Julia Francisco Martínez stands at the graveside of her husband Juan, a Honduran Indigenous defender who was found murdered in 2015. Giles Clarke / Global Witness
Every year, Global Witness works with partners to gather evidence, verify and document every time a land and environmental defender is killed or disappeared. Our methodology follows robust criteria, yet undocumented cases pose challenges when it comes to analysing data
Global Witness documents killings and long-term disappearances of land and environmental defenders globally. In partnership with over 30 local, national and regional organisations in more than 20 countries, we produce an annual report containing these figures, and we have done so since 2012.
Our methodology involves a year-long process of cross-referencing data from different sources to ensure its credibility. Over 2,200 killings or long-term disappearances of defenders appear in our database since 2012 – with 146 cases documented in 2024.
Every year, we maintain a database to keep a record of these crimes and create a comprehensive global picture of the systematic violence defenders face.
The data provides a snapshot of the underlying drivers behind reprisals and indicates how some defenders and their communities face increased risks. Exposing these trends is the first of many steps to ensure that defenders and their communities are protected and can exercise their rights without fearing for their lives.
Killings and disappearances documented between 2012 and 2024
2,253
defenders have been killed or disappeared since 2012
Global Witness
146
of these attacks occurred in 2024
Global Witness
Classifying defenders’ cases
Most of the cases recorded in our database are killings – including assassinations by illicit actors, state murder and death in detention.
Our database also includes disappearances of defenders, where the individual has been missing for six months or more.
All reports prior to 2025 have combined killings and long-term disappearances into one single headline figure. For greater clarity, our latest report indicates a distinction between these two types of attack, and our reports will continue to make this distinction in future.
Lissette Chuñil makes a offering to honour her grandmother – a Mapuche woman and president of the Indigenous community of Máfil, who was disappeared in November 2024. Tamara Merino / Global Witness
Cases from prior years or those already included in our database are not continuously monitored. Where we receive updated information on an attack, we may retrospectively include or remove cases.
We document the killing or disappearance of a defender when there is a reasonable and suspected link to an individual’s activism or where the individual played a role in defence of the land or the environment.
As well as individuals directly involved in activism, we also document tangential violence against families, community members or others caught up in attacks.
Our definition covers a broad range of people and encompasses different types of land and environmental leadership. Crucially, this involves people who work in any capacity to protect rights linked to the exploitation of land or the environment.
How we define land and environmental defenders
Land and environmental defenders are a specific type of human rights defender – individuals or groups of people who act to promote, protect or strive for the realisation of human rights through peaceful action.
Their role as human rights protectors is recognised by the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, principles also enshrined in other legally binding international instruments. This includes those working to protect human rights relating to the environment, including water, air, land, flora and fauna.
We define defenders as people who take peaceful action against the unjust, discriminatory, corrupt or damaging exploitation of natural resources or the environment.
Land and environmental struggles take different forms and are shaped by local contexts. For example, in every region of the world, communities strive against systematic land dispossession and environmental destruction from extractive industries.
For some the threat to territories is intimately connected to the degeneration of their sovereignty, culture, livelihoods and homes. Others are caught in wider conflicts which exacerbate land, environmental and climate injustices.
Defenders often live in communities whose land, health and livelihoods are threatened by the operations of mining, logging, agribusiness or other industries.
Some defend our biodiverse environment, while others support such efforts through their roles as lawyers, politicians, park rangers, journalists, or members of campaigns or civil society organisations.
Others are holders of traditional or Indigenous knowledge, working as Indigenous guards or community knowledge keepers.
Family members sift through photographs of Ricardo Arturo Lagunes Gasca, a human rights lawyer who disappeared with Indigenous leader Antonio Díaz Valencia after attending a community meeting in San Miguel de Aquila, Mexico. Luis Rojas / Global Witness
Identifying and documenting cases
We learn of killings and disappearances through reliable sources of online reporting, tip-offs and wider documentation efforts from civil society organisations.
We set up search engine alerts using keywords and conduct other searches online to identify relevant cases. We also share information with international and national organisations who report on attacks against human rights defenders.
We then research each case to assess whether the person killed or disappeared was a land and environmental defender, according to our definition.
Desk-based research has its limitations. Many attacks on land and environmental defenders receive little or no media attention, due to the remote location of attacks, stigmatisation by investigating authorities, or widespread government repression of the media.
In most instances, we supplement identified cases with additional research. This includes working closely to share information with trusted civil society organisations and communities who have gathered evidence through their own investigations.
Communities affected by the East African Oil Pipeline report receiving threats after refusing to leave their homes without adequate compensation. Jjumba Martin / Global Witness
Verifying information
We work closely with in-country partners to verify whether there is a reasonable and suspected link between the killing or disappearance and the person’s activism.
Testimony from families, communities and organisations working with targeted defenders often provides key information. Sometimes we review official documentation, including police reports or legal documents. This information is documented by Global Witness and not made public.
Navigating toxic narratives
Year after year, we are confronted with cases where the very nature of what it means to be a land and environmental defender is questioned.
Often governments, corporations and media outlets propagate a narrow view of land and environmental activism, excluding individuals and communities whose role defending land or environmental rights is less recognisable.
Across the world, defenders and their communities are often labelled as “criminals”, “agitators” or “communists”. These toxic terms are sometimes employed by the institutions and authorities that claim to uphold people’s rights.
Media can often repeat damaging narratives or even simply ignore reporting on these cases, making it difficult to verify whether an attack could be linked to a persons’ activism.
In these situations, we work closely with local organisations to clarify the contexts in which defenders work, and the patterns of stigmatisation they face, and gather more evidence of the role they played in environmental and land rights protection.
An Indigenous activist holds smoke bombs, tear gas canisters and other projectiles used by Guatemalan state authorities to prevent peaceful protest against a hydro-electric project. James Rodriguez / Global Witness
We also work alongside other organisations gathering national, regional and international reprisal-related data. This includes official UN sources of data collection as well as civil society initiatives.
Every data collection project has its own definitions and methodologies, which create challenges in collating this data into a global dataset on attacks against defenders. Some existing datasets overlap with ours, but often do not fully coincide.
For every case documented, we research and evaluate whether it fits our definition of a land and environmental defender.
Often, public reporting on attacks is circumstantial or lacks information. In some cases, attacks go unreported, particularly in rural areas and in certain countries.
In these cases, countries with restricted civic space – where civil society organisations, NGOs and other groups that monitor the work of defenders are less present, for example – are not able to fill the reporting gap.
This is further exacerbated by repression of the media, authoritarian governments and active political conflicts. Documenting massacres or reprisals in active conflict zones, areas under occupation or where organised crime groups have social or territorial control is also challenging.
These contextual challenges mean that our data is likely to underreport killings and disappearances in certain countries and regions of the world – particularly in areas of Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
Spotlighting our criteria
To meet our criteria, a case must be supported by the following available information:
Credible sources of information. This can include online publications, official documentation on a case or collating information from families, colleagues and civil society organisations linked to a case.
Details about the type of act and method of violence, including the date and location.
Name and biographical information about the victim.
Clear, proximate and documented connections to the protection and defence of environmental and land rights. This includes evaluating the various roles of defenders play and the wider contexts and underlying conflicts that affect them.
Many of the defenders working to protect land and environment also speak out against the harmful impacts of the climate crisis either because of the direct impact on their livelihoods and communities or in their role as lawyers, journalists or members of civil society organisations. Matheus Alves / Sumauma / Global Witness
Analysing the data
We seek to understand the most dangerous repercussions defenders face in the context of the territorial and environmental disputes taking place in their countries.
We also look to understand the characteristics of defenders and their communities – who they are as people and whether some face greater, more targeted risks.
Focusing on the most serious harms (killings and disappearances) enables us to confidently verify the threats defenders face and allows us to analyse geographical trends at regional, country and local level – though with recognised limitations.
We record whether a defender belongs to a marginalised group – Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendants or rural communities – or if they act as a defender in their role as lawyers, journalists or members of civil society organisations. This enables us to understand more about the characteristics of defenders working to protect land and the environment.
We try to gather information on the rights defenders are striving to protect, such as whether they are engaged in a territorial dispute or preventing environmental damage.
Violence is often connected to wider territorial disputes linked to the expansion of extractive projects, devastating the homes and livelihoods of families and communities. Andrew Ball / Panos / Global Witness
We also aim to identify the underlying driver of the harms that led to their acts of protest – for instance, land disputes or industries linked to destructive practices or rights infringements.
Where possible, we record the alleged perpetrator of the crime – both the direct offender and the suspected intellectual authors.
Our dataset is reviewed and updated annually. Before we publish our data, documented cases from the previous year go through a rigorous fact-checking process to ensure confidence in the veracity of our data.
We do not proactively review historic cases in our database. If there are changes in the status of a case or if more information about an individual defender comes to light, we revise and amend our database accordingly.
In the weeks before the publication of our Annual Defenders Report, we temporarily halt the inclusion of new cases – any new cases or information received are kept on file and later added to the database.
Despite efforts to overcome the data access and verification challenges outlined above, our data is likely incomplete. The figures presented in Global Witness reports are therefore probably an underestimate and should be considered as only a partial picture of the extent of killings and disappearances of land and environmental defenders.
April 17, 2026 press release from the offices of eight UN Special Rapporteurs1 calls for the Tanzanian government to immediately publish the findings of two presidential commissions amid growing concerns over its eviction plans.
The communication echoes the Oakland Institute’s warning that these sham Presidential Commissions are being used to rubber-stamp eviction plans without the consent of the Indigenous community.
The strongly-worded communication from the UN Special Rapporteurs states that “these reports are of profound public interest and must be made available to the public without delay…Decisions affecting tens of thousands of Indigenous Peoples cannot be taken behind closed doors.” The experts furthermore urge “the Government to halt any actions that could lead to forced displacement, and engage in meaningful dialogue with affected communities,” while issuing a clear reminder that “Indigenous Peoples have a right to remain on their traditional lands if they so choose…Conservation efforts must not come at the expense of human rights.”
Impacted Maasai communities welcome this intervention from the UN Special Rapporteurs and reaffirm their commitment to defend their rights to remain on their ancestral lands.
To learn more about the struggle against Fortress Conservation, watch the interview: The Dark Side of “Conservation”
On Fox 5 DC Weekend Live, Julie Donaldson interviews Andy Currier, Oakland Institute’s Policy Analyst. Watch the discussion on fortress conservation and the human cost of climate solutions that displace Indigenous communities who best protect our biodiversity.
Ikolomani residents protesting against eviction plan to pave space for British mining company Shanta Gold on November 12, 2025. Two people died in similar protests in Gem, Siaya County. Isaac Wale | Nation Media Group
Two people were shot dead on Monday in Gem–Ramula, Siaya County, after villagers staged a protest over an alleged eviction they linked to Shanta Gold Kenya Limited.
Area police boss Charles Wafula confirmed the incident, stating that the victims were among a group alleged to have attacked a police post after the officers moved in to disperse the demonstrators.
According to Mr Wafula, the demonstrators, angered by what they described as an illegal resettlement by the company, stormed the station during the protest, prompting officers to intervene.
“The individuals had organised a demonstration but they did not notify the police. Our officers moved in to contain the situation, but the group began attacking both officers and Ramula Police Post, damaging several items, including vehicles,” Mr Wafula said.
However, a local rights organisation has sharply contested the police account, portraying the killings as unlawful and unprovoked.
In a statement, the Community Initiative Action Group Kenya said the two victims identified as Henry Otieno and Jack Omenda were part of a peaceful protest against what they termed a forced eviction from their ancestral land.
“The community had gathered peacefully to demonstrate against Shanta Gold Limited’s attempt to relocate them without their consent,” said the lobby’s Executive Director Chris Owalla.
The group further alleged that police officers opened fire without warning following a confrontation with residents at Ramula Market.
“Witnesses state there was an exchange between the community and police after which officers opened fire, killing Henry and Jack on the spot,” Mr Owalla said.
The rights group also accused senior police officers including Mr Wafula and Charles Emodo of Directorate of Criminal Investigation, of disregarding a court order that had halted evictions and mining operations in the area.
According to Mr Owalla, the Environment and Land Court in Siaya had, on February 5, 2026, issued conservatory orders barring any involuntary resettlement of residents in Ramula and its environs, pending the hearing of a petition.
The organisation is now calling for investigations by the Independent Policing Oversight Authority and the the Director of Public Prosecutions, alongside an independent autopsy on the victims.
Fear of evictions
The unrest is rooted in long-standing tensions over planned gold mining operations by Shanta Gold in the region. The company is seeking to establish a large-scale extraction project – one that residents fear could uproot communities and erode livelihoods carefully built over generations.
Similar scenes of unrest were reported in November 2025 in Ikolomani, where locals protested against possible relocations linked to the same company.
Shanta Gold has previously signalled its intention to invest in a multi-billion-shilling project in western Kenya, targeting high-grade gold deposits expected to yield significant output over several years.
Two presidential commissions have recommended the mass eviction of Maasai people from some of East Africa’s most iconic conservation areas and tourist destinations.
The commissions were established by Tanzania’s President Samia Suluhu Hassan following previous evictions of Maasai pastoralists from parts of the world-famous Serengeti ecosystem, and large-scale protests in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in 2024.
Now, despite a global outcry at the earlier evictions, the two Commissions have:
Backed the previous evictions and called for them to continue, including in the UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Ngorongoro and neighboring Lake Natron.
Described the long-standing Maasai presence in the area as an “environmental pressure” that needs to be reduced.
Threatened local NGOs that support the Maasai, accusing them of “spreading misinformation or propaganda” because they “conflict with government interests.”
Called for the “relocation” of all “non-conservation activities” [in other words, Maasai occupancy of the land] outside the conservation areas.
Called for existing recognition of the Maasai people’s right to live in the Ngorongoro area to be removed.
An anonymous Maasai spokesperson said today: “We are blamed for environmental degradation while the unchecked expansion of tourism is ignored. Forced relocation, disguised as policy, has deprived our people of basic rights and dignity. We reject any continuation of these measures and condemn the Commission’s failure to reflect the voices, realities, and rights of our people.”
Still from a video showing the Maasai protesting the violent evictions from their ancestral lands, 2022.
The authorities maintain that these are “voluntary relocations.” However, the Maasai have overwhelmingly rejected being moved.
The Ngorongoro Conservation Area is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. When it was established, the ancestral right of the Maasai to live there with their cattle was explicitly acknowledged. But UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee has backed the so-called “voluntary relocations”, and UNESCO endorses the “fortress conservation” model that underpins Tanzania’s approach.
Survival International Director Caroline Pearce said today, “These commissions were a sham, a gimmick designed to give Tanzania’s violent persecution of the Maasai a veneer of respectability. It was widely predicted that they’d back further evictions: the whole saga just confirms that colonial-style fortress conservation is alive and well in Tanzania today, and enthusiastically endorsed by UNESCO.
“These recommendations give the green light to more evictions, in Ngorongoro and beyond. And while the Maasai are robbed of their lands and livelihood, the government, tour operators and so-called conservationists will enrich themselves from a landscape emptied of its original owners.”