Synthesis of Statements on Climate Change

The document notes a sharp decline in the CCPR's explicit references to climate change in its 2022 State review process compared to previous years. It highlights specific recommendations for the Philippines regarding corporate liability and for Brazil regarding carbon emissions. Most significantly, it analyzes the case of Billy et al. v. Australia, where the CCPR found that Australia violated the rights to home, private life, family, and culture by failing to implement adequate climate adaptation measures for the Torres Strait Islanders, marking the first time a human rights treaty body established a State's duty to protect people from climate impacts.

• The Human Rights Committee (CCPR) saw a significant decrease in the number of State review outputs explicitly addressing climate change in 2022, with only one List of Issues (LOI) and one Concluding Observation (COB) mentioning the topic, compared to eight such inputs in 2021.
• In its review of the Philippines, the CCPR urged the government to implement recommendations from the National Inquiry on Climate Change, specifically calling for the enactment of laws that create legal liabilities for human rights abuses related to businesses and corporations, and ensuring meaningful consultation with affected populations and indigenous peoples for resilience projects.
• The CCPR requested information from Brazil regarding its legal and institutional frameworks to mitigate climate change and environmental degradation, specifically asking about efforts to reduce carbon emissions and increase investment in sustainable energy sources.
• In the case of Billy et al. v. Australia, the CCPR ruled that Australia violated articles 17 and 27 of the Covenant by failing to provide timely and adequate adaptation measures to protect the Torres Strait Islanders' homes, family life, and their collective ability to maintain traditional culture and use of land and sea resources.
• The Billy et al. v. Australia decision is described as groundbreaking because it is the first instance of a human rights treaty body establishing a State party's duty to protect individuals under its jurisdiction from climate change impacts and requiring an effective remedy, although the Committee declined to rule on the failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (2023). Synthesis of Statements on Climate Change. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CCPR-Synthesis-of-Statements-on-Climate-Change-2023.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. Synthesis of Statements on Climate Change. 2023. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CCPR-Synthesis-of-Statements-on-Climate-Change-2023.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=Synthesis of Statements on Climate Change |date=2023 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CCPR-Synthesis-of-Statements-on-Climate-Change-2023.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centerforinternationalenvironmentallaw2023synthesis, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{Synthesis of Statements on Climate Change}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2023}, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CCPR-Synthesis-of-Statements-on-Climate-Change-2023.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }