May, 05 2022, 07:39am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Travis Nichols | travis@stand.earth
Ada Recinos | ada@amazonwatch.org
Pendle Marshall-Hallmark | pendle@amazonwatch.org
Statement on BNP Paribas Pledge To End New Financing for Amazon Oil Drilling
Bank involved in industry deals worth 13.3 billion USD, move follows investigation by Stand.earth and Amazon Watch pushing firm to take a lead role in excluding Amazon oil and gas
SAN FRANCISCO
Yesterday, BNP Paribas became the first major bank to adopt a geographical exclusion of oil and gas from the Amazon rainforest. The commitment follows sustained pressure and engagement by Indigenous leaders and campaigners at Amazon Watch and Stand.earth since 2020. Through the Exit Amazon Oil & Gas campaign, advocates are demanding banks stop backing fossil fuel extraction in the world's largest rainforest, given its biodiversity, cultural importance, and vital role in regulating the Earth's climate. BNP Paribas' pledge to "no longer finance or invest in companies producing out of oil and gas reserves in the Amazon" or in [companies] "developing related infrastructures" is a momentous move for the rainforest currently at a tipping point of ecological collapse. The bank has also committed to "no longer finance any oil and gas projects and related infrastructure in the Arctic and in the Amazon regions."
If BNP follows through on its new commitment, it will have a significant impact on oil and gas operations on the ground in the Amazon. Soon to be released research by Stand.earth Research Group (SRG), in partnership with Stand.earth and Amazon Watch, reveals that BNP Paribas is involved in deals worth 13.3 billion USD for the oil and gas industry in the Amazon. This includes all loans and bond underwriting for active (open) deals and deals that have matured in the last 3 years.
The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon (CONFENIAE) President Marlon Vargas made the following statement in response to the pledge:
"BNP Paribas's decision to stop financing new oil production in the Amazon is the first of its kind and a major milestone for us as Indigenous peoples. We are on the front lines in the forest, and live with the daily contamination, deforestation, and rights violations of the oil industry. This decision affirms what we have been calling for - that financing oil extraction in the Amazon is putting our lives, lands, and cultures at risk, and the health of our entire planet, and must stop. But we need other banks to follow suit. No one should be bankrolling oil extraction and destruction in the Amazon."
Tyson Miller, Amazon Program Director at Stand.earth, made the following statement in response to the pledge:
"BNP Paribas' commitment reinforces a growing understanding in the financial sector that oil drilling in the Amazon must end. Banks that are silent on this issue or continue to fund oil in the Amazon are out of touch with the immense climate, Indigenous rights, and biodiversity concerns that the world is facing."
Pendle Marshall-Hallmark, Amazon Watch Climate Campaigner, made the following statement in response to the pledge:
"Banks are realizing that the fossil fuel industry is a terrible financial investment, linked not only to climate chaos and environmental devastation but also gross human rights violations. Frontline communities have borne the brunt of BNP Paribas' history of support for the Amazon oil and gas industry, so this trail-blazing commitment to pull out of Amazon oil and gas is a wise and welcome one. We will be watching closely to see whether BNP Paribas actually excludes laggard companies that fail to decarbonize before the termination of their existing contracts."
Background:
This updated commitment builds off of a January 2021 commitment from BNP Paribas, following a groundbreaking report from the Exit Amazon Oil & Gas campaign that highlighted over $10 billion USD in trade financing provided to Amazon oil by European banks. In response to this report, BNP Paribas pledged to immediately exclude new oil trade from the Ecuadorian coastal port of Esmereldas, the largest exporter of oil and gas from the western Amazon region.
Campaigners are concerned about whether the firm will sell its current holdings in oil and gas companies operating in the Amazon given that BNP Paribas' Asset Management arm has been found to hold shares in GeoPark. GeoPark is a notorious Chilean oil company operating in the Putumayo region of the Colombian Amazon that has alleged ties to paramilitary groups terrorizing local campesino and Indigenous environmental activists. The situation in Putumayo is illustrative of a broader pattern tying support for the oil and gas industry in the Amazon to environmental and human rights violations throughout the rainforest.
In its pledge, BNP Paribas did not adopt the working definition of the "Amazon Biome" used by the Exit Amazon Oil and Gas campaign, defined by RAISG. Instead, it commits to exclude all financing and investment in new oil and gas projects located in regions designated as categories I to IV by the IUCN in either Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia, or Venezuela, or in the Amazon Sacred Headwaters region.
The bank has also stated that it will not exclude financing for oil and gas companies "with the most credible transition plans towards a net-zero economy by 2050." BNP defined such "plans" as containing: a public commitment to align with a 1.5degC strategy; intermediary targets; a consistent capex program to back its diversification strategy away from fossil fuel production; a level of GHG emissions being measured and reported annually; strong leadership of the Board
Campaigners are wary that such vague criteria creates a loophole that will enable the bank to continue financing some of its largest oil and gas clients in the region. BNP Paribas must use the time remaining in its existing binding contracts to push clients to decarbonize and then follow through on its commitment to exclude if and when existing clients fail to adopt adequate transition plans within the remaining duration of their binding contracts.
Stand.earth and Amazon Watch launched the Exit Amazon Oil & Gas campaign after releasing the Banking on Amazon Destruction report. The report compared banks' environmental and human rights policy commitments to the impacts of their on-the-ground financing and found that BNP Paribas was at "high risk" of driving Amazon destruction due to its investment exposure and participation in RCFs (Revolving Credit Facilities) in Amazon oil and gas. The report's analysis found that BNP's policies related to deforestation and Indigenous rights (including the right of Indigenous peoples to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent) were lacking, and pushed the bank to re-examine its exposure to companies with records of poor behavior in these areas.
Amazon Watch is a nonprofit organization founded in 1996 to protect the rainforest and advance the rights of indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with indigenous and environmental organizations in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability and the preservation of the Amazon's ecological systems.
Stand.earth (formerly ForestEthics) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with offices in Canada and the United States that is known for its groundbreaking research and successful corporate and citizens engagement campaigns to create new policies and industry standards in protecting forests, advocating the rights of indigenous peoples, and protecting the climate. Visit us at
LATEST NEWS
Insulted by Trump's Threats, Iranian Negotiators Walk Out of Peace Talks
"Don’t they think that if their threats had worked, they wouldn’t have ended up in today’s desperate situation?" said Iran's chief negotiator.
Jun 21, 2026
US President Donald Trump’s threats to destroy Iran and send US forces to occupy the country on Sunday appear to have derailed peace negotiations in Switzerland, with the Iranian delegation reportedly walking out and demanding an apology.
Following Iran’s announcement that it was closing the Strait of Hormuz again after Israel intensified its assault on Lebanon, Trump went on a tirade Sunday in which he threatened to assassinate negotiators and said Iran “won’t have a country” if access to the critical waterway was shut off, while also threatening to “take over” Iran with a full US invasion.
But after Trump’s threats—which broke the first clause of the memorandum of understanding—Iran’s negotiators filed a complaint with the Pakistani and Qatari mediators and stormed out of the mountain resort where talks were being held, according to several outlets.
While Trump clearly sought to project strength, Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said his team “do not take American threats seriously.”
In previous months, as Trump sought to squeeze concessions from the Iranians, he issued escalatory threats to wipe out their “whole civilization” and “blow up” the whole country. However, he did not act on those threats, even as Iran refused to budge from its negotiating posture.
"Don’t they think that if their threats had worked, they wouldn’t have ended up in today’s desperate situation?" Ghalibaf said.
Ghalibaf said the US had “better be more careful with their statements,” adding that “our armed forces are ready to respond in a different way." He said, “No matter what they say, we are the ones who act.
While the Iranian delegation left the venue, talks are reportedly continuing via mediators. However, according to the Lebanese outlet Al Mayadeen, the delegation said it will not return until Trump apologizes for his threats and Israel fully withdraws from Lebanon.
According to senior Israeli officials cited by Channel 12, Israel is reportedly considering “limited withdrawals” from Lebanon, including in areas within its so-called “buffer zone.” Despite Iranian claims, the officials said the US has not requested Israel’s withdrawal from the country.
Previous peace talks have been derailed by Trump’s threats to commit indiscriminate war crimes in Iran. But this past week has seen perhaps the most violent swing yet in his approach toward Iran.
Where earlier this week, Trump acknowledged Iran's right to enrich uranium and maintain a nuclear energy program like that of other nations, his outburst Sunday appeared to have been prompted by a statement by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who said the US would be "forced to accept" its right to enrichment.
And while Trump has raged against Israel’s actions in Lebanon while privately claiming that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to sabotage peace, he has not taken concrete action to force Israel to comply with the memorandum’s terms.
"The mixed messages coming out of the White House," remarked Jeet Heer, a writer at The Nation, "are going to make it much harder to end the war, and could in fact spark further conflict."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'You Won't Have a Country': Trump Threatens Full Ground Invasion and Destruction of Iran Amid Hormuz Closure
One expert said Israel's continued assault on Lebanon, which led Iran to announce its closure of the strait, posed an "existential threat" to the ceasefire.
Jun 21, 2026
Rather than force Israel to halt its occupation in Lebanon in accordance with the memorandum of understanding, President Donald Trump on Sunday responded to Iran's announcement that it was closing the Strait of Hormuz with a new litany of psychotic threats—claiming that if the waterway were closed, he would blow up the country, launch a full ground invasion to take it over, and assassinate Iranian negotiators.
According to Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst, Trump told the Iranian negotiators overnight that if they close the strait, which Iran claimed to have shuttered once again on Saturday, “you won’t have a country,” adding that they “won’t even make it back to their f***ing country,” in what appeared to be a threat to assassinate the negotiators, as happened during the initial phase of the war.
Responding to statements by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who said Iran would not give up its “right to enrich uranium” and that the US “will be forced to accept it,” Trump reportedly said Pezeshkian had better “watch his mouth” and “shape up,” or the US “will take over the rest of the country.”
It’s yet another sharp reversal from Trump, who—after months of claiming Iran must agree to “zero enrichment”—suddenly acknowledged this week that it was “common sense” for the nation to be allowed to have a nuclear energy program as other countries do.
Trump’s renewed threats against Iran, which mirror his genocidal threats earlier in the war to wipe out Iran’s “whole civilization” and “blow up” the entire country, also appear to violate the first clause of the memorandum of understanding, which calls on signatories to “refrain from the threat or use of force against each other.”
The threat to fully occupy Iran, which Trump made publicly for the first time on Sunday, stands in sharp contrast to his comments that continuing the war for much longer would cause “economic catastrophe” and that even limited ground operations, such as one he had proposed to seize Iran’s uranium, would be too big an effort to be worth it.
The war with Iran is already deeply unpopular among the American public, even without US boots on the ground. Polls have shown that even a majority of Republicans would be opposed to Trump escalating the war by deploying ground troops, and military officials have shelved planned operations to occupy certain strategic locations, including Kharg Island, fearing a large number of American casualties.
Nevertheless, Trump also told Yingst that the US could become the “guardian angel” of the Strait of Hormuz, collecting tolls and taking oil from countries using the waterway for exports. He did not make clear how the US would gain control of the strait under such a scenario.
Iran announced that it would close the strait again on Saturday after Israel deepened its occupation and escalated its bombing of southern Lebanon, despite the MOU’s ceasefire agreement covering all fronts.
Iranian negotiators have described an end to Israel’s Lebanon occupation, which has killed more than 4,000 people and forced more than 1.2 million Lebanese civilians from their homes in the south, as a red line for negotiating peace.
Behind the scenes, Trump has acknowledged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is using Lebanon to sabotage the ceasefire and drag the US back into a full-scale war.
In the phone call with Yingst, Trump once again said he was “disappointed Israel can’t put Hezbollah away,” adding that Israel “can’t do anything without knocking buildings down.” He also said he was close to allowing Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa—the former leader of al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate—to take over the operation against Hezbollah.
While this is yet another instance of Trump using harsher rhetoric toward Israel—which Vice President JD Vance has also done in recent days—there is no indication yet that he is willing to take the next step of forcing Netanyahu to accept the ceasefire agreement by imposing material consequences, such as suspending military aid.
Even as Israel’s attacks continued unabated and threatened to derail the deal entirely, Vance did not indicate that he thought the US needed to exert more pressure.
“I think Trump and the US have done more to stop the conflict in Lebanon than any government anywhere in the world,” he said at a press conference in Switzerland on Sunday.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, described Israel’s continued escalations as “an existential threat” to the peace process between the US and Iran.
He told ABC News on Saturday that Iran’s threat to close the strait just before a meeting in Geneva this weekend was meant to be “part of a background of how serious they are” about ensuring that the US understands the stakes if Israel refuses to withdraw.
“Israel would prefer for this war to continue until you have a complete defeat of the Iranians, which, of course, is not in the cards,” Parsi said. “The Israelis sold this war to Trump as a quick, easy fix to the region’s problems that would take no more than four days, and they were dead wrong.”
“Now, Trump is recognizing that US interests necessitate that he pull out of this war and strikes this deal, but the Israelis are trying to sabotage it because they are afraid they’re going to be left out, that the balance in the region is going to shift against their interests,” he added. “They’re willing to essentially jeopardize their relationship with the United States over this.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Starmer Expected to Resign as PM, But UK Left Warns of 'More of the Same' From His Replacement
Jeremy Corbyn said Andy Burnham would be "accepting too much of the austerity that we've had imposed upon us" and "doesn't appear to be doing anything different internationally."
Jun 20, 2026
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to announce as soon as Monday that he will resign, according to new reports, as Labour supporters abandon the party.
But many on the left remain skeptical that his likely replacement, Andy Burnham, will truly bring the "change" he promises.
Britain's Observer newspaper reported on Saturday that the prime minister appeared "resigned" to stepping down, well aware that "support isn't there" for his continued leadership amid the party's dismal unpopularity.
Though Starmer swept away nearly a decade and a half of Conservative rule in 2024, his honeymoon has been short-lived. His embrace of austerity in the face of a cost-of-living crisis and his government's ferocious crackdowns on pro-Palestinian speech have left progressive supporters seeking alternatives like the ascendant Green Party.
Meanwhile, his hard-right pivot on immigration has done little to siphon votes from Brexiteer Nigel Farage's far-right Reform UK party, which currently leads in national polls.
The immediate trigger for Starmer's reported resignation was Burnham's victory in Thursday's Makerfield by-election, which marked the former mayor of Greater Manchester's return to Westminster. Burnham comfortably defeated a Reform UK candidate, and The Guardian reported that he was expected to have support from about 200 Labour MPs in a leadership challenge against Starmer.
Burnham emphasized during a victory rally that it was "a last chance to change" Labour as it heads for electoral oblivion.
Responding to what he said were requests from constituents to "do something to make life more affordable," Burnham called for an end to "trickle down economics," with government interventions to bring down utility bills and rail fares, public procurement of businesses, pushes for reindustrialization, and job guarantees for people ages 16 to 18.
But some leaders on the British left have warned that Burnham will do little to deviate from Starmer's failures.
While he has pledged to reverse Starmer's welfare cuts and privatizations of public services, Burnham has also committed to maintaining the party's spending limits, which may make significant changes impossible.
Islington North MP Jeremy Corbyn, who led the Labour Party from 2015-20, said that while he personally likes Burnham, "his basic economic strategy and views... seem to me to be accepting too much of the austerity that we've had imposed upon us."
The ex-leader also said Burnham "doesn't appear to be doing anything different internationally," noting that he has not given a straight answer on whether Britain should conduct an inquiry into the UK government's policy on Gaza and its supply of weapons to Israel.
Burnham has also drawn criticism for saying he would maintain Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who has spearheaded hard-line changes to UK asylum policies and has enforced the repressive ban on Palestine Action, which has led to the arrest of thousands of nonviolent protesters, many of whom have been charged with terrorism.
"The architect of Labour’s cruel plans on settled status and persecution of free speech and protest stays in place," said Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who said it was a sign of "more of the same."
Remarking on Burnham's team of economic advisers, who include former chief economists for the Bank of England and Goldman Sachs, Polanski said it "isn’t a team of advisers which looks like challenging wealth and power."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular