Press Conference: “Indigenous Peoples Defend the CBD’s de facto 2007 moratoria on genetically engineered trees” organized by Global Justice Ecology Project (SB8J)
28 Oct 2025
Full Speaker Statements
Statement by Valentina Tereshkova, Gender Justice and Forests Campaign Coordinator, Global Forest Coalition
“Today we are sounding the alarm on a growing threat: the use of genetically engineered (GE) trees in ‘carbon offset’ schemes. The decision by Brazil to legalize GE eucalyptus plantations is a clear red flag. For decades, eucalyptus monocultures have already caused deforestation, water contamination and forced displacements in Brazil; now the move to genetically engineer these trees only magnifies those hazards.
Now these plantations are being used in carbon-offset deals with major tech companies—giving them a green while underlying ecological and social harms go unaddressed. In Brazil, large-scale tree plantations for carbon offsets will drive more land grabs, compromise local communities’ rights, and invade native ecosystems via gene flow, deplete biodiversity and exacerbate fire or pest risks. Attributing carbon-offset value to these plantations is irresponsible and will undermine justice for forest peoples.
We therefore call on governments, corporations and the international carbon-market regime to apply the precautionary principle, as decided by the CBD Conference in 2008.
GE tree plantations are not a trustworthy path to climate solutions. They are a high-risk experiment being promoted under the guise of climate action—while communities and ecosystems bear the burden. The Global Forest Coalition will continue to spotlight these false “tree-plantation for carbon” solutions and push for genuine ecosystem-based, rights-based forest protection and restoration instead.”
Statement by Ricarda Steinbrecher, Geneticist, Federation of German Scientists
Genetically modified (GM) trees are being developed to express traits such as pest resistance or delayed rotting—often to increase commercial value or to serve as supposed “carbon solutions.” However, these traits fundamentally alter how trees interact with their environments. Unlike annual agricultural crops, trees are long-lived organisms that exist within complex, interdependent forest ecosystems. Their domestication has only just begun, and many GM trees remain genetically close to their wild relatives. This makes it easy for them to cross-pollinate and spread their engineered traits into natural forests.
In natural ecosystems, trees are constantly responding to a range of stresses—seasonal changes, weather, insects, light, and interactions with other organisms. They have evolved to communicate with surrounding plants and microorganisms, especially through extensive underground networks that facilitate nutrient exchange and signaling. We are only beginning to understand the complexity of these systems. Introducing genetically modified trees into this delicate balance risks disrupting those natural communications and ecological relationships in ways we cannot yet predict.
Risk assessment for GM trees is far more complex than for agricultural crops. Crops are cultivated in controlled environments and remain relatively contained. Trees, however, produce pollen and seeds that can spread over vast distances—pine pollen, for instance, can travel up to a thousand kilometers. This raises a critical question: in which environment should a risk assessment be conducted when the modified genes are likely to disperse far beyond the test site?
At the genetic level, the risks are equally concerning. Genes function in ecosystems of their own—they co-evolve and interact in intricate ways. When foreign genetic material is forced into a tree’s genome, it can disrupt existing gene networks and produce unintended effects. For example, in the genetically engineered American chestnut, the inserted gene has interfered with one of the tree’s native genes, causing unexpected problems. Such disruptions underscore the need for comprehensive molecular and life-cycle analyses conducted over long periods of time to identify unintended consequences, such as changes in stress responses or altered communication with soil organisms, insects, and other trees.
However, no such long-term testing has been done. The recently approved genetically modified eucalyptus trees, for example, have not undergone adequate ecological testing, and critical data remain unavailable to independent scientists. Without rigorous, transparent, and long-term studies, it is impossible to claim that these trees are safe for ecosystems or communities.
Finally, when trees are genetically engineered to resist rotting in order to serve as carbon offsets, we are fundamentally altering their ecological role. Dead and decaying trees are vital to the health of forests—they provide habitat, return nutrients to the soil, and sustain countless other species. Engineering trees to defy decay removes a crucial source of life from forest ecosystems.
The potential ecological threats posed by genetically modified trees are profound and long-lasting. Given the complexity of forest systems and the vast uncertainties involved, we must proceed with extreme caution. The release of GM trees into the environment should not be taken lightly.
Statement by Gustavo Ulcue Campo, National Commission of Indigenous Territories, Colombia
“In Colombia, we have been struggling against the growing push to create global economies based on the destruction of nature. For us, the most strategic action is to have Indigenous Peoples’ territories fully recognized, demarcated, and titled. We believe this is the most powerful way to defend nature from the onslaught of initiatives that seek to commodify it.
We have been caring for and defending our territories for thousands of years. The greatest concentration of biodiversity in Colombia is found within Indigenous Peoples’ territories—around 80 percent of Indigenous reserves are located in forests and biodiversity hotspots.
Our rights to our territories are crucial to protect us from extractive industries. We have suffered greatly from monoculture tree plantations, such as palm oil plantations, and we have even taken cases to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to defend our lands.
The growing global demand for wood has accelerated land grabbing for monoculture tree plantations. These plantations are often presented as false solutions to climate change, but in reality, they displace communities and violate the principle of free, prior, and informed consent.
All of these are serious challenges. We emphasize the importance of guaranteeing our land rights so that we can defend our territories, our economies, and resist the imposition of genetically modified trees.
Muchas gracias.”
Statement by Thomas Joseph Tsewenaldin, Carbon Pricing Educator, Indigenous Environmental Network
The deep relationship that my people have had with trees for thousands of years reflects a sacred reciprocity — a coexistence where we give and receive in balance with the land. Yet, this relationship has been gravely damaged by colonial forces that imposed Western ideologies, severing our connections to place and to Mother Earth. Today, we speak to defend the sacredness of the trees and our planet.
I come from a people whose main sources of nourishment were acorns and salmon. The acorns gave us food, and the trees that bore them drew nutrients from the salmon — a beautiful cycle showing the interdependence of all life. This is the kind of reciprocal relationship humanity must return to if we are to protect biodiversity and the Earth itself.
We call on the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to fully implement the 2008 decision to stop all use of genetically modified trees. The precautionary principle is not enough—we already know these GE trees are harmful. Once introduced, they can continue to damage ecosystems for generations. As Indigenous peoples, we offer this warning to all humanity: introducing GE trees—especially in carbon offset projects that commodify nature—is a grave mistake. Turning carbon, the very breath of life, into a tradable commodity is an insult to Mother Earth. This commodification is what caused the climate crisis in the first place.
The answer to biodiversity loss cannot be further commodification. It must be a return to respect, reciprocity, and harmony with nature. Indigenous communities around the world still live by these values, maintaining relationships with their lands and trees that have sustained life for millennia. These are the examples the world should follow.
We must stand in solidarity with Indigenous peoples and ensure their knowledge guides the CBD process. True progress will only come when Indigenous rights and knowledge are fully implemented—when Indigenous peoples have a seat at the table and can shape policies that protect Mother Earth.
Genetically engineered trees, like GE pine and eucalyptus used in industrial plantations, threaten this harmony. They spread genetic contamination, destroy biodiversity, and replace native forests with monocultures. We must defend the natural balance of the Earth and stop these experiments.
We urge all governments and CBD Parties to honor Decision IX/5 of 2008 and prohibit the commercialization of genetically engineered trees. Only by respecting Mother Earth and rejecting her commodification can we restore harmony and protect life for future generations.
