South Africans celebrated as their Constitutional Court ruled against Shell and Impact Africa’s oil exploration plans off the country’s Wild Coast. The legal victory demonstrated the importance of people-powered action against destructive neocolonial extractive industries across Africa. The judgement also strengthens the case for African governments to move away from an economic dependence on fossil fuels and towards reliable renewable energy and green employment.

What exactly did the Constitutional Court rule?

On 14 August 2026, South Africa’s Constitutional Court permanently halted Shell and Impact Africa’s oil and gas exploration off the country’s Wild Coast. This brought a years-long legal battle to a decisive end. South Africa’s apex court, upheld the 2022 Makhanda High Court finding that the exploration right had been unlawfully granted to Shell. It found that the South African government had not meaningfully consulted affected communities, as per the country’s laws. The South African Minister of the Mineral Resources and Energy, who was cited as the Main Respondent,  did not provide the requisite stewardship over the process.

View this post on Instagram

The court also set aside the original exploration right and its two renewals, rejecting the Supreme Court of Appeal’s 2024 decision to give Shell an opportunity to remedy the original failure through a later consultation process. The court warned that allowing this would mean “financial investment” could outweigh “grave constitutional violations”. 

For Wild Coast communities, the judgement confirmed that decisions affecting their ocean, livelihoods, culture and environment cannot be separated from their constitutional rights.

How did South Africans react to the judgement?

Wild Coast communities and environmental organisations welcomed the judgment as a historic victory for people whose livelihoods and cultural identities are closely connected to the ocean. Sustaining the Wild Coast’s Sinegugu Zukulu said the communities had gone to court “for the future and for future generations”, rather than for profit. “For centuries, colonialism and capitalism have enabled a system that ignores the rights of Indigenous People in their own land. At last we have been able to assert the rights of Indigenous People over the profits of global corporations.”

At last we have been able to assert the rights of Indigenous People over the profits of global corporations.

Activists and Wild Coast community members also stressed the importance of collaborating across all factions of society in achieving people-powered impact. Local fisher Sazise Maxwell Pekayo said the communities challenging the government were greatly supported by lawyers and civil society groups, adding: “Amandla! Power to the rights of communities!” Amadiba Crisis Committee activist Nonhle Mbutuma said that true development must come from people deciding their own future. Natural Justice’s Delme Cupido said the case demonstrated that public participation is not simply about “ticking boxes”, but about putting people’s dignity at the centre of decisions that affect their lives, rights and cultural practices.

Why did South Africa’s court rule against Shell?

The South African Constitutional Court found the original process granting Shell its exploration license failed to give communities meaningful participation in a decision that could affect their livelihoods, environment, culture and spiritual relationship with the sea. Regarding the failure to consider the relevant communities’ spiritual and cultural rights, the High Court found that there was no evidence that the possibility of harm to ancestral beliefs and practices, or any remedial measures to guard against possible harm, were considered by the Minister.

The court rejected an approach that treated these concerns as merely competing against economic development. It emphasised South Africa’s history of apartheid, dispossession and marginalisation, explaining that commercial interests cannot automatically be placed on the same footing as constitutionally protected community rights. 

The court warned that speculative economic benefits cannot outweigh procedural justice where communities face direct environmental and cultural consequences. As the court put it, “Protection of ecological systems is inseparable from the protection of rights to dignity, culture and livelihood.” It also rejected the argument that consultation during a later renewal could cure the original illegality.

What does the Shell Wild Coast court judgement mean for local South African communities?

Beyond stopping Shell’s exploration, the judgment establishes a significant precedent for communities facing extractive projects along South Africa’s coastline. The court made clear that corporations cannot rely on financial investment to overcome failures to respect constitutional rights. 

Legal Resources Centre’s Kimal Harvey said the judgment confirmed that “no decisions about our land or resources can be made without us”, while Natural Justice’s Melissa Groenink-Groves described it as a victory for coastal communities, constitutional democracy and judicial accountability. 

“People and their constitutional rights come before corporate profits.

The court also referred to the 2025 International Court of Justice advisory opinion on climate change, emphasising that decisions must account for scientific evidence, international commitments and foreseeable impacts on present and future generations. Greenpeace Africa’s Eugene Perumal said the message was clear: “People and their constitutional rights come before corporate profits.” 

For coastal communities, that principle strengthens their ability to defend livelihoods, heritage and environmental rights when development threatens their way of life.

What is the background of Shell’s seismic blasting plans off South Africa’s Wild Coast?

Shell’s planned seismic exploration off South Africa’s Wild Coast involved a five-month survey using powerful airguns to send shockwaves into the seabed approximately every ten seconds. The technology was intended to locate potential oil and gas deposits, but raised serious concerns about its impact on marine ecosystems. 

Experts warned that seismic waves can disturb, injure or kill marine life, while successful exploration could lead to further risks from drilling, extraction, transportation and oil spills. For coastal communities that depend heavily on fishing and ecotourism, the potential consequences were particularly serious. 

The project also threatened endangered and scientifically important species, including southern right whales and the critically endangered coelacanth fish. Community activists and civil society organisations, including Greenpeace Africa, challenged Shell’s plans through the courts, while affected communities pursued further legal action after an initial interdict was unsuccessful. Thus began the years-long court battle.

The legal case became part of a wider debate about fossil fuel development, environmental protection and community rights.

How did South Africans react to news about Shell’s plans to conduct seismic blasting off the Wild Coast? 

Opposition to Shell’s plans quickly became a grassroots movement in South Africa. When the Amazon Warrior, the vessel carrying out the seismic surveys, arrived in Cape Town, hundreds of activists protested against its presence. Demonstrations subsequently spread to almost 100 towns, particularly along South Africa’s coastline. 

View this post on Instagram

For Indigenous coastal communities, the issue was about far more than environmental protection: the ocean is central to their livelihoods, culture and spirituality. Communities were already under pressure from industrial fishing and other threats to their economic security. Amadiba Crisis Committee activist Nonhle Mbuthuma described the situation as another struggle for a community that had spent decades opposing mining on its land. “Now we also must fight against the mining of the ocean,” she said.

In December 2021, communities and activists joined forces to launch a matter in the Makhanda High Court where an interdict was granted. Shell opposed this and requested a review in the self-same High Court which upheld the original decision. Shell took the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which, whilst not overturning the illegality of the granting of the right, simultaneously opened a backdoor for Shell to retrospectively meet the requirement for meaning consultation. The communities took the matter to the country’s apex court to overturn the Supreme Court of Appeal ruling.

Why did South Africans stand up against Shell’s planned oil exploration? 

Activists and local communities against the corporation’s Wild Coast project also pointed to Shell’s destructive history in Nigeria’s Niger Delta as a warning of what can happen when oil extraction causes environmental damage. Shell began producing oil there in 1958, while communities and environmental organisations have spent decades challenging the consequences of pollution and demanding accountability. 

Niger Delta communities experienced widespread destruction of ecosystems and livelihoods because of oil spills, and suffered the violent suppression of protests during the struggle against oil extraction. Shell’s Niger Delta track record demonstrated the devastating long-term consequences when corporate interests take precedence over local communities and environmental protection. 

Concerns about the Wild Coast therefore extend beyond the immediate effects of seismic testing: successful exploration could open the door to a much larger fossil fuel industry and the environmental risks that accompany it.

What risks did Shell’s oil exploration plans pose to Wild Coast communities?

The risk of Shell’s oil exploration plans to South African Wild Coast communities extended beyond individual species to the wider health of South Africa’s oceans. Seismic blasts not only affect marine life on which coastal communities depend, but also disturb marine ecosystems that serve as a major defence against the climate crisis. 

Oceans absorb carbon dioxide and heat, while kelp forests (abundant along South Africa’s coastline) provide valuable ecological benefits such as sequestering carbon, sheltering marine species and protecting shorelines from erosion. With marine ecosystems already under severe pressure from global heating and rising ocean temperatures, expanding fossil fuel exploration only stands to compound existing threats. The potential profits from oil and gas cannot justify risking communities, biodiversity and ecosystems that provide vital protection against climate change. 

Yet, oil and gas corporations continue promoting oil exploration across Africa because the continent’s resources offer lucrative opportunities for multinational corporations. While they frame extractivism as an economic and development opportunity for African countries, it ultimately serves neocolonial interests.

Despite fossil fuel companies’ already long history in South Africa, the country continues to face shockingly high unemployment, remaining the most unequal society in the world. South Africa’s own experience with oil and gas corporations demonstrates the opposite of the prosperity that fossil fuel companies promise. Despite the billions these multinational oil companies rake in every quarter, communities who live near oil infrastructure (like Wentworth, South Africa) tend to find themselves in downward poverty spirals.

Furthermore, weak global tax rules currently allow multinationals in the extractive sector to shift at least 12% of their global profits to tax havens, a figure that rises to 20% of windfall profits in commodity booms. This allows them to dodge billions of US dollars in taxes in countries across Africa, undermining governments’ resources to invest in essentials like schools, hospitals and climate protection.  

Does the Shell Wild Coast court judgement protect South Africa from neocolonial extractivism?

South Africa’s Constitutional Court judgement against Shell provides an important legal safeguard against extractive industries pursuing commercial interests at the expense of local communities. By affirming that meaningful public participation, cultural rights, livelihoods and environmental protection cannot be overridden by corporate investment, the judgment strengthens communities’ ability to challenge projects imposed without their consent. 

This may have wider significance for the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region, in particular, and the African continent more broadly where oil, gas and mineral extraction has reproduced unequal relationships in which multinational companies benefit from resources while local people carry environmental and social costs. The judgement establishes that economic development cannot simply be defined by corporate investment or promised jobs. African governments must follow suit and ensure that resource decisions respect communities’ constitutional and human rights.

View this post on Instagram

How else is Africa meant to generate energy and create more jobs?

This South African court judgment also strengthens the case for governments to move away from an economic model dependent solely or disproportionately on fossil fuel extraction and towards renewable energy and green employment. By steering focus on new fossil fuel projects, the decision forces decision makers to diversify energy production and invest in newer, greener and cleaner technologies. Renewable energy and modern electricity grids can create jobs without exposing communities to the pollution and environmental risks associated with oil and gas. 

Renewable energy is already becoming the dominant source of new electricity generation: around 85% of new global power capacity added in 2025 was renewable, principally solar and wind. For African countries, investing in these technologies can mean developing domestic industries, training skilled workers and creating employment closer to where people live. The transition therefore offers an opportunity to redefine development around locally-owned “decentralised” energy, decent work and long-term economic resilience.

How reliable is renewable energy?

Renewable energy offers benefits that extend beyond cutting carbon emissions. Solar and wind use energy sources that are freely available locally, reducing dependence on imported coal, oil and gas whose prices rise dramatically during wars, geopolitical disputes or supply disruptions. Renewable electricity can therefore strengthen political independence in Africa by reducing the influence of foreign fuel suppliers and unequal relationships with fossil fuel corporations over national energy policies. 

Batteries, smart grids and diversified renewable systems can further improve resilience by allowing countries to store electricity and rely on multiple local sources rather than vulnerable international supply chains. Although renewable infrastructure requires minerals and responsible mining, it can generate electricity for decades without continually consuming fuel, while producing substantially lower lifecycle emissions than fossil fuel systems.

Is renewable energy viable for South Africa?

South Africa has considerable potential to build a diverse renewable energy system. Its abundant sunshine makes utility-scale and rooftop solar particularly attractive, while strong coastal and inland wind resources provide opportunities for large-scale wind generation. Batteries can store solar and wind electricity for periods when the sun is not shining or wind production falls, while improved transmission networks and smart-grid technology can connect renewable resources with areas of high demand. Its current dependence on fossil fuels has had dire impacts on the country’s economy. After years of widespread blackouts (loadshedding), it is clear that South Africa’s  current energy production cannot match the demand. 

How will South Africa pay for a just transition to renewable energy?

Governments around the world, including in South Africa, could raise trillions of US dollars through more ambitious national and global taxes on polluting multinational corporations and super-rich individuals. For example, a new global polluter tax of 20% on the profits of the biggest oil and gas corporations, with tax rates progressively increasing over time, could raise more than US $100 billion every year in its first few years. These funds should not only be used to pay for the loss and damage caused by the extreme weather that these polluters drive, but also for climate adaptation and investment into cleaner newer energy technologies like renewables. 

South Africa, alongside all other governments, should seize this opportunity through supporting bold new global tax rules under the Global Tax Treaty currently being negotiated, while rolling out higher taxes on the wealthiest polluters at the national level immediately. It is time to end this cycle of suffering inflicted by the polluting extractives industry and to hold them to account by making them pay for a just transition that benefits all. 

Polluters Pay Pact

Sign the pact, record your story. Join the global movement to make polluters pay.

Join the movement

Taiwan — Today, Taiwan’s Kaohsiung District Court found the captain and chief officer not guilty in a case involving allegations of human trafficking and labor exploitation aboard Da Wang, a Taiwanese-owned, Vanuatu-flagged tuna fishing vessel that exported its fish globally.

The case dates back to June 2019, when a 19-year-old Indonesian fisher, Sunoto, was reportedly struck in the back of the head while working aboard the Da Wang and was found dead in the cabin the following morning. Prosecutors in the case said the vessel’s captain and first officer used violence and coercion to exploit migrant fishers aboard.

Manny (pseudonym), a Filipino fisher who is also a victim and witness in the Da Wang forced labour case, said the verdict was deeply heartbreaking and disappointing to him. He said, “The captain assaulted and beat people on board every day. He was responsible for Sunoto’s wrongful death and should be held accountable under the law. If there is an opportunity to appeal, I will appeal the case all the way.”

Shay Kuo, Oceans Campaigner at Greenpeace East Asia’s Taipei Office, said: “Despite multiple testimonies and indications pointing to forced labour and violence aboard the vessel, the court’s decision highlights the difficulties of gathering evidence and establishing proof at sea, underscoring the challenges facing the maritime regulatory system. Seven years on, full justice remains out of reach. To prevent further victims and broken families, the Taiwanese government must strengthen oversight of fishing vessels and require seafood companies to take responsibility for human rights abuses throughout their supply chains.”

Greenpeace Southeast Asia and the Union of Indonesian Migrant Workers (SBMI) first documented allegations of severe labour abuses — such as violence, excessive working hours and wage-related abuses — aboard the Da Wang in its 2019 investigation. [1] 

Sari Heidenreich, senior human rights adviser for Greenpeace USA’s Global Fisheries campaign, said: “This heartbreaking verdict cannot be the end of the story. A migrant fisher lost his life, and other workers reported serious abuses, including forced labor, aboard the same vessel. This case exemplifies the uphill battle that fishers face to achieve justice and remedy. Responsibility does not end with vessel operators. All of Big Seafood, which includes companies buying and trading seafood, must be rigorous in their due diligence to ensure that forced labor and abuse are not happening anywhere in their supply chains and that, if they do, victims have access to swift and meaningful justice and remedy.”

The Da Wang case exposes the widespread problem of seafood supply chains remaining profitable while the migrant workers who catch the fish bear the greatest human cost. 

The Greenpeace global network’s Beyond Seafood Campaign has called for concerted action by all stakeholders and governments along the seafood supply chain to end isolation at sea. This includes:

• Free, accessible, and secure Wi-Fi on all fishing vessels to allow fishers to have contact with their families, unions, and governments.
• Capping time at sea to maximum three consecutive months to reduce the risk of human rights abuse, forced labor, and human trafficking.
• 100% human observers or electronic monitoring to ensure vital data on catch composition, bycatch, interactions with protected species, and overall fishing practices are reported by independent and impartial parties.

ENDS

Notes

[1] Greenpeace Southeast Asia and the SBMI first documented allegations of severe labour abuses aboard the Da Wang in its 2019 investigation, Seabound: The Journey to Modern Slavery on the High Seas.

Greenpeace East Asia passed the testimony of an onboard Indonesian fisher to Taiwan’s Fisheries Agency, who then took the evidence to the Kaohsiung District Prosecutors’ Office for investigation. In April 2022, the Kaohsiung District Prosecutors’ Office indicted nine people, including the vessel owner, captain, first officer and others, on charges including violations of Taiwan’s Human Trafficking Prevention Act.

Separately in the United States, the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a Withhold Release Order (WRO) against tuna caught by the Da Wang in August 2020 and a Finding against the Da Wang for forced labour in January 2022. In the same year, Greenpeace USA found tuna for sale by Bumble Bee in the U.S. that was sourced from the Da Wang during the alleged human trafficking and forced labor occured. Bumble Bee also faces a separate federal lawsuit brought by Indonesian fishers who allege that the company benefited from tuna harvested using their forced labor. 

Contacts

Vela Andapita, Global Communications Coordinator, Beyond Seafood campaign, Greenpeace Southeast Asia, +62 817 5759 449 (UTC+8), vela.andapita@greenpeace.org 

Greenpeace International Press Desk, +31 (0)20 718 2470 (available 24 hours), pressdesk.int@greenpeace.org

We all just witnessed one of the hottest summers ever around the globe. The trauma of watching massive forest fires, flash floods, and super typhoons is horrifying, to say the least. The horror of huge forest fires in Spain, France, Greece, Germany, Canada, and now Indonesia is an alarm bell we all need to wake up to. The frequency of super typhoons bringing destruction to  China, the Philippines, and Japan is another form of extreme weather patterns that scientists have warned us about for years. 

If this was not enough, we also witnessed flooding in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Hawaii (USA), South Korea, China, Japan, and Peru. Parts of North Africa, including Morocco, have faced back‑to‑back heatwaves on top of drought, with temperatures reaching 44 to 46°C in provinces from Marrakech and Beni Mellal to Laayoune and Dakhla.

All of this happened even before El Niño was expected to intensify toward the year’s end. And all of this happened.  The full impact could potentially be much worse than what happened so far.

While so much of the destruction of nature and human life is happening every week, too many of our governments are acting without the urgency this crisis demands. There is still a huge emphasis on making more profits, including more oil exploration and continued wars, combined with insufficient action towards addressing the core issue of climate change. In fact, some countries, are still rusted on to a ‘drill, baby, drill’ approach, but there there are also many others that are ready to plan for and implement a transition away from fossil fuels.

So there is a tendency to get distracted and forget about the consequences of our mistakes. That is why we document these climate emergencies so we can do our best not to repeat them in the future. This blog is an attempt to record the results of the combined inaction of our governments and the race to preserve this beautiful planet.

France: The wildfires affected France, particularly in the north and south of the country, burning 115,000 hectares. The wildfire season was classified as the worst in the country since 1949. Beachgoers sit on the beach of Moutchic in Lacanau, southwestern France on July 24, 2026, as clouds of smoke rise into the sky from a wildfire. The fire raged in the northern part of the Arcachon Basin in Gironde, southwest France.

Spain: The forest fire burned 25,000 hectares across Madrid and neighbouring Avila province, forcing more than 60,000 people (a downwardly revised figure) to flee their homes, according to authorities, who labelled the fire the “worst in history” for the Madrid region.

Philippines: Tropical cyclones and monsoon rains sweeping across the Philippines triggered widespread floods. Residents were evacuated to higher ground with their belongings in Barangay Sta Ana, San Mateo, Rizal, Philippines, on 17 August 2026.

Japan: Unprecedented heavy rain in Japan claimed the lives of 8 people, leaving thousands at Narita airport and cutting power to more than 20,000 households in Chiba prefecture.

Tunisia: Ash and the remains of destroyed trees as fires ravage the forests of Sakiet Sidi Youssef in the Kef region, near the border with Algeria on 24 July 2026. At least 900 fires broke out in Tunisia over 72 hours, as the country grapples with an intense heatwave. Firefighters battled two major blazes, one of them in the northwestern region of Sakiet Sidi Youssef.

United States of America: All of New York State, including New York City, and parts of New Jersey are under an Air Quality Advisory due to the smoke from more than 100 wildfires burning in Canada. The Tri-State is seeing visible smoke and hazy skies across the state and spikes in smoke-related pollution. Fine particle pollution from wildfire smoke can cause shortness of breath, coughing, dizziness, or fatigue, and can aggravate heart and lung diseases and other chronic health issues.

India: The flood situation in Assam, India, turned critical as it claimed 80 lives, displacing about 2 million people across 200 villages.

Algeria: As firefighters work to put out a wildfire in Bordj Okhriss, located approximately 150 km southeast of Algiers. For several days, Algeria has been facing a wave of exceptionally intense wildfires.

From protests against oil and gas in the Black Sea, to documenting drought impacts in Germany. Here are a few of our favourite images from Greenpeace work around the world this week.

Bulgaria – Greenpeace activists from five countries painted “NO GAS + OIL” on the side of the abandoned tanker “Kairos”, part of Russia’s shadow fleet, anchored off the coast of Burgas, Bulgaria. The activity protested against the toxic dependence on oil and gas, which funds wars, fuels corruption, and endangers marine ecosystems and local communities.

Germany – During a forest tour in Reiersdorf, Brandenburg, Greenpeace highlights the extreme fire risk posed by pine monocultures, showing how structurally diverse mixed forests with deadwood cool the ground and naturally prevent wildfires.

Netherlands – Activists from Greenpeace Netherlands have modified the names of several train stations following yet another tropical day this summer. Stations were renamed to ‘Hotterdam Centraal’, ‘Amsterwarm Centraal’, ‘Grillversum Media Park’, and ‘Smelthogenbosch’. With temperatures soaring well above 30°C and a record number of tropical days, the campaign highlights the reality of the climate crisis caused by fossil fuels and emphasizes that these extreme weather events are no longer exceptions. The action calls on politicians to take decisive steps toward phasing out fossil energy ahead of the Climate March in Amsterdam on September 12.

Denmark – Danish fjords, lakes and coastal waters are plagued by oxygen depletion due to decades of pollution from industrial pig farming. Greenpeace Nordic is on an expedition to measure and document the extent of the problem, as well as nitrogen pollution, which originates mainly from pig manure spread onto the fields.

Germany – Drought impacts Rhine River’s water level in Germany. The river Rhine shown here with a very low water level in Cologne.

Greenpeace has been a pioneer of photo activism for more than 50 years, and remains committed to bearing witness and exposing environmental injustice through the images we capture.

To see more Greenpeace photos and videos, please visit our Media Library.

New York – As the fifth round of negotiations concludes at the United Nations in New York, an ambitious Global Tax Treaty – also known as the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation – remains within reach. Major improvements to the zero draft text are still needed, however, to deliver global tax rules that will help solve the connected climate, nature, and inequality crises, rather than letting corporate polluters and the super-rich off the hook.

Nina Stros, Global Senior Policy Expert, Greenpeace International Political Unit said: “Global South demands for fair and inclusive international tax rules are starting to shape the text of the Framework Convention, and that is real progress. But without trust and a commitment from all parties to negotiate in good faith, we risk an empty treaty that fails to address problems everyone acknowledges exist. The most ambitious version of the Global Tax Treaty can only be built on truly international tax cooperation, where every voice counts, including those of the communities hit hardest by the climate crisis, not just predominantly those of the wealthiest polluters and their patrons.

“Outside these negotiating rooms, people are living through extreme weather and rising bills, paying for a crisis they did little to cause, while the wealthiest polluters keep profiting. Too many countries are losing revenues to tax havens. The Global Tax Treaty is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to correct the unfairness and the dysfunctions of existing tax agreements and the broken corporate tax system. It’s time for every country to step up and bring concrete solutions that work for people and the planet.”

Key takeaways from INC-5 include:

• A strong Global Tax Treaty is still a long way off, but the developments from this session were encouraging. Negotiations moved from the abstract to the concrete. The draft text is moving towards a fairer allocation of taxing rights over multinational profits, which could overhaul the unfair and undemocratic system currently shaped by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
• Global South countries showed strength and unity, many coming together to defend strong language on fairer allocation of taxing rights and to push for more robust articles, including on taxing high-net-worth individuals (HNWI) and on harmful tax practices. Some emerging and middle-income economies played a bridge-building role, including regarding the article on sustainable development; arguably a sign of wider shifts in global power and of a growing understanding that this treaty is instrumental in delivering other UN agreements, like those under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
• Wealthy nations, particularly in Europe, favoured complaining over proposing solutions. Despite countries championing climate action in other global forums, European countries mostly stayed silent on sustainable development here, and many called for changes that would defend the status-quo of corporate and super-rich tax-dodging. They must move from complainer to solution-seeker, not only to rebuild trust with the Global South and unlock ambition, but so that their own people benefit from the hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could be reclaimed by holding the wealthiest polluters to account.
• Momentum is building towards environment-aligned tax and spending. Several Global South countries signalled they would bring forward new proposals to strengthen the treaty’s environmental tax and sustainable development provisions in Article 4, which some Global North countries have expressed interest to explore. With more ambition, this could lay the legal foundations for global and national progressive polluter taxes, while ensuring that governments’ tax and spending policies support global climate and environmental agreements.
• Heightened discussions on Article 6, concerning the taxation of high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs), particularly across G77 countries, showed that cross-regional cooperation and alliances hold a significant potential for a bolder outcome.

There was also broad support among countries for bringing civil society and other stakeholders into future Conference of Parties (COP) meetings, which will be vital to raise ambition and hold countries to account through this process as it moves towards delivering the treaty.

Negotiations for the Global Tax Treaty will continue until mid-2027. The sixth round of negotiations will be held in Nairobi from 30 November to 11 December 2026, followed by three further rounds of negotiations next year. Greenpeace will continue to attend, urging every country to be guided by the realities their people face outside the negotiating room, and to hold negotiators to the promise this treaty represents.

ENDS

Contact:

Greenpeace International Press Desk, +31 (0)20 718 2470 (available 24 hours), pressdesk.int@greenpeace.org 

This story was originally posted by Greenpeace Africa

As the sun rises over Lokolama, the forest awakens long before we do.

Birdsong echoes through the canopy. Our elders are already walking the familiar forest paths they have known all their lives. Barefoot children run freely among the trees, unaware that during August the world is celebrating the Indigenous Peoples Month.

For them, this month is no different from any other.

It is simply another month spent with the forest that feeds them, protects them, heals them and teaches them how to live.

For me, however, this month is a reminder. A reminder that our story deserves to be told differently.

For far too long, Indigenous Peoples have been portrayed as vulnerable communities in need of protection. Yet long before the world began talking about climate change, biodiversity or nature-based solutions, our ancestors from Africa and other parts of the planet were already protecting these forests. They understood something fundamental: you do not own the forest, you belong to it.

I was born in Lokolama, Équateur Province of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Here, I learned to recognise the trees, to listen to the silence of the forest, and to understand that every river, every peatland and every living species forms part of a fragile balance that we have a responsibility to pass on to future generations.

Our ancestral knowledge is far more than a cultural heritage

Last year, Greenpeace Africa came to our village.

For several days, we walked together beneath the towering trees. We shared our stories, listened to our elders, met with young people, learned from the women of our community and discovered together that our ancestral knowledge is far more than a cultural heritage. It is a practical response to many of the challenges our planet faces today. The expedition to Lokolama and Penzélé showed that Indigenous communities are not merely beneficiaries of conservation; we are its first architects.

The forest is our past, our present and our future

One memory remains especially vivid.

I remember watching the children as they drew their vision of the perfect forest.

Not one of them drew an empty forest.

They drew towering trees, rivers filled with fish, bonobos, birds, butterflies and families living together in harmony with nature.

Their drawings were simple.

Yet they carried a profound truth:

Our forest is our home, our identity and our future

I also remember our conversations with the communities of Penzélé.

We spoke about past challenges and misunderstandings, but above all, about our shared determination to build a future where forests are no longer a source of conflict but a place of cooperation and peace. Because protecting the forest also means protecting the bonds that unite the people who call it home.

Today, as world leaders discuss climate finance, carbon markets, biodiversity and sustainable development, I would like to remind them of one essential truth.

The forests of the Congo Basin did not wait for international conferences to be protected

These forests have been safeguarded for generations by the women, men and young people who live within them.

Our knowledge does not come from books.

It comes from the seasons.

From the rivers.

From the trees.

From the forest paths our grandparents taught us to walk with humility and respect.

This does not mean that we reject development.

On the contrary.

We aspire to quality schools, accessible healthcare, better roads that connect our villages and opportunities for our young people.

But we believe that genuine development can never come at the expense of our identity, our ancestral lands or our rights.

We want to be part of decision making processes

We want to be partners.

Not merely observers.

We want to participate in the decisions that affect our territories because no one knows this forest better than the people who have lived with it for generations.

I am not asking the world to celebrate us.

I am asking the world to listen to us.

To listen to the voices rising from Lokolama, from Penzélé and from countless other villages across the Congo Basin and across the Earth.

Because behind every one of those voices lies knowledge, solutions and a vision of the future that our planet needs now more than ever.

Our shared future depends on our ability to protect the world’s forests.

And protecting forests begins with respecting those who have always been their first guardians.

We are Indigenous Peoples.

We are not the past.

We are an essential part of the future of the Congo Basin.

And as long as the forest continues to breathe,

We will continue walking beside it.

Defend the defenders

Demand the recognition of Indigenous rights and their territories.

Join now

Valentin Engobo Mufia is a Representative of the Tshwa Indigenous People of Lokolama from The Democratic Republic of the Congo.

True allyship can only take hold when we recognise that Indigenous peoples’ struggles are intricately bound up with our collective fate. Our greatest hope against ecological breakdown is to support Indigenous sovereignty and actively join the global resistance against extractive industries. This is a matter of our mutual survival and liberation.

“If you have come here to help me you are wasting your time, but if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” 

— Lilla Watson, Gangulu woman, ‘Aboriginal Activists’ Group

What is extractivism?

Differing from the simple act of harvesting a resource (such as cutting down a  single tree), extractivism is an economic model that treats the Earth as an endless storehouse of raw materials. Nature is commodified and extracted at an industrial scale and exported to enrich distant interests, while local communities (often Indigenous) bear the devastating ecological and social costs. 

It’s no coincidence that the concept of extractivismo (extractivism) originated in Latin America – a region that has served as ground zero for over 500 years of imperial plunder, while simultaneously remaining the global heartland of Indigenous frontline resistance.

The battle over recognition and sovereignty

For many Indigenous communities, resisting extractivism looks like a fundamental struggle to exist in the eyes of the law. States have long used the denial of Indigenous identity as a tactical weapon to erase land claims, clear territories for corporate concessions and evade legal accountability under international law.

Nevertheless, Indigenous movements have generated some of the most vibrant, historic and effective mobilisations in recent memory. An Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) report found that Indigenous-led resistance in North America has successfully delayed or stopped greenhouse gas pollution equivalent to at least 25% of annual US and Canadian emissions. 

Through decades of tireless organizing, Indigenous leaders secured foundational frameworks like ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). These instruments serve to enshrine the principle of self-determination, establishing that Indigenous peoples alone have the right to define their own identities, institutions and relationships to their territories.

The high cost of defense

Frontline Indigenous defenders routinely face systemic intimidation, land theft, state criminalization and lethal violence. According to data from Global Witness, while Indigenous peoples represent roughly 6% of the global population, they consistently account for more than one-third of all land and environmental defenders murdered worldwide each year. 

Colonial states also spread racist and prejudiced narratives about supposed Indigenous inferiority. These myths have permeated many levels of society and led to a profound disconnection not only from Indigenous peoples but also ancient traditions, their wisdom, knowledge systems and ways of relating with the Earth and other living beings that we sorely need to revive. 

Confronting ‘green extractivism’

Today, Indigenous movements are also challenging accelerating demand for so-called ‘critical minerals’. Brought about by the energy transition, AI and Big Tech, and the defense sector, this speculative rush for minerals is giving rise to new sacrifice zones.

In her book Extraction, political scientist Thea Riofrancos spotlights frontline Indigenous communities fighting back against ‘green extractivism,’ exposing how the rush for clean energy minerals risks repeating historic colonial harms. To break this cycle, Riofrancos advocates for solutions that move beyond simply swapping gas-powered vehicles for electric ones, calling instead for public transit investments, circular material recycling and a deliberate reduction in overall resource consumption.

In response to today’s intensifying extractive rush, Greenpeace has partnered with other NGOs and experts to launch the Restricted Areas Map, indicating places where mining poses unacceptable environmental, social, cultural or rights-related risks.

Demands of Indigenous environmental movements

Across courtroom battles, frontline blockade and international climate summits, Indigenous activists share a repeating set of demands. 

In 2025, Indigenous youth representatives from the world’s primary tropical forest basins, the Amazon, the Congo Basin, Borneo and West Papua, penned their version with the Sira Declaration. Drafted in West Papua, the declaration lays out a call to action for governments, corporations and international bodies to:

1. Recognize and Secure Land Sovereignty: Legal recognition and enforcement of customary land titles, enforcing full self-determination and the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).
2. End Militarization, Violence and Criminalization: An immediate end to state-sponsored military operations, arbitrary arrests and violence targeted at Indigenous environmental defenders.
3. Halt ‘Green Colonialism’ and Extractive Projects: Resist industrial mining, logging, fossil fuels and speculative critical-mineral exploitation, rejecting any climate ‘solutions’ that turn Indigenous territories into sacrifice zones.
4. Direct Climate Financing to Indigenous Communities: Routing global climate, conservation and loss-and-damage funds directly to Indigenous nations and youth-led groups on the frontlines, bypassing intermediaries.
5. Center Traditional Knowledge and Youth/Women Governance: Guaranteeing leadership seats for Indigenous youth and women in international climate policy.

Public support for Indigenous leadership

Global public opinion strongly supports these demands. A Greenpeace poll spanning 17 countries across five continents* revealed that 78% of respondents trust Indigenous Peoples and local communities most to protect forests (compared to 49% for governments and 42% for corporations). Additionally, 75% of respondents agree that Indigenous peoples should receive direct climate funding to safeguard their ancestral territories.

Building a just, post-extractivist future

Stopping destructive corporate projects is only the first step. A post-extractive future requires a post-colonial future. In a time as critical as this, non-Indigenous allies cannot remain passive observers. Decolonisation requires that settler populations actively reject the ideology of extractivism by rejecting the commodification, domination and exploitation of Nature. 

Indigenous leadership provides practical blueprints for post-extractive societies founded on care, ecological balance and generational/collective well-being. A Greenpeace report highlights inspiring case studies of community-led forest solutions.

Defend the defenders

Demand the recognition of Indigenous rights and their territories.

Join now

*Polling Methodology Note: Countries surveyed include Kenya, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Canada, USA, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, and the UK.

Tsering Lama is a storytelling manager with Greenpeace International.

Just weeks after witnessing thousands of people in Croatia protesting against an invasion of giant chicken farms in their towns, I found myself packing my bags again. The Big Ag corporate interests planning to quadruple Croatia’s poultry production haven’t given up, and now have their eyes on another pristine corner of Croatia.

This time, I traveled to Croatia’s northeast, right on the border with Hungary, where a fiercely dedicated community is fighting to keep a megafarm from destroying an area widely known as the ‘Amazon of Europe’.

Grassroots resistance against the Chicken King

My journey started with a bus drive down from Budapest to the border, where the Drava River divides Hungary and Croatia. This region, right where the rivers Drava and Mura meet, is the stunning Mura-Drava-Danube UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.

Covering 930,000 hectares along 700 kilometres of rivers, this is a biodiversity hotspot with rare habitats such as floodplain forests, gravel and sand banks, river islands and oxbow lakes. It’s an ornithological haven packed with rare bird species including black storks, marsh harriers and the highest density of breeding pairs of white-tailed eagles in continental Europe. 

But Big Ag MHP Group, Europe’s biggest poultry player, led by the infamous billionaire ‘Chicken King’ Yuriy Kosiuk wants to turn this paradise into an industrial zone. 

The Legrad-Donja Dubrava Citizens’ Initiative, a grassroots group leading the opposition to the farm, warns that this facility will house a staggering 1.8 million chickens annually. The 50,000m² facility will pump 30 million liters of groundwater annually from its own wells for technology and cooling, while producing 1 million litres of wastewater per year.

I was invited here by Korina and Emil, a local couple who are spearheading the grassroots resistance. They are not your typical activists; rather they are ordinary people who are taking action to defend the place they live. Emil took me on a tour to see exactly what we are up against. First, he showed me an existing megafarm linked to Perutnina Ptuj–Pipo, the same company behind the new project, which is already operating nearby. We then visited the site of the proposed expansion.

Locals told me the company is rushing to open its doors as early as next month. The threat is immediate, but this community isn’t backing down.

The protestival on the riverbank against corporate greed

The community is incredibly  creative with their protest tactics. A few weeks before I arrived, they had already made waves with “kayaktivism,” with around 60 activists launching onto the river to take striking photos that exposed how dangerously close the facility is to the water. They traded paddles for microphones and organised a “Protestival” right on the riverbank, attended by hundreds of people and representatives from various organisations, musicians and local grassroots groups.

The energy was electric. Traditional Croatian folk musicians shared the stage with rock legend Darko Rundek, all standing united against corporate greed.

All waters are connected, different communities threatened by the same Big Ag playbook

Back in my hometown of Budapest, the Danube river is my favorite part of the city. And water doesn’t care about borders. The Danube River, which flows through Hungary and forms part of the border between Croatia and Serbia, joins the Drava, flowing into the sea and the global oceans. So what happens here matters.

The people of northern Croatia’s struggle against the Veliki Pažut industrial poultry farm is a real David and Goliath fight – a small community standing up to international corporations to defend an area they love. But sadly, it is the experience of many communities world over.

• In Spain, communities are organising against the construction of a new factory farm cramming one million hens and producing over 235 million eggs a year. 
• In Mexico, the iconic cenotes of the Maya rainforest are being polluted by illegal pig farms, threatening the water supply for indigenous communities across the region. 
• In Nigeria, the world’s largest meat company, JBS, is planning a US$ 2.5 billion expansion that locals fear will threaten livelihoods and undermine food security.

All over the world local communities are threatened by the same Big Ag playbook: bulldozing lands, extracting profit and leaving behind pollution and contamination. So this isn’t just a local dispute over a construction permit. It’s a battle between community and corporate extraction.

We can’t let Big Ag use our rivers as a sewer for their industrial waste.

Locals showed me the way. I proudly took a stand to protect their land, and the beautiful Drava river against corporations like MHP, that only serve billionaires and their shareholders.

Just like in Sisak, Croatia, where local people drew a line and the Chicken King backed down, today, on the banks of the Amazon of Europe, the message to Big Ag remains exactly the same.

Not here, not anywhere.

Stop Big Meat and Dairy

It’s time to cut through corporate lies, cut agriculture emissions and shift towards sustainable agroecology.

Sign now!

Dániel Nyitray is Global Campaign Lead for Big Ag at Greenpeace International based in Hungary.

Amsterdam – In regards to the North Dakota District Court issuing a “narrowly tailored” anti-suit injunction, Greenpeace International Senior Legal Counsel Strategic Defence Daniel Simons said: 

“Greenpeace International’s anti-SLAPP case against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands will continue and the central arguments are not impacted by the anti-suit injunction issued by the North Dakota District Court. As directed by the North Dakota Supreme Court, the anti-suit injunction is ‘narrowly tailored’ so as not to interfere with key claims in Greenpeace International’s anti-SLAPP case. 

“The North Dakota courts have cleared the way for Greenpeace International to continue pursuing justice under Dutch law. The only limitation imposed pertains to Greenpeace International asking for a finding that the North Dakota District Court case ‘lacked legal foundation.’ However, these are not central claims for the anti-SLAPP case.”

ENDS

North Dakota District Court order

Contacts: 

Greenpeace International Press Desk, +31 (0)20 718 2470 (available 24 hours), pressdesk.int@greenpeace.org

Join the Greenpeace SLAPP Trial WhatsApp Group for our latest updates

Oman – New satellite imagery analysis by Greenpeace Germany indicates that oil leakage from the Russian shadow fleet tanker Caroline Bezengi, grounded in Oman’s Al Hallaniyat archipelago, has accelerated and is now estimated to have spread across roughly 600 square kilometres – a fourfold increase over just the last two days. 

Nina Noelle, international environmental disaster expert at Greenpeace Germany, said: “This is a drastic increase, indicating a deterioration of the vessel’s condition. Satellite imagery analysis suggests that the oil spill covered 45 square kilometres up until 26 July. By 2 August it had expanded to around 150 square kilometres, and imagery from 4 August indicates that it now extends across roughly 600 square kilometres .

Hanen Keskes, campaigner at Greenpeace MENA said: “Even relatively small oil spills can have long-lasting consequences for marine ecosystems with chemical residues that persist in marine sediments for years, compromising their ecological resilience. With the oil leak from the stranded Caroline Bezengi now accelerating, the environmental consequences will be severe, threatening coral reefs, seagrass meadows and coastal habitats that support endangered sea turtles, migratory seabirds and marine mammals in the Hallaniyat Islands. Sea turtles rely on the islands’ beaches for nesting and egg-laying, while many seabird species depend on the islands as critical breeding sites. The surrounding waters are also home to the rare Arabian Sea humpback whale.”

Large stretches of Al Qibliyah Island’s shoreline appear to have been affected, while additional oil slicks extend far out to sea, further polluting and damaging this protected marine ecosystem. The tanker has reportedly been leaking oil since it ran aground in June, following a suspected limpet mine attack that resulted in the flooding of the engine room, and urgent action is needed to contain the spill and prevent further harm to marine life and local livelihoods.

The situation surrounding the tanker Caroline Bezengi is yet another alarming example of the serious environmental risks posed by Russia’s so-called shadow fleet. Sanctions are being circumvented using ageing and poorly maintained tankers, putting coastlines and marine ecosystems at risk in order to maintain revenues that help finance Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.

With oil apparently leaking at an accelerating pace and the tanker stranded in a difficult location, there is an imminent risk of an unprecedented oil disaster from a broken tanker, with devastating consequences for the region’s coastlines and marine ecosystems.

Greenpeace urges the Omani authorities and all relevant regional bodies to act immediately to assess all remaining options to contain the spill, secure the tanker’s cargo and conduct a comprehensive, independent assessment of the ecological damage. Where additional capacity is needed, Oman should urgently request international assistance for expertise, equipment and resources as required.

The Caroline Bezengi is stranded close to Al Qibliyah, an uninhabited island in the Al Hallaniyat archipelago, within a marine protected area. According to reports, the tanker was nearly fully loaded when it ran aground and estimated to be carrying around 800,000 barrels of oil.

The difficulties surrounding the Caroline Bezengi reflect wider concerns raised by previous Greenpeace investigations into Russia’s shadow fleet.[1] The vessel lost its flag registration in Cameroon on May 29, and is since listed as ‘flag unknown’ by the International Maritime Organisation. Omani authorities reportedly ordered the Shanghai-based owner to act, but received no response. The tanker is not insured by any recognised Protection and Indemnity (P&I) club, but an opaque insurer called Arsenal Kyrgystan, apparently based in the Kyrgyz Republic, according to information for October 2025 obtained by Greenpeace Nordic from Danish authorities.[2] It is unclear whether that cover remains valid and will make sufficient funds available for emergency measures, clean-up, ecological restoration and compensation. 

Without an accountable owner and clear, adequate insurance or even a responsible flag state, Oman and affected communities risk being left to fully bear the environmental and financial consequences of this unfolding disaster.

ENDS

Satellite images from the Greenpeace Global Mapping Hub available in the Greenpeace Media Library 

Notes: 

[1] Previous Greenpeace investigations into Russia’s shadow fleet: Greenpeace has actively targeted Russia’s “shadow fleet”, a network of aging, underinsured oil tankers used to evade sanctions, through a combination of direct ocean protests, investigative research, and environmental modeling. Activists from Greenpeace Germany, Greenpeace Nordic, and Greenpeace CEE/Ukraine have staged direct peaceful actions, such as painting messages on offshore bunker refuelers and protesting in European waters to highlight the double threat of war funding and catastrophic oil spills. To hold governments accountable, Greenpeace Germany published a comprehensive report cataloging 192 high-risk shadow fleet tankers, which helped inform subsequent EU sanctions, and developed interactive oil spill simulations to visually demonstrate how potential leaks from these decaying vessels would devastate coastal ecosystems. 

[2] Information obtained via an FOI request to the Danish Marine Authority (DMA) by Greenpeace Nordic in 2026. The web-site for a company under this name, claiming to provide marine insurance services can be found here: https://arsins.kg/en/about. The DMA obtained this information from the captain of the Caroline Bezengi, when it moved in and out of the Baltic in 2025 and 2024.  

Contacts: 

Hiam Mardini, communications and media manager, Greenpeace Middle East and North Africa (MENA), +961 71 553 232, hmardini@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace International Press Desk, +31 (0)20 718 2470 (available 24 hours), pressdesk.int@greenpeace.org