Global Witness released its annual defenders report, Collective Power: The Struggle for Protection for Land and Environmental Defenders (September 2026). The report draws on Global Witness's database of killings and long-term disappearances of land and environmental defenders documented since 2012, produced in partnership with over 30 local, national and regional organisations in more than 20 countries, alongside case studies from Peru and Indonesia.
Human Level’s Take:
- Behind every number is a person defending their land and environment. Global Witness recorded 124 killings of land and environmental defenders in 2025, though the true figure is likely higher. Killings are also only the tip of the iceberg: criminalisation, threats and smear campaigns remain widespread, with shifting tactics potentially contributing to the decline in recorded killings.
- Land sits at the heart of the violence. In 2025, land disputes triggered more than half of the killings, with mining, logging and agribusiness among the sectors linked to lethal attacks. Almost three-quarters of those killed were Indigenous people and small-scale farmers, targeted for defending their territories and access to land.
- For human rights due diligence (HRDD) practitioners, risks to defenders can sit in supplier relationships, not only in a company’s own operations. A case study from Indonesia illustrates this: a pulp and paper company’s decision to begin sourcing from a plantation operator links it to a contested land dispute and criminal proceedings against Dayak community leaders. The company says it carried out due diligence; the leaders’ legal team disputes that the case is resolved.
- Global Witness argues that defenders are essential actors in identifying risks and preventing abuses, not merely external stakeholders, and links this to how due diligence laws such as the CSDDD are implemented. For companies, it calls for explicitly assessing risks to defenders in HRDD, treating Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) as an ongoing process that includes the right to withhold consent, and committing not to use security forces or legal action to override community decisions.
- The recommendations for companies go beyond policies and procedures: continuous due diligence that engages defenders and communities directly; suspending activities where meaningful consultation has not occurred or intimidation is present; committing not to proceed where there is clear and sustained community opposition, even with permits in hand; and grievance mechanisms with guarantees against retaliation, backed by public reporting on complaints and actions taken.
Some key takeaways:
- Fewer recorded killings, but an incomplete picture: Global Witness verified the killings of 124 land and environmental defenders in 2025, bringing the total number of killings and disappearances it has documented since 2012 to 2,375. This is lower than in 2024 (142 killings and four disappearances), but the report notes that the figures are likely a significant underestimate, as many cases go unreported, including in situations of serious armed conflict and in repressive contexts. Latin America accounted for 85% of cases. Colombia recorded the most killings (39), followed by Brazil (26), with cases doubling in both Brazil and Honduras (12) compared with 2024. The Philippines recorded the highest number outside Latin America (12), with five linked to the suspected participation of the military. More than three-quarters of those killed were small-scale farmers (38%), Indigenous people (35%) or Afro-descendant people (2%), and seven of the Indigenous people killed were members of Indigenous Guards. Land disputes triggered 84 killings, more than half of the total. Mining was the sector linked to the most killings (11), followed by logging (eight) and agribusiness (six). Global Witness also identified suspected links to organised crime and hitmen in more than a third of killings, making them the most frequently implicated perpetrators.
- Criminalisation and the "hidden iceberg" of non-lethal attacks: The report finds that killings are only the most extreme form of reprisal against defenders. Beneath them lies what the ALLIED network of human rights monitors describes as a “hidden iceberg” of non-lethal attacks, including criminalisation, threats and smear campaigns, with social media increasingly used to discredit and harass defenders. Global Witness notes that this diversification of tactics may partly explain the fall in recorded killings. It identifies a rising tide of criminalisation in Asia in particular, where defenders are cast as criminals and instigators of disputes, and cites ALLIED’s finding that formal accusations can raise the risk of lethal attacks, since killing an accused defender carries a lower political cost. These dynamics are unfolding as development aid fell by 23% in 2025 (the largest annual drop recorded by the OECD) and as several countries introduced new restrictions on civil society, which the report links to reduced support for defenders. A case study from Indonesia illustrates how business relationships can connect to these situations. According to Global Witness, a pulpwood company has repeatedly threatened Dayak leaders opposing its land clearances with criminal charges. While the dispute remained unresolved, a pulp and paper producer announced plans to begin sourcing from the company. The producer told Global Witness it had conducted due diligence, including on human rights, and understood the criminal case to be resolved through mediation. The leaders’ legal team disputes this, saying the agreement to withdraw the charges has not been fulfilled.
- Placing defenders at the centre of HRDD: For companies, the report recommends that due diligence explicitly assess risks to defenders and affected communities, with continuous, participatory engagement and proactive measures where risks are heightened, including suspending activities where meaningful consultation has not occurred or intimidation is present. It frames Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) as an ongoing process that includes the right to withhold consent, and calls on businesses to disclose consultation processes and outcomes, commit not to pursue projects where there is clear and sustained community opposition even with permits in hand, and commit not to use security forces, legal action or political influence to override community decisions. Companies are also asked to create independent, accessible grievance mechanisms with guarantees against retaliation and public reporting on complaints. On regulation, Global Witness calls on EU Member States to use CSDDD transposition to ensure companies in scope address risks to defenders, including reprisals, criminalisation and digital attacks. Across these recommendations, the report presents defenders as essential actors in identifying risks and preventing harm, not merely external stakeholders.
