Search Climate Insights Directory

The research paper examines how the 1989 Belgium-Luxembourg (BLEU)–USSR bilateral investment treaty (BIT) is being used as a legal threat to prevent Belgium from supporting an EU plan to back a EUR 140 billion Ukraine loan with immobilized Russian Central Bank assets. It highlights a broader trend of 'regulatory chill' where Russian entities use investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims to challenge sanctions. The author argues for the modernization of investment treaties and the implementation of domestic legal blocks to prevent the enforcement of arbitration awards that contradict international sanctions regimes.

The report argues that the current EU public procurement framework, specifically Directive 2014/24/EU, fails to drive the green transition because GPP remains voluntary, leading to fragmented implementation and a prevalence of lowest-price awards. It identifies three primary challenges: a fragmented legal landscape, the voluntary nature of GPP, and perceived legal uncertainty regarding the 'link to subject matter' rule. To address these, the authors recommend making GPP the default via a 'comply-or-explain' approach, tying 'Buy European' rules to environmental performance, simplifying rules through harmonized criteria and labels, strengthening data monitoring, and investing in the professionalization of contracting authorities. The report provides detailed operational options for both simplification and strategic procurement to support the EU's 2040 emissions targets.

The report examines the potential for implementing OECMs (meccs) in Brazil to achieve the '30x30' biodiversity goals. It analyzes various spatial mechanisms, including protected areas (UCs), Indigenous lands (TIs), Quilombola territories (TQs), and private lands. The document highlights that while formal protected areas are established, significant conservation occurs in traditional territories and private lands that lack formal recognition. It identifies land tenure insecurity as a primary obstacle to inclusive conservation and proposes that the mecc framework be used to prioritize land regularization for traditional peoples and communities (PCTs). The report concludes with recommendations to integrate meccs with social policies, ensure equitable governance, and provide technical and financial support to local actors.

The Trump administration has proposed rule revisions to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that Earthjustice claims will weaken protections for imperiled species and their habitats. These changes include narrowing the definition of 'critical habitat', allowing economic considerations in protection decisions, and removing automatic protections for newly listed species. Earthjustice asserts that the ESA has prevented 99% of protected species from going extinct since 1973 and vows to challenge these revisions in court, citing previous legal successes in protecting species like Yellowstone grizzlies and gray wolves.

The document examines the 'vicious cycle' where climate shocks force African nations to borrow, increasing debt service costs and limiting investments in climate resilience and social needs. It argues that the current creditor-led focus on binding contracts ignores the environmental and social impacts of debt. The author posits that the July 2025 ICJ advisory opinion establishes customary international legal obligations—specifically the duty to prevent significant environmental harm and the duty to cooperate—which should apply to debt restructuring. The brief recommends that African policymakers use this legal grounding to push for a new conceptual framework, such as the DOVE Principles, which integrates due diligence and common but differentiated responsibilities into debt negotiations.

Plan 1.5 criticizes the South Korean government's proposed 2035 NDC targets of 50-60% and 53-60% reductions compared to 2018 levels, labeling them unconstitutional. The organization argues these targets lack scientific basis, ignore the country's fair share of global emissions reductions (estimated at 65%), and unfairly shift the burden of climate action to future generations by prioritizing short-term industrial interests.

New York State Attorney General Letitia James secured a settlement requiring JBS to reform deceptive marketing practices, report progress to the state for three years, and pay $1.1 million toward climate-smart agriculture in New York. The settlement follows allegations that JBS falsely marketed a trajectory toward net-zero emissions by 2040 while expanding meat processing. Mighty Earth has also initiated a lawsuit in Washington, DC, for violations of the Consumer Practices Protection Act and a case with the UK Financial Conduct Authority regarding Barclays' underwriting of $3 billion in Sustainability-Linked Bonds for JBS. The document asserts that JBS excludes the vast majority of its climate footprint—over 95%—from its net-zero calculations by reporting only Scope 1 and 2 operational emissions. Additionally, the text highlights JBS's expansion into Nigeria with a $2.5 billion investment in six slaughterhouses, alongside its history of Amazon deforestation and Clean Water Act violations in the US.

Earthjustice is utilizing litigation and public mobilization to defend U.S. biodiversity and ecosystems against Trump administration policies. Key efforts include challenging oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, fighting coal mine expansions in the Northern Rockies, and defending the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Roadless Rule. The organization is also pursuing the restoration of salmon in the Columbia River watershed and the reintroduction of gray wolves in Colorado, while challenging the legality of a detention center in the Everglades and the opening of the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument to commercial fishing.

The report analyzes 32 Air Service Agreements (ASAs) among COFFIS member states, finding that while the Chicago Convention does not prohibit aviation fuel taxes, specific bilateral and multilateral ASAs may create legal barriers. It identifies two categories of agreements requiring reform: those with full tax prohibitions and those with non-discrimination clauses. The report suggests that while bilateral reforms are possible, a global or multilateral Joint Agreement would be a swifter method for bulk reform. For EU member states, the EU Energy Taxation Directive (ETD) is the primary barrier, though an international agreement could override it. The report also includes emission quantifications and revenue estimates for three UK-based ASAs.

The report examines how the UNFCCC's reliance on consensus has led to a 'race to the bottom,' where a small number of countries can veto critical decisions on fossil fuels, 1.5°C targets, and loss and damage. By comparing the UNFCCC to other UN bodies and multilateral environmental agreements—such as the UN General Assembly and the Montreal Protocol—the author demonstrates that voting mechanisms can actually enhance multilateralism by brokering consensus and exposing blockers. The document proposes two primary procedural pathways for reform: adopting the long-bracketed draft rules of procedure or amending the Convention and Paris Agreement via a three-fourths majority vote.

ClientEarth outlines three legal imperatives for COP30: combating climate disinformation, translating the ICJ's Advisory Opinion into 1.5°C-compatible domestic laws, and establishing enforceable corporate accountability for environmental harms. The brief emphasizes the transition from voluntary pledges to mandatory legal compliance to ensure the goals of the Paris Agreement are met.

The document argues that civic space in the EU is narrowing due to restrictive laws, exclusion from decision-making, and the criminalisation of peaceful activism. It highlights specific threats such as SLAPPs, funding cuts to the LIFE programme, and national laws in France, Hungary, Poland, and Italy that curtail CSO operations. ClientEarth calls for a pro-CSO narrative, transparent access to decision-making, and stable long-term financial support to safeguard environmental democracy.

ClientEarth warns that further delays to the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), currently set to apply to the private sector on 30 December 2025, would cause significant environmental damage and create legal vulnerabilities. The document asserts that such delays lack proper impact assessments and conflict with EU environmental protection principles, the principle of legitimate expectations for businesses that have already invested in compliance, and international law regarding State climate obligations as clarified by a 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion.

The report examines the intersection of biodiversity loss and human rights violations, asserting that transnational corporations (TNCs) drive ecological destruction through industrial agriculture, extractivism, and infrastructure projects. It critiques voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) and due diligence frameworks as 'false solutions' that facilitate corporate impunity. The document calls for a legally binding treaty on TNCs and human rights, the operationalization of a human rights-based approach within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the recognition of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities as rights-holders rather than mere stakeholders.

The document examines the link between biodiversity loss and human rights violations, asserting that transnational corporations drive ecological destruction through land grabbing and the marginalization of indigenous peoples. It criticizes voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) and 'due diligence' frameworks as insufficient 'false solutions' that maintain corporate impunity. The report calls for the transition from a 'stakeholder' to a 'rights-holder' approach within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and proposes a legally binding treaty to enforce corporate accountability, mandatory free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), and the protection of environmental defenders.

The document examines the link between biodiversity loss and human rights violations, specifically focusing on the role of transnational corporations (TNCs) in driving ecological destruction and suppressing defenders. It criticizes voluntary mechanisms like Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and due diligence as 'shields' for impunity and calls for a legally binding treaty on TNCs and human rights. The report emphasizes the importance of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and the recognition of Indigenous Peoples as rights-holders rather than mere stakeholders.

The report examines how Egypt, South Sudan, and Chad manage the influx of Sudanese refugees, highlighting a systemic gap between international legal commitments and the lived realities of displaced persons. It identifies specific failures in each country—Egypt's security-heavy approach, South Sudan's operational fragility, and Chad's institutional weakness—and recommends regional coordination through the AU and IGAD to establish a predictable protection framework.

The petitioners argue that the 'ease and acceleration' of National Strategic Projects (PSN) under the Job Creation Law creates vague norms that allow for arbitrary government power, the marginalization of public participation, and the violation of constitutional rights. They claim these provisions facilitate land grabbing, the conversion of sustainable agricultural land, and the removal of legislative oversight over forest area changes, primarily benefiting private capital over public welfare. The document details specific impacts in regions such as Rempang, Merauke, and North Kalimantan, citing losses of indigenous lands, food insecurity, and environmental degradation.

The report details the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' (IACtHR) Advisory Opinion 32/25, which recognizes the right to a healthy climate as an autonomous and justiciable right. It establishes that States have binding obligations to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and provide integral reparations. The Court introduces a high standard of 'enhanced due diligence' for climate action and recognizes Nature as a subject of rights. It also outlines specific protections for vulnerable groups, including Indigenous Peoples, LGBTIQ+ persons, persons with disabilities, and future generations, while emphasizing the necessity of environmental democracy through access to information, public participation, and the protection of environmental defenders.

The document provides a comprehensive analysis of the IACtHR's Advisory Opinion OC-32/25, which recognizes the right to a healthy climate as an autonomous and justiciable right. It details the court's findings on the obligations of states to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and cooperate internationally. The report emphasizes the recognition of Nature as a subject of rights and the establishment of a reinforced due diligence standard for preventing climate damage. It also explores the specific protections required for vulnerable groups, including indigenous peoples, LGBTIQ+ individuals, persons with disabilities, and future generations, while outlining the necessity of comprehensive climate reparations and environmental democracy.