Search Climate Insights Directory

The document serves as an overview for a legal toolkit designed to help law-makers address the complexities of forest conversion laws. It identifies five key areas for legal attention: land allocation, clearing permits, timber rules, environmental protection, and community rights. The toolkit is based on an analysis of legal frameworks in nine tropical countries and focuses primarily on the regulation of large-scale projects to balance economic growth with environmental and social protections.

The document outlines five essential requirements for a legal framework regulating forest clearance: unambiguous permits, environmental and social evaluations, explicit application timelines, protection of community and indigenous rights, and strong enforcement. It highlights risks such as the use of clearance permits as loopholes for illegal timber harvesting and the conflict between sectoral laws, providing case studies from Liberia, the Republic of Congo, Brazil, and Viet Nam to illustrate these legal failures.

The document argues that timber from forest conversion is becoming a dominant source of global timber trade but often lacks the strict regulatory frameworks applied to selective logging. This creates legal loopholes that companies may exploit to access valuable timber under the guise of land clearance for agriculture, mining, or infrastructure. To mitigate risks of illegality and land-grabbing, the author recommends three essential requirements: clear and detailed rules for the entire supply chain, a definition of legality that incorporates land title and community rights, and full public transparency of data regarding clearance permits and timber volumes.

The document outlines the necessity of detailed, binding environmental legal tools to mitigate the impacts of forest conversion, such as biodiversity loss and climate change. It emphasizes the role of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), the importance of transparency, and the need for laws to be fit for the specific national context. Through case studies from Gabon, Ghana, Brazil, and Liberia, it illustrates how non-binding guidelines, limited agency capacity, and sustainability policies affect forest protection.

The document argues that formal legal recognition of customary land tenure and the inclusion of local communities in decision-making are essential for protecting both forest ecosystems and the livelihoods of indigenous peoples. It identifies key legal barriers—such as complex registration processes and a lack of implementing legislation—that lead to risks of eviction, land disputes, and land scarcity. The factsheet advocates for the integration of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) into national laws and provides a checklist of questions to guide law-makers through legal reform.

The report details discussions among 30 experts on integrating mandatory investor obligations into international investment agreements. It evaluates proposed draft texts covering compliance with domestic law, anti-corruption, information disclosure, human rights, labour and environmental standards, contract transparency, impact assessments, and tax base erosion. The experts discussed enforcement mechanisms, including the use of counterclaims in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and the possibility of civil liability in an investor's home state to improve access to justice for affected communities.

CIEL argues that the World Bank's Draft Guidance Notes for the ESF are 'severely lacking in substance' and often merely reiterate standards without providing actual implementation guidance. The submission provides specific recommendations across several standards, including labor conditions, pollution prevention, indigenous peoples' rights, and stakeholder engagement. Key demands include the integration of international conventions (such as ILO 169 and UNDRIP), the adoption of a 1.5-degree pathway for greenhouse gas accounting, and the explicit protection of human rights defenders against reprisals. CIEL also emphasizes that the World Bank must ensure Borrowers disclose the existence of the Inspection Panel to affected communities and that project-level grievance mechanisms must be independent, transparent, and rights-compatible.

The document argues that climate change is a material financial risk that UK auditors must integrate into their work to avoid legal and regulatory sanctions. It details how climate risk affects annual accounts (e.g., asset impairments) and other reporting (e.g., strategic reports), noting that auditors may be liable for 'material misstatements' or breaches of their duty of care. The paper highlights rising investor pressure for 'climate-competent auditors' and provides action points for firms to manage these risks.

ClientEarth's submission argues that the revision of the EU Fisheries Control System must prioritize the implementation and enforcement of existing rules over the creation of new ones. The organization opposes the 'regionalisation' of control measures, fearing it would weaken standards and create a 'race to the bottom'. Key recommendations include removing VMS and logbook exemptions for vessels between 12 and 15 metres, introducing electronic reporting and geo-tracking for small-scale fisheries (below 12 metres), and establishing stricter rules for the certification of engine power and gross tonnage. ClientEarth also advocates for the inclusion of recreational fisheries under licensing and reporting obligations for stocks subject to recovery plans or multiannual plans. Finally, it calls for a more transparent reporting system, an expanded role for the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA), and a more rigorous application of the penalty point system for serious infringements.

The report examines border carbon adjustments (BCAs) as a tool to prevent carbon leakage and incentivize climate ambition among trade partners. It analyzes past proposals in the EU and US, evaluates the legal constraints imposed by the WTO, and provides a comprehensive design framework. The authors recommend a BCA focused on imports of primary goods from energy-intensive sectors, utilizing global sectoral benchmarks for emissions and ensuring revenues benefit developing countries.

The document examines the role of infrastructure contracts in achieving sustainable development. It defines sustainable infrastructure as projects that are economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable, and argues that traditional project finance often ignores long-term risks and co-benefits. The author critiques the World Bank Group's 2017 Guidance on PPP Contractual Provisions for prioritizing private sector interests over public policy. To remedy this, the report provides a comprehensive framework of contractual approaches, including requirements for impact assessments, local content obligations, human rights safeguards, and the limitation of stabilization clauses, to ensure that infrastructure projects deliver genuine public value.

The report finds that there is no single 'good practice' model for investment laws in ASEAN, as their functions vary significantly by country—ranging from managing entry approvals to granting incentives. Some members, such as Singapore, have no specific investment law, relying instead on general and sector-specific legislation. A key distinction is made between national investment laws and investment treaties; the report notes that ASEAN investment laws generally lack the vague, broad investor rights (such as 'fair and equitable treatment') and the general consent to investor-state arbitration typically found in treaties. The author argues that investment laws cannot be evaluated in isolation and must be understood as part of a broader national regulatory regime.

The document examines why the World Trade Organization (WTO) has seen limited legal action against fossil fuel subsidies despite their distorting effects on trade and investment. It analyzes five G20 support measures against the 1994 Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), noting the specific difficulty of litigating consumption subsidies and the lack of transparency in subsidy notifications. To address these gaps, the paper proposes five reform avenues: technical assistance, enhanced transparency, credible reform pledges, a political declaration, and expanding the category of prohibited subsidies.

The report synthesizes documentary evidence to show that major oil and gas companies were aware of the climate risks associated with their products as early as the 1950s. It argues that these companies had the capacity to foresee harms and the opportunity to mitigate them through technology and public warnings, but instead engaged in coordinated campaigns to sow scientific doubt. The document links this conduct to legal frameworks of responsibility in tort and human rights law, noting that attribution science now allows for the quantification of specific corporate contributions to global climate impacts.

The document argues that climate change creates material financial risks that UK defined benefit (DB) pension trustees are legally required to manage. Consequently, investment consultants may face legal liability, regulatory sanctions, and reputational damage if they fail to provide advice that accounts for these risks in areas such as Statements of Investment Principles (SIP), asset allocation, and manager selection. It highlights an emerging industry standard where failure to address climate risk could be viewed as a breach of the duty of care.

The document argues that climate risk is now a financially material factor that UK DB pension actuaries must address to avoid legal negligence claims, regulatory sanