Protecting and restoring tropical forests—including the immense diversity of species and the carbon they store—is fundamental to addressing the biodiversity and climate crises, as well as ensuring a habitable planet for future generations.

The key lies in the hands of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPs & LCs), who have been the most effective protectors of ecosystems, curbing deforestation and recovering degraded areas. Direct access to financing has proven essential, as well as promoting a decolonised approach to conservation, along with the fundamental recognition of the rights of IPs & LCs.

In this report published during COP30, a selection of existing Indigenous and local communities-led Forest Solutions are presented, examples to be strengthened and multiplied:

• Knasaimos-Tehi Community, Papua, Indonesia
• Gunam and Setawa Villages, Borneo, Indonesia
• Lokolama Community, Congo Basin, DRC
• Middle Juruá Communities, Amazonas, Brazil
• Apurinã People, Amazonas, Brazil

Download the report:

Forest Solutions: Showcasing solutions by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities from the Amazon, Congo Basin, and Indonesia for Rights and Forest Protection

Oslo, Norway – Today, the Borgarting Court of Appeal agreed with Greenpeace Nordic and Natur og Ungdom (Young Friends of the Earth Norway) that three oil fields in the Norwegian North Sea are illegal.

The case was initiated by Greenpeace Nordic and Natur og Ungdom (Young Friends of the Earth Norway), who successfully challenged the awarding of the oil concessions in 2024, a decision that was appealed by the Norwegian Government.

Frode Pleym, Head of Greenpeace Norway, said: ”We are relieved and happy, but not surprised. Looking at recent court decisions on climate, they are not just about the global nature of the crisis but also about what States need to do. The need for governments to protect their citizens from climate harm has now become far too obvious to ignore, and thankfully, judges around the world are realising this.” 

In January 2024, the Oslo District Court found the approvals of three oil and gas fields in the North Sea invalid due to the lack of impact assessments.[1] The District Court also issued temporary injunctions forbidding the State from granting any new permits necessary to develop and produce from the fields. The Norwegian State appealed both the judgement and the injunctions.[2] Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal requested advice from the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Court in Luxembourg on the matter. 

In May of this year, the EFTA Court in Luxembourg issued its advisory opinion on the interpretation of the EU Project Directive.[3] The EFTA Court sided with Greenpeace Nordic and Natur og Ungdom on all points. In its recent judgment, the Appeal Court has reaffirmed the EFTA courts’ advisory opinion.

In an October 2025 judgement from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Court confirmed the obligation of States to assess climate effects from the burning of oil and gas outside of Norway before approval. 

Today, the Appeal Court has confirmed both of these rulings.

Sigrid Hoddevik Losnegård, head of Natur og Ungdom, said: “This is a huge victory. Today’s children and future generations will reap the benefits of the courage the judges showed today. It proves that our struggle for climate justice has real force, and it is profoundly affirming to see the Court of Appeal stand with us on every single point. Now it’s up to the politicians to act accordingly and cease all activity on the fields.”

Attorney Jenny Sandvig of the law firm Simonsen Vogt Wiig said: “The Court of Appeal’s decision is crystal clear. The state and the companies have, in violation of the law, failed to inform the population about the harmful effects of these fields. Further development is now taking place at the companies’ own risk. The permits are unlawful.”

Sandvig represents the environmental organisations in the court case.

During her testimony, Elvira Gomez Snerte, one of the case witnesses, expressed deep concerns for the future of her family farm, which has been in her family for generations and which she hopes to inherit someday.

“I am very relieved today,” said Snerte. “Even though the case “only” concerns three oil fields, we know that emissions from them alone can have major consequences for the climate. They contribute to more extreme weather, which, among other things, threatens my family’s farming business. Today’s ruling gives me hope and confidence that we are on the right track for the future.” 

The environmental organisations were represented by Jenny Sandvig at the law firm Simonsen Vogt Wiik. 

ENDS

Photos are available in the Greenpeace Media Library. 

Notes:

[1] Environmental and youth groups win climate court case against the Norwegian State 

[2] Norway appeals against climate-friendly Oslo Court judgement

[3] The “EU project directive”, formally known as the “Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (2011/92/EU)”, requires public and private projects likely to have significant environmental effects to be assessed before approval. This assessment evaluates a project’s potential impact on factors like human health, biodiversity, land, air, and climate, and requires public participation and transparency in the decision-making process. 

Contacts:

Frode Pleym, Head of Greenpeace in Norway: frode.pleym@greenpeace.org, +47 973 07 378

Sigrid Hoddevik Losnegård, Head of Natur og Ungdom (Young Friends of the Earth Norway):
sigridl@nu.no,  +47 405 29 471 

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

San Diego, US — The case of a group of Indonesian fishers who sued US tuna brand, alleging forced labor, will move forward, according to a judgment released by the Southern California federal district court on Wednesday (12/11). The case, which cites years of research from the Greenpeace global network, alleges years of forced labor while catching fish sold by the tuna brand Bumble Bee.

Syafi’i, a plaintiff in the case, said: “I’m actually in tears. I am happy and overwhelmed. This gives me hope for justice for me and my fellow plaintiffs as we struggle for justice and change for the better. Our fight and sacrifice are not in vain in order to get justice for all of the fishers. I remain steadfast, strong, and enthusiastic.”

The four fishers filed suit against Bumble Bee in March 2025 under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). Investigations and supply chain research from the Greenpeace global network’s Beyond Seafood fisheries campaigns were used by the litigants’ attorneys to support this complaint. It is believed to be the first case of its kind against the seafood industry in the US, and one of only a few TVPRA supply chain cases to move past the motion to dismiss stage. 

Sari Heidenreich, Senior Human Rights Advisor, Greenpeace USA, said: “This is a historic moment and an incredible victory for the fishers and the ocean. By allowing this case to move ahead, the court has given these fishers’ voices the space they deserve. We celebrate that the fishers will be allowed their day in court, recognizing this is monumental —  not only for these four men, who are brave enough to stand up to a giant US corporation —  but for hundreds of thousands of fishers globally.”

The court ruled that the fishers presented sufficient allegations of forced labor as defined by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, noting that Bumble Bee did not contest the fishers were subject to forced labor. The court also found that Bumble Bee “likely had ‘notice about the prevalence’ of forced labor on the vessels from which it sourced tuna, ‘failed to take adequate steps to train staff in order to prevent its occurrence,’” had an “active role in obtaining albacore tuna from the vessels on which Plaintiffs were subject to forced labor,” and resold the tuna for profit. 

Heidenreich continued: “This ruling once again affirms that seafood companies have a responsibility to ensure the products they sell — including tuna that they market for unsuspecting consumers to pack for lunch — were not produced with the abhorrent crimes of forced labor and modern slavery. Allegations as horrific as those in the suit should never happen to these fishers or anyone else.  Seafood companies cannot continue to put profits over all else; they cannot continue this rabid exploitation of workers, the oceans, and marine life. They must act now to address the root causes of modern slavery and end isolation at sea. The global Greenpeace network’s Beyond Seafood Campaign has been working for over a decade to hold Big Seafood to account. It is an affirmation of the importance of this work that the campaign’s reports documenting these abuses were cited by the judge in her ruling.” 

The judge’s ruling also cited numerous reports from Greenpeace East Asia and Greenpeace Southeast Asia as evidence that the company knew or should have known about forced labor on its supplying vessels. [1] 

Arifsyah Nasution, Global Project Lead for Beyond Seafood Campaign, Greenpeace Southeast Asia, said: “With this ruling, all of Big Seafood is officially on notice: exploitation at sea could land you in court at home. It is well known that physical violence, excessive working hours, and lack of payment — all conditions alleged in this lawsuit — are prevalent in the fishing industry and exacerbated by the overexploitation of our oceans.”

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 at three months to reduce the risk of human rights abuse, forced labor, and human trafficking.
• 100% human or electronic observer coverage to ensure vital data on catch composition, bycatch, interactions with protected species, and overall fishing practices are reported by independent and impartial parties.

Freedom of association and access to unions for workers are key enabling rights to ensure a strong worker voice and protections across the various stages of the supply chain. It is essential to have accessible grievance mechanisms, including those available at sea, that are secure and responsive. These mechanisms should allow workers to raise issues as they arise, and companies must respond promptly, providing remedies and directly addressing the root causes of the problems. 

The lawsuit, Akhmad v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00583, was filed in March 2025 in U.S. federal court in San Diego, California, and is currently before chief judge Cynthia Bashant. In addition to Greenpeace Inc., the plaintiffs in the suit are represented by the law firms of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes LLP.

ENDS

Notes:

Photos and videos are available in the Greenpeace Media Library

[1] Fake My Catch: The Unreliable Traceability in our Tuna Cans

Choppy Waters: Forced Labour and Illegal Fishing in Taiwan’s Distant Water Fisheries

Forced Labour at Sea: The Case of Indonesian Migrant Fishers

Contacts:

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

Tanya Brooks, Senior Communications Specialist at Greenpeace USA, (+1) 703-342-9226, tbrooks@greenpeace.org

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