Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines the systemic risk posed by credit rating agencies' failure to account for climate change in their methodologies. It argues that by assuming a 'business-as-usual' scenario of $\ge 4^{\circ}C$ warming rather than a dynamic trajectory aligned with a $2^{\circ}C$ goal, agencies are artificially inflating the credit ratings of fossil fuel projects. Using a case study of the Adani Abbot Point Terminal in Australia, the document demonstrates how generic project finance methodologies ignore risks such as stranded assets, decreased coal demand, and physical climate impacts. The report concludes that this failure not only threatens global financial stability by creating a 'carbon bubble' but also exposes rating agencies to significant legal liability under the Dodd-Frank Act and common law.

The document analyzes the legal necessity of social responsibility agreements (SRAs) across various logging permits in Ghana, concluding that all permit types recognized as legal sources of timber under the EU-Ghana VPA require SRAs.

The report examines the intersection of domestic law, international investment law, freshwater law, and human rights law in the context of large-scale agricultural investments in Africa. It highlights how foreign investors often secure formal statutory water rights through contracts and treaties that prevail over the informal customary rights of local communities. The document emphasizes the increasing pressure on water resources due to population growth and climate change, particularly in Southern and Northern Africa. It analyzes the role of river basin organizations, such as those for the Senegal, Niger, and Lake Chad basins, in managing transboundary water resources. The report concludes that host states must integrate these parallel legal regimes to ensure sustainable water management and protect the human right to water.

The submission argues that project-level grievance mechanisms (PLGMs) are often fundamentally flawed due to a lack of independence and oversight, and urges the U.S. government to exercise caution before endorsing them. The authors recommend that any supported PLGMs must adhere to the UN Guiding Principles' effectiveness criteria, including legitimacy, accessibility, predictability, equitability, transparency, rights compatibility, continuous learning, and engagement.

The document is a public statement addressed to the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) of Japan. It argues that current nuclear safety standards lack rationality and fail to ensure safety, citing a Fukui District Court ruling that blocked the restart of reactors No. 3 and 4 at the Takahama nuclear power plant. The authors demand a fundamental review of these standards and a halt to all current vetting procedures for restarting reactors.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) is calling on the South African Department of Environmental Affairs to formally publish the draft Strategy to Address Air Pollution in Dense Low-Income Settlements for public comment by 30 April 2015. The CER argues that residents in low-income settlements suffer disproportionate exposure to poor air quality from industrial sources and domestic fuel burning, leading to severe respiratory and cardio-vascular illnesses, particularly in children and the elderly. The document highlights that the strategy was a deliverable as far back as 2010 and is essential for local governments, such as the Nkangala District Municipality, to meet air quality compliance goals by 2020. The CER asserts that the state's failure to address these health risks violates constitutional rights to an environment not harmful to health and the progressive realisation of adequate housing.

Natural Justice submits that the World Bank's Draft Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) fails to align with modern human rights standards, specifically criticizing the 'opt-out clause' in ESS7. This clause allows borrowers to waive ESS7 protections for indigenous peoples if they claim identifying such groups would risk 'ethnic tension' or 'civil strife,' or if it conflicts with national constitutions. Natural Justice contends this nullifies essential protections like Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), promotes a regressive view of indigenous identity, and sets a dangerous precedent for other international financial institutions.

The report argues that the Mabola Protected Environment (MPE) was correctly proclaimed due to its high biodiversity and hydrological importance. It concludes that de-proclaiming the MPE to allow the Yzermyn coal mine would set a dangerous precedent, risk irreplaceable ecosystems, and contradict South Africa's climate change goals. While the mine's current underground plan has moderate short-term impacts, the report warns of long-term risks including acid mine decant and permanent loss of critical water-producing wetlands.

The Legal Resources Centre (LRC) and a coalition of civil society and community organisations are urging the South African National Assembly to reject the Mining and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill 15B of 2013. Following President Zuma's referral of the bill back to Parliament, the LRC argues that the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) and provincial legislatures failed to facilitate reasonable public participation, violating sections 72 and 118 of the Constitution. The LRC specifically highlights that the bill removes community participation in mining and eliminates requirements for addressing socio-economic needs. They contend that the bill was influenced by 'lobbying and influence peddling' from the mining industry and the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) outside of parliamentary processes. The LRC demands a fresh start to the legislative process to ensure meaningful consultation with affected mining communities, particularly regarding living customary law and the principle of community consent.

The document asserts that climate change is a major human rights challenge, threatening rights to life, health, and food security, particularly for vulnerable groups. It criticizes the UNFCCC for slow progress in operationalizing rights protections and recommends that the 2015 climate agreement include explicit human rights obligations, establish institutional safeguards, create a dedicated work programme on human rights and climate change, and implement a grievance mechanism to address harms caused by mitigation and adaptation activities.

The document examines the evolution of African continental court structures, focusing on the 2014 Malabo Protocol. It argues that the protocol's creation of an 'Expanded Court' with jurisdiction over 14 international crimes is undermined by Article 46 A bis, which grants immunity to serving heads of state and senior government officials. The author contends this is a response to the perceived bias of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the use of universal jurisdiction by European states, ultimately serving to protect political elites rather than victims of human rights violations.

The policy brief contends that South Africa is failing to secure land tenure for those affected by apartheid-era dispossession. Instead of democratic reform, the authors argue that the state is implementing a separate legal regime for former 'homelands' that empowers chiefs and marginalizes rural communities, particularly regarding the distribution of wealth from platinum mining in the North West and Limpopo provinces.

The document analyzes the conflict between the principle of differential treatment (CBDRRC) used in climate law and the principle of equal treatment central to international aviation law. It argues that a 'contextual treatment' approach—which differentiates based on changing national circumstances and implementation assistance—is more viable for regulating aviation emissions than the rigid binary divisions of the Kyoto Protocol. The brief notes a shift toward this approach within the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the European Union (EU), suggesting that such flexibility is key to establishing a global market-based emissions reduction mechanism.

The document examines how extraterritorial obligations (ETOs), as clarified by the Maastricht Principles, are essential for holding states accountable for environmental destruction and climate change that impact human rights beyond their own borders. It highlights gaps in protection caused by globalization, specifically regarding transnational corporations and intergovernmental organizations. Using examples like tropical deforestation and shipbreaking in South Asia, the guide illustrates how state omissions and the failure to regulate non-state actors lead to severe human rights impairments. It concludes that a human rights-based approach to climate change is necessary to ensure equitable mitigation and protection for the world's most vulnerable populations.

The document examines how states' extraterritorial obligations (ETOs), as defined by the Maastricht Principles, are essential for regulating transnational corporations and state actions that cause cross-border environmental damage. It highlights the vulnerability of indigenous peoples and environmental defenders, and uses examples such as illegal logging in tropical forests and shipbreaking in South Asia to illustrate the need for international legal accountability. The report further links climate change to threats against human health, global security, and fundamental human rights, advocating for a human-rights-based approach to climate policy.

The report examines the role of performance requirements (PRs) in foreign direct investment, analyzing how their prohibition in bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and the WTO TRIMs Agreement restricts the ability of host states—particularly developing countries—to achieve sustainable development goals. It contrasts traditional BITs, which are silent on PRs, with a growing minority of 'TRIMs+' treaties that impose broader prohibitions. Through the analysis of investment tribunal cases like Mobil Oil v. Canada and Lemire v. Ukraine, the document highlights the unpredictability of legal interpretations. It concludes by offering policy options for states to maintain their regulatory sovereignty, such as avoiding PR prohibitions in treaties or using specific carve-outs and grandfathering clauses.

The document examines performance requirements (PR)—stipulations imposed on investors to achieve specific development goals—and the legal constraints placed upon them by the WTO's TRIMs Agreement and various Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). It highlights a growing trend, led by Canada and the United States, toward broader prohibitions of PRs (MIC+ clauses) that extend to pre-establishment phases. Through the analysis of cases like Lemire v. Ukraine and Mobil Oil v. Canada, the guide illustrates the unpredictability of investment tribunals in interpreting these prohibitions. It concludes by offering strategic options for developing nations to maintain their regulatory space, such as avoiding PR prohibitions in BITs or explicitly excluding certain sectors and mechanisms from such restrictions.

The document examines the Vattenfall v. Germany II arbitration, initiated by the Swedish-owned energy company Vattenfall after Germany accelerated its nuclear power phase-out following the 2011 Fukushima disaster. Vattenfall is claiming compensation for the shutdown of the Krümmel and Brunsbüttel plants, with claims reported as high as 4.68 billion EUR. The briefing highlights a lack of transparency in the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) process, noting that procedural orders and submissions remain confidential despite the significant public funds at stake. It argues that ICSID rules do not mandate confidentiality and that the public interest in environmental and energy policy should justify the release of case documents.

The author refutes the argument that the EPA cannot regulate greenhouse gases from existing power plants because those plants are already required to control air toxics. The author asserts that section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act specifically allows for the regulation of "gap" pollutants—those that are neither National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) nor Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS)—and that the Senate's version of the 1990 amendments, which is the controlling law, confirms this authority.

The document examines how transparency serves as a compliance mechanism in EU fisheries management. It analyzes the legal obligations of EU institutions and Member States under the Treaty on European Union, the Access to Information Regulation, and the Aarhus Convention, specifically as they apply to the CFP, EMFF, and CMO. The briefing identifies specific publicity and reporting requirements, such as the Union fishing fleet register and MSY progress reports, while recommending greater transparency regarding the names of natural persons receiving EMFF funding and mandatory production method labelling for aquaculture products.