mitigation, we know now that with land rights, we can ensure the protection of critical carbon sinks,” Ms. von Braun said.

Land rights are equally important for communities whose livelihoods depend on adapting to changing environmental conditions. Ms. von Braun explained that pastoralist communities with secure rights to move their livestock are better positioned to respond to climate change and manage grazing areas sustainably.

Evidence on rangeland loss reinforces this connection. Research has found that 92 percent of rangeland loss through land-use conversion between 2016 and 2024 occurred in areas where Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ land rights were not secure, were unknown, or the land fell outside mapped community territories, facts which highlight the importance of recognizing community land rights in efforts to protect rangelands and strengthen climate resilience.

Ms. von Braun also pointed to Namibia, where communal conservancies cover about 20 percent of the country and support biodiversity conservation. She said community-based conservation initiatives can help countries advance global biodiversity commitments, including the 30×30 target to conserve at least 30 percent of the world’s land and sea by 2030.

Despite the clear connection between land rights and environmental protection, bringing land governance into national climate policies remains a persistent and difficult challenge.

Moise Mbimbe, a regional program analyst with ILC Africa, described efforts to address this gap in Burkina Faso, Liberia, Togo and Senegal.

With catalytic funding, the coalition ignited efforts to weave land governance into countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which serve as blueprints for their climate commitments under the Paris Agreement. This meant reviewing policies, amplifying community voices, and bringing together a wide range of actors to shape recommendations that place land issues at the core of national climate plans.

Mr. Mbimbe said the process had helped participating countries consider land governance.

“Whether it’s in Togo, Burkina Faso or Liberia, we have made considerable progress when it comes to taking or considering land when it comes to NDCs,” he said.

In Burkina Faso, an assessment of the country’s previous climate commitments revealed that land governance had received limited attention.

Mr. Blaise Bama, coordinator of the Multi-Stakeholder Platform on Land (PMAF) in Burkina Faso, said the assessment reviewed policy documents and gathered perspectives from institutional, community, and regional stakeholders.

The findings pointed to significant gaps in how the country’s previous NDC addressed land issues.

“This assessment identified a very weak level where land was not considered in the previous NDC,” Mr. Bama said. assessment recommended recognizing the central role of land rights in climate action and securing community land rights. Mr. Bama added that local consultations allowed community-level actors to share their views and contribute to the policy process.

“It was a moment of close analysis, and these local consultations allow us to consider the opinions of local actors, especially at the community level,” he said.

In Senegal, practitioners are forging new links between land governance, environmental restoration, and active local community participation.

Ms. Nicole Chaby Hary, facilitator of the National Land Governance Platform (PNGF), said consultations revealed that land security and environmental restoration are top priorities. Yet, motivating communities to invest in restoration has proven difficult, highlighting the need for practical tools, clear responsibilities, and authentic participation.

She emphasized that women, youth, local leaders, government bodies, and all stakeholders must have a seat at the table when managing and restoring land.

“We have to put in place tools, like pastoral units, to help with consultations and community responsibilities, especially for women and youth,” Ms. Hary said.

In Madagascar, efforts are underway to ensure that community rights are reflected in biodiversity policies and implementation.

Ms. Stefana Raharijaona, a senior program officer at Natural Justice Madagascar, said the organization has worked to incorporate local communities’ concerns into national biodiversity priorities and translate them into monitorable actions.

This work has meant championing the recognition of community rights and land tenure, supporting community-led management, and striving to formalize and protect these hard-earned rights.

Ms. Raharijaona also described efforts to support implementation of Madagascar’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, including work related to Target 22 and the establishment of a national biodiversity platform to improve coordination among the different actors involved.

Across these countries, practitioners confront a common challenge: climate and biodiversity goals will stay out of reach unless the rights of those who depend on and nurture the land are genuinely recognized.

As African nations strengthen their environmental policies, securing community land rights and ensuring meaningful participation in decision-making will be essential to protect ecosystems, heal damaged land, and build resilience to climate change.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Biodiversity Goals: The world has no time to meet its 2030 goals.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio Team

With fewer than four years left to meet global biodiversity targets, a new United Nations assessment urges country to accelerate efforts to protect and restore nature, warning that current efforts fall short of promises.

