Connect with us

Published

on

Federal prosecutors in Brazil’s Pará state have filed a lawsuit calling for the immediate suspension and cancellation of a multi-million-dollar contract between the state and a coalition of foreign governments and companies for the sale of carbon credits from the Amazon forest.

The prosecutors argued, among other things, that the deal – valued at up to $180 million – is invalid because Pará lacks a legally approved system to create and sell CO2 emissions reductions from lowering deforestation.

They requested that Pará be ordered to pay R$200 million ($35.5 million) in moral damages to society “due to the premature commercialisation of environmental assets originating from the territories of Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities without required free, prior and informed consultation.”

The public interest lawsuit, filed in early June, seeks to stop the federal government from authorizing Pará to work directly with international certifiers until the state’s carbon credit system is made compliant with Brazilian law. Named in the suit are the federal government, Pará state and CAAPP, the state’s public-private carbon asset company.

The September 2024 contract between Pará and the LEAF Coalition – a partnership involving US retail giants Amazon and Walmart, and the US, UK and Norwegian governments, among others – promises payment for emissions reductions under a state-administered forest carbon market system, called REDD+, which Pará says is still “in construction”.

Traditional communities, for their part, have said the timeline for consulting them on that new REDD+ system is too short, given its complexity, and are pushing for a larger share of proceeds from the scheme. On May 28, Pará’s environmental agency SEMAS launched consultations with forest communities under a protocol put together by the state.    

‘Advance sale’ of credits questioned

LEAF’s intermediary, the nonprofit group Emergent, told Climate Home by email that it is aware of the lawsuit, adding that it agrees with the Government of Pará that the carbon credit deal “is fully aligned with Brazil’s new carbon market law”.

“It stands to deliver critical climate finance to the State of Pará and leads the way for other states in Brazil,” said Eron Bloomgarden, CEO of Emergent. “Proceeds from the agreement will be shared with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities on the front line of the fight against deforestation, supporting communities, providing livelihoods and protecting forests and nature.”

Prosecutors, however, argue that the contract constitutes an illegal “advance sale” of carbon credits for emission reductions that have not yet been verified, while SEMAS’ rollout of REDD+ lacks transparency.

Global forest loss hits “frightening” record high with climate-fuelled fires

In September, Pará’s communications agency celebrated the “sale” of carbon credits from the LEAF deal. The contract states that Emergent “intends to resell” credits to corporations and governments.

Advance sales and resales of credits are prohibited under Brazil’s 2024 federal carbon market law, which established the Brazilian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System.

SEMAS maintains that the contract “was a pre-agreement”, telling Climate Home it will only be executed once carbon credits are generated, beginning in 2026. “Therefore, it does not fall under the prohibitions, as it constitutes a legally valid arrangement and does not infringe on rights, since no funds have yet been disbursed,” the agency added in emailed comments.

Ronaldo Amanayé of the Amanayé Indigenous people, treasurer of the Indigenous Peoples Federation of Pará (FEPIPA), took a different view. “They say it’s a ‘symbolic agreement’. But it’s a pre-sale,” he told Climate Home.

Experts said that without a finalised REDD+ system – and in the absence of a state law regulating carbon credits from reduced deforestation – the contract relies prematurely on emissions reductions from traditional territories.

“Pará committed to selling something that wasn’t theirs to sell,” said Carlos Ramos, a researcher with the Family Farming Amazonian Institute (INEAF).

Aurélio Borges, treasurer of Malungu (Coordination of Quilombola Associations of Pará), said, “it’s our carbon stock”. “We keep the forest standing. We need to be in control of the process.” Instead, he added, “the state goes and does something and shows us the document later.”

Unfinished REDD+ system, limited consultation

Critics argue that the LEAF contract itself has already produced negative social impacts – including loss of forest peoples’ bargaining power to negotiate carbon credit prices, accelerated timelines and pressure to comply, and divisions between leaders and communities – and say consultation should have been carried out earlier.

In 2023, prosecutors urged Pará to implement environmental and social safeguards via a REDD+ system before entering into any carbon contracts. But that recommendation was not followed.

The LEAF contract, for example, sets a $15/tonne carbon price without input from traditional communities, Ramos noted.

Draft allocations for REDD+ projects, such as LEAF, show that Pará’s government would retain 15% of proceeds, more than the 14% proposed for Afro-descendant quilombola communities, whose lands are home to the some of the forests storing the carbon. “We think (the government’s share) is high,” Borges said in an interview.

Amanayé also said the 24% earmarked for Indigenous communities should be larger.

There is particular concern among environmentalists about a planned 7% allocation of Pará’s REDD+ funds to agribusiness, which is known to be Brazil’s main driver of deforestation. Prosecutors have called for removal of this REDD+ provision.

Borges proposed a registry of illegal deforesters to ensure that they do not benefit, adding that he fears draft provisions for “restorative agriculture” could channel more funds to agribusiness.

Though Pará’s deforestation dipped in 2023-2024, it remains Brazil’s top-deforesting state, a title it has held for nine years.

Illegal deforestation by large landowners for agribusiness in Baião municipality, Pará, in December 2022. Traditional communities want a registry so that agribusiness-linked illegal deforesters like these won’t benefit under Pará’s still-unfinished REDD+ system. (Photo: Tiffany Higgins)

Illegal deforestation by large landowners for agribusiness in Baião municipality, Pará, in December 2022. Traditional communities want a registry so that agribusiness-linked illegal deforesters like these won’t benefit under Pará’s still-unfinished REDD+ system. (Photo: Tiffany Higgins)

Under REDD+, “who will keep the forest standing, as contracts promise?” queried a representative of the State Public Prosecutor’s Office, who asked to remain anonymous. The office co-authored an April recommendation to cancel the contract.

Pará often doesn’t punish illegal deforestation, Marcio Astrini, executive secretary of the Brazil-based Climate Observatory, told Climate Home.

He noted that in May, Pará Governor Helder Barbalho tried to reverse a federal anti-deforestation operation suspending the activities of some of Pará’s rural properties that had committed illegal deforestation. Barbalho said in a social media video that this would be done “in line with environmental legislation, so that production goes hand in hand with preservation”.

Yet, amid Pará’s weak track record on deforestation, Ramos highlighted fears that the Pará carbon credit deal could become more of a strategy to generate financial assets than conserve forests.

Under pressure to join REDD+

Another contentious issue is the process by which forest communities were selected to participate in the REDD+ planning process. Three voluntary organisations – Malungu, FEPIPA and CNS – were appointed on behalf of hundreds of communities, many of whom “feel these organisations don’t represent them”, according to the State Public Prosecutor’s Office representative.

These same associations are slated to manage REDD+ funds coming from the state, making it unclear how frontline communities who preserve forests will obtain access to the money.

Federal prosecutors charged in their lawsuit that community participation had been limited to financial discussions, rather than shaping the system. Meanwhile, the state, “by all indications, intends to approve its REDD+ system before COP30, which has created considerable pressure on Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities in Pará to hastily approve the system,” they wrote.

The COP30 UN climate summit will take place in the Brazilian Amazon city of Belém in November.

This time limit, said traditional leaders interviewed by Climate Home, has led to what they described as “extreme harassment” to join the fledgling REDD+ system – an accusation rejected by SEMAS.

Community consultation protocols side-stepped

The leaders, however, told Climate Home they had experienced coercive tactics. At an April 28 meeting, they said SEMAS had told quilombola leaders that rejecting the state’s consultation protocol could result in exclusion from public services. Leaders cited threats to housing programmes and land titles, among others.

Prosecutors confirmed this in their lawsuit, noting it “has created pressure within the territories regarding acceptance of the proposal”. SEMAS denied issuing threats and said participation in the REDD+ system is voluntary.

SEMAS confirmed, nonetheless, that it had set a consultation window of five days for 17 quilombola territories to decide jointly whether to be part of the REDD+ system.

“That’s not going to happen,” leader Maria José Brito of São José de Icatu Quilombo told SEMAS at the April meeting. “We want to be consulted, but according to our community consultation protocol.”

“It’s shameful”: Amazon Indigenous people call for oil drilling ban at COP30

Community protocols often require multi-step processes and internal assemblies to reach decisions in keeping with traditional practices. Consultation on issues that will impact Indigenous and traditional people must respect traditional decision-making processes, according to ILO Convention 169.

Leader Rute Santos, also of the Icatu Quilombo, described the Pará state protocol as “throwing our protocol in the trash. We don’t accept that.”

Pará’s REDD+ approach “has divided leaders and communities,” noted Santos, threatening the social fabric as it tries to force rushed decisions.

Others said they had been excluded from key meetings. “They keep you in the dark,” said leader Manoel Liduino of Terra da Liberdade Quilombo.

The state’s strategy amounts to “take it or leave it”, both Santos and Liduino said, making it hard for their peoples to participate in shaping Pará’s REDD+ development. SEMAS responded that the process had so far been “fully participatory”.

Flávia dos Santos, legal consultant for Malungu spoke at a National Meeting on Climate Change Impacts on Traditional Peoples in May, where the Public Prosecutor’s Office released an MPF handbook on defense of traditional communities in the carbon market context. (Photo courtesy of MPF)

Flávia dos Santos, legal consultant for Malungu spoke at a National Meeting on Climate Change Impacts on Traditional Peoples in May, where the Public Prosecutor’s Office released an MPF handbook on defense of traditional communities in the carbon market context. (Photo courtesy of MPF)

Carbon sovereignty concerns      

There are also questions of legal coherence. Brazil’s 2024 law defines carbon credits as a “civil fruit” that are attached to the underlying piece of land, suggesting that they cannot be resold or transferred.

The LEAF contract, by allowing resale, “violates Brazil’s sovereignty” to define its carbon sinks, said Talanoa Institute’s Amazonian public policy analyst Wendell Andrade. Pará, meanwhile, may violate federal jurisdiction by promising credits from Indigenous and conservation area lands that belong to the Brazilian state, say prosecutors.

The Pará state project is among the world’s first “jurisdictional” carbon credit schemes, set up to cover a whole state or country.

SEMAS responded that “the jurisdictional system is not a project that will enter territories causing harm or adverse effects to traditional communities.”

The Amazon rainforest emerges as the new global oil frontier 

Chief Yuna Miriam Tembé of the Tembé people believes that REDD+ is effectively a way of enabling continued carbon emissions by business. “Why are the federal and state governments selling our forests so that mega-industries can keep polluting?” she asked. “Polluting the environment (with carbon) is a crime, causing the death of countless lives, people, the land, rivers, fish, animals, the forest, birds and all living beings.”

She questioned what she sees as efforts to limit forest peoples’ ancestral uses of land, like clearing small plots for cassava cultivation – a point SEMAS did not clarify when asked. “Even though the territory is ours, the state uses these carbon credit contracts to try to restrict our freedom of movement within these spaces. That is unacceptable,” Tembé said.

“We cannot accept privatisation being imposed inside our own home (territory),” she added – a sentiment echoed by Santos.

Local confusion about REDD+

As the Pará state consultations on its REDD+ programme got underway, many community members told Climate Home they do not understand what carbon credits are, despite being asked to accept the short five-day consultation period.

“Even as a movement leader,” said Liduino, “I don’t understand what REDD+ is.”

As of May, the state’s REDD+ “transparency” web page hosted only technical documents. SEMAS told Climate Home it would explain REDD+ to communities during the first two days of consultation.

The Talanoa Institute’s Andrade said carbon credits and forest carbon are “still something nebulous that a large portion of Pará’s population doesn’t understand”.

Putting information on the SEMAS website “doesn’t make the process transparent,” he added. “Transparency should be a coordinated set of communication strategies using accessible language levels that match the understanding of different segments of society,“ he said.

The post Pará’s Amazon forest carbon deal in doubt as prosecutors move to block it appeared first on Climate Home News.

Pará’s Amazon forest carbon deal in doubt as prosecutors move to block it

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Marine Parks Explained

Published

on

Australia’s network of marine parks is the largest in the world, covering more than half (52%) of Australia’s Commonwealth waters. You could be forgiven for assuming that a marine park is much like a national park on land: a highly protected place where people can enjoy nature while conservation efforts help habitats recover and wildlife thrive. You wouldn’t expect someone to bulldoze a national park, so why should they be allowed to bottom trawl in a marine park?

The reality is that not all marine parks are equally protected. Australia’s Marine Parks Network is divided into different zoning categories, with each zone determining which activities are permitted and the level of protection provided.

More than half of the Commonwealth Marine Parks Network allows industrial activities like oil and gas mining, and industrial fishing.

Our survival, and the survival of our planet, depends on the ocean. The ocean produces more oxygen than all of our forests combined, sustains communities and regulates the earth’s temperature. It’s home to wondrous wildlife and important ecosystems like coral reefs and kelp forests.

We love our big blue backyard

Australia’s ocean is teeming with life that is found nowhere else on earth. Schools of colourful fish, vibrant coral reefs, endemic shark nurseries, pods of dolphins, families of whales, playful seal pups and threatened Jurassic-era turtles call Australian waters home.

Since time began, from the turquoise waves to the deep blue, the ocean has connected our shorelines and communities, fed us, guided us and grounded us. We are intrinsically connected to our big blue backyard – more than 85% of us live within 50km of the shoreline. For tens of thousands of years, people have lived in harmony with the ocean and the wildlife within it, caring for and being sustained by its rich waters. Australia’s waters are some of the most unique and abundant places on Earth but our Marine Parks Network is falling short to properly protect them. 

Australia’s marine parks aren’t living up to their name

© Greenpeace / Harriet Spark

The Australian Commonwealth Marine Parks Network covers commonwealth waters 5.5km from the coast. The network is divided into 7 regional management areas, overall the network contains 60 marine parks. Zoning types determine what activities are allowed in each area. Over half of the network allows industrial activities, risking our most precious and threatened ocean wildlife.

Within many of our marine parks, destructive industries are allowed to fish, trawl, dig and mine using barbaric and cruel methods. Here are some of the zones explained:

  • Bottom Trawling: Special Purpose (trawl) zones allow bottom trawling. This covers 10 marine parks totalling almost 13 million hectares. Bottom trawlers bulldoze the seafloor with weighted nets, deforesting our underwater forests; a cruel, indiscriminate and inefficient way to fish.
  • Other Industrial Fishing: Includes “Habitat Protection Zones, ““Multi Use Zones” and “Special Purpose Zones.” Fishing methods vary from park to park but many marine parks in these zones allow industrial fishing like longlining. Longlining involves setting lines that can be 100km long, bristling with deadly hooks designed to catch a specific fish species. But longlining is not a selective method of fishing – significant numbers of sharks, rays, turtles, dolphins and seabirds can be harmed or killed as bycatch in the process.
  • Oil and Gas Mining: Many “Special Purpose” and “Multi Use” zones allow seismic blasting and oil and gas mining. 30 marine parks or 65 million hectares of Australia’s highest conservation value areas for ocean wildlife are open for mining and exploration of oil and gas.
  • Ocean Sanctuaries: National Park and Sanctuary zones are fully and highly protected marine parks designed to conserve wildlife and their habitat, where fishing, mining, and other industrial activities are not allowed.

Industrial fishing is one of the biggest threats to the ocean

Marine parks on the east coast that allow bottom trawling. 10 marine parks across the whole network allow bottom trawling totalling almost 13 million hectares of ocean habitat for precious wildlife.

In May, Greenpeace Australia Pacific sailed our campaigning vessel Oceania through some of Australia’s most beautiful and threatened marine parks. Our crew visited Jervis and Hunter marine parks to document their beauty, showcase what’s at risk and aim to expose the industrial fishing activities in these protected waters. Both of these marine parks allow bottom trawling and longlining methods of industrial fishing.

Industrial fishing is ripping the ocean apart across the planet. Longlining, also known as longline fishing, is an industrial fishing method that involves the use of a fishing line with thousands of baited hooks. These fishing lines can stretch over 100 kilometers in length and are set to capture a fish species, often tuna or billfish species. But it is not a selective method of fishing  and often results in significant bycatch. This includes a range of non-target species like sharks, rays, sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds which are often injured or killed as bycatch.

Bottom trawling involves dragging heavy weighted nets along the ocean floor. This fishing method is popular with commercial fishing companies, because it makes it easy to catch large quantities of fish in one go. But it also damages the seafloor, releasing carbon and can kill or injure non-target ocean life like coral, fur seals, dolphins and seabirds. You may have watched the reality of bottom trawling (and the benefits of ocean sanctuaries) in Ocean with David Attenborough, if not, add it to your watch list!  

Fully protected ocean sanctuaries that ban industrial fishing and mining can protect ocean wildlife and underwater wonderlands for generations to come. Vast, robust sanctuaries create blue havens where ocean wildlife are safe from nets and hooks, and can truly rest, recover, thrive and replenish out into the surrounding waters. Ocean sanctuaries ensure a healthy ocean full of life.

A once-in-a-decade chance to fix what’s falling short

We have a unique opportunity to turn the tide.

The Australian Government is asking for your feedback on how our Commonwealth Marine Parks Network is managed. This is our once-in-a-decade chance to protect ocean wildlife, ban industrial fishing and create more ocean sanctuaries.

As part of the review the Government is asking for submissions from the public to hear from you on what improvements are needed to better protect our vast network of marine parks. Writing a submission is a powerful way to influence government decisions and create real change.

This is the moment to ban industrial activities like bottom trawling and oil and gas mining. But only if they hear from YOU. Add your name!

Greenpeace is calling on the Australian government to:

1. Ban industrial activities from Australia’s Marine Parks Network: Ban industrial activities, such as industrial fishing, seismic blasting and oil and gas mining, from Australia’s marine parks.

2. Create more ocean sanctuaries: Increase fully protected sanctuaries in Australia’s marine parks based on science principles.

3. Connect Australia’s Marine Parks Network to the High Seas: mCreate seascape connectivity by linking Australian marine parks to new high seas ocean sanctuaries.

References

Substantiation that more than half of the Marine Parks Network permits industrial activity comes from a peer-reviewed systematic literature review (Phillips et al. 2025, PLOS One, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307324). The study found that within the Commonwealth Marine Parks Network specifically, “all zones are considered partially protected areas, meaning areas where extractive activities are permitted, except ‘Pink zones’ (Preservation Zones; IUCN Ia) and ‘Green Zones’ (IUCN II).” In other words, every Commonwealth marine park zone type other than the network’s strict no-take sanctuary and national park zones (IUCN Ia and II) permits some form of extractive industrial activity. Since no-take zones are the minority zone type across the network by area, this supports the conclusion that the majority of the network’s area is zoned to permit industrial activity.

DCCEEW Australian Marine Parks spatial dataset (https://fed.dcceew.gov.au/datasets/erin::australian-marine-parks/explore), filtered by zone type. This confirms that 38.43% of the network’s area is zoned as Sanctuary or National Park zones (IUCN Ia and II). These are the no-take categories excluded from the peer-reviewed study’s definition of partially protected/industrial-permitting zones. The remaining 61.57% of the network falls within the zone categories the study classifies as permitting industrial activity (per The MPA Guide definition of “industrial” applied in Phillips et al. 2025), directly corroborating the peer-reviewed finding with current Commonwealth-specific spatial data.

For further information on activities permitted within the Marine Parks Network Zoning, you can refer to the Management Plans zoning and rules for each Marine Parks Network area, for example: Temperate East, Coral Sea, North.

Marine Parks Explained

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Report: Trawling the Bottom Line

Published

on

A new report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific advocates for the closure of bottom trawling in Australia’s Commonwealth Marine Parks Network. Bottom trawling continues to be a pervasive threat to ocean life in Australia, with 10 marine parks totalling almost 13 million hectares, allowing bottom trawling.

Australia’s network of marine parks, which is the biggest in the world, covers more than half (52%) of Australia’s Commonwealth domestic waters, but not all parks are created equal. Australia’s Marine Parks Network is divided into different zoning categories, with each zone determining which activities are permitted and the level of protection provided. More than half of the Marine Parks Network allow industrial activities like industrial fishing and oil and gas mining. This includes zoning types that allow destructive fishing by longliners and bottom trawlers, who pillage underwater wonderlands, rip up coral and indiscriminately and violently catch any animal in their path, including turtles, seals and dolphins, all within areas labelled a marine park.

The Federal government has commenced a review into the majority of Australia’s Commonwealth Marine Parks Network management plans. This presents an opportunity to ban industrial activities from our marine parks and create more ocean sanctuaries.

Australia’s waters are some of the most unique and abundant places on earth, and are a global hotspot of biodiversity. Vibrant coral reefs and wondrous wildlife like endangered turtles, dolphins, and whales, some found nowhere else on earth, call Australia’s waters home. 

Australia’s network of marine parks is the biggest in the world. It covers 52 per cent of Australia’s domestic waters, but more than half of the network allows destructive, extractive industries like seismic blasting, industrial fishing and oil and gas mining. Longliners and bottom trawlers frequent these marine parks, looking for fish but catching everything in their path. 

In May 2026, Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s campaigning vessel Oceania traveled to Jervis Bay Marine Park and Hunter Marine Park to document their beauty, the wildlife under threat and aim to expose the industrial fishing activities in these so called protected waters.

Greenpeace is calling on the federal government to ban industrial activities from the marine parks network, create more fully protected ocean sanctuaries and connect the network to new high seas ocean sanctuaries.

Report: Trawling the Bottom Line

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Sewing and Painting the Future

Published

on

The iconic Greenpeace ship hosts community and family activities over the weekend from 27-30 April, including banner-making workshops and tours of the ship, culminating in a community paddle out for the climate and ocean at South Beach.
© Harriet Spark / Grumpy Turtle Film / Greenpeace

The banner drop is a distinctive part of the Greenpeace repertoire.

The moment of the unfolding is intrinsically dramatic. It is the reveal; when the moral and scientific truth of a situation is unveiled to the world. The wrong is being labelled—not through a written submission, or a social media post, or a statement in a meeting—but in words emblazoned in real physical space, chosen and occupied with precision, for all to see. There is jeopardy and transgression. And there are consequences—for the activists and for Greenpeace, as well as for the target of the communication. One of the reasons the banner remains such an effective tool in our toolbox is because of its undeniable clarity in cutting through, driving change and accountability in a way that few other tactics can. It is naming the wrong: in giant, clear letters.

We’ve hung these massive messages at environmental crime scenes, corporate headquarters, and iconic landmarks; on government buildings, ships and planes—in locations all around the world, for years.

My own memories unfurl even as I write this, but because the campaign to stop Woodside at Scott Reef is so pressing, what immediately springs to mind are two of our banners in that campaign: one on a crane outside their Perth HQ, and another on some of their corroding industrial junk at sea. What about you? Is there a particular banner that you picture when you think of Greenpeace?

The banners can attract global attention, but they have quiet beginnings. Each one is made by hand, often by volunteers. It is the invisible labour behind each spectacular public moment. One of the key pieces of equipment in our workshop at Rainbow Warrior House is the sewing machine. Sometimes our workshop is full of people and noise; at others it is quiet, the only sound being the gentle, purposeful, whir and buzz of a banner being sewn. It is usually our warehouse manager, Kieran Holmes, on the tools, head over the machine, carefully pouring over the raw canvas or tarp as the banner takes shape. Kieran’s one of those people who seems to be able to turn his hand to almost anything, but you wouldn’t know it because he’s old-school modest. In addition to being incredibly skilled, Kieran’s an all-round beaut human to have in the heart of our headquarters; never too busy to take the time to show a newcomer, or curious visitor, around his domain. 

Once the banner is sewn up, the lettering needs to be outlined. This is done on a magnetic wall—a fit-for-purpose feature at Rainbow Warrior House, where the banner is held up with magnets, and the edges of the letters neatly traced from a projection.

Next comes the painting. It usually starts late in the afternoon, sometimes going into evenings and weekends, with volunteers, staff, mates crowded around, brushes in hand. It is a calming meditative feeling of shared purpose, giving each letter its visual heft, the colour building power and presence with each stroke.

Then you stand back, stretch, and look at the message, now ready.

S A V E S C O T T R E E F

Throughout history, every great push for social change has required some form of invisible labour; preparation in the form of quiet things seldom seen, but vital. It is the enabling work of love instantiated in action. And of course, so much of the time it has been women who have done this labour, so that the men could get the chance to make the speeches and stand on the podiums. The inaugural Greenpeace voyage to stop nuclear testing in 1971 had a male-only crew, but wouldn’t have happened without the ideas and work of women behind the scenes.

It is what we do together, after all, that changes the world. Sometimes that work happens on a stage, a ship on the wild seas, or up the side of a building. But mostly, it is the hidden diligence of those who care and contribute to all the enabling work that makes a change once thought impossible, inevitable. It is Kieran at his sewing machine. It was Dorothy Stowe doing the administrative work of the ‘Don’t Make A Wave Committee’ that became Greenpeace.

When we think of social change, it is the sturm and drang that we remember. The drop of the banner, the chant of the crowd, the raising of the new flag. But look behind the curtain, and there’ll be a crew of people who are taking responsibility for the administration, the sewing and the painting, making the food, checking the bus timetables, getting stuff done. And behind them are even more handsinvisibly donating time and trust; the financial, material and expert resources that make it all possible. There’s love, camaraderie and know-how at every stage.

We are social and cooperative creatures by nature. And we human beings have been stitching for millenia, sewing the possibilities of our common future. Political and corporate bullies and algorithmically manipulative platforms would have us forget this, and abandon who we are. But we should be in no doubt that the brighter prospects for ourselves and life on earth continue to be stitched and painted; collaboratively and with love, by the diligent hands of millions of people who care, each day, in every community and city across the world.

With Love,

David


Q & A

I always get great questions when interviewing prospective new team members. One that came up again recently was: “Is Greenpeace actually one organisation?”

Around the world, people know Greenpeace by our one global name, united by a shared mission: securing an Earth capable of nurturing life in all its magnificent diversity, with a particular focus on climate and biodiversity. Behind the scenes, though, we’re organised as a network of 25 legally autonomous national and regional offices, including Greenpeace Australia Pacific, working alongside Greenpeace International.

That structure gives us the best of both worlds: we work together leveraging the power of a global network on the issues that matter most, while each office remains legally independent and deeply connected to the communities, cultures and political realities where we’re embedded. Local knowledge informs global action, and global collaboration strengthens and supports local campaigns.

It’s a model that has enabled Greenpeace to take on some of the world’s biggest challenges for over five decades–while withstanding challenges and attacks from governments and corporations. Global enough to tackle global problems, local enough to understand our communities and the natural places we love.

If you’re curious to learn more, you can read about the Greenpeace Global Network structure here.

Sewing and Painting the Future

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com