The State of Biodiversity Action report, released just before the 17th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP17) in Armenia, reveals that while almost 90 percent of countries have set national biodiversity targets, less than half are making progress toward achieving them.

COP17 starts today in Yerevan, Armenia, and runs until October 30, 2026.

As the conference opens, the findings cast doubt on whether countries can fulfill the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in 2022 to stop and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.

The Framework addresses the principal drivers of biodiversity loss, including land- and sea-use change, unsustainable exploitation of species, climate change, pollution and invasive alien species, as well as economic and financial activities contributing to biodiversity loss.

A key ambition of the framework is to safeguard at least 30 percent of the world’s land and sea by 2030. The assessment reveals that current pledges fall short. Even if all commitments are met, just 26 percent of land and 12 percent of marine ecosystems would be protected by the deadline.

The gap between promises and progress was highlighted by Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, who called on governments to use the global review to identify shortcomings and accelerate implementation.

“We know where we stand. We know where the gaps are. Now we must work together to close them,” Ms. Schomaker said.

Her words highlight the conference’s core challenge. Countries know what must be done, but meaningful action is still lagging.

The assessment points to gaps in funding, coordination among government bodies, and the data needed to measure progress. It also shows that targets requiring action beyond environment ministries, such as business practices, sustainable consumption, harmful incentives, and finance, are falling furthest behind.

To meet the 2030 targets, governments must integrate biodiversity concerns into broader economic and development choices.

At the opening of COP17 on 19 October, the outgoing Colombian presidency also stressed the need to turn international agreements into practical results.

David Olarte Amaya, who represented Colombia’s COP16 presidency, described the gathering in Yerevan as a decisive moment for the planet, noting that the international community had an urgent responsibility to turn the framework’s commitments into “concrete, measurable, and lasting results.”

He also stressed that biodiversity is deeply connected to daily life, underpinning water and food security, resilient communities, thriving economies, and the well-being of society.

“Biodiversity is not merely an environmental concern but also the foundation of our water and food security, the resilience of our territories, the productivity of our economies, and the well-being of our societies,” he stressed.

He noted that the true measure of the conference’s success will not be the number of decisions made, but whether they spark real change in countries and communities.

“Today, as we hand over the COP16 presidency, Colombia reaffirms its commitment to solution-oriented multilateralism, grounded in dialogue, mutual respect among parties, and shared responsibilities. We express our confidence in Armenia’s leadership and our readiness to contribute constructively to the work of this conference,” he added.

Armenia’s Minister of Environment and incoming COP17 president, Mr. Hambardzum Matevosyan, recognized that countries must now focus on what works, where progress is lacking, and what must change to accelerate results.

“COP 15 gave us the framework. COP 16 advanced important mechanisms for its implementation. COP 17 must now help us determine where we stand, what is working, where progress is falling short, and what must change to accelerate implementation,” Mr. Matevosyan said.

He praised Colombia’s COP16 presidency and described the handover as a seamless continuation of the global push for biodiversity.

Mr. Matevosyan also highlighted the Leaders for Nature Summit in Yerevan, which concluded with the Yerevan Declaration—a call to action for nature and a reminder to turn promises into tangible outcomes.

Staying true to the promise of an inclusive COP, Matevosyan pledged that Armenia’s presidency would listen to Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, youth, civil society, academia, local leaders, businesses, and the finance sector, recognizing that governments cannot tackle biodiversity loss on their own.

“The challenges we face are too big to be addressed by governments alone. The story, the parallel forums, thematic days, and numerous side events will inform and support negotiation outcomes,” he concluded.

As the 2030 deadline looms, the real test is whether countries can move from promises to action and deliver the transformation needed to stop and reverse biodiversity loss. The Yerevan review gives governments a chance to face the gaps, build stronger partnerships, and turn words into measurable progress for nature and all who rely on it.

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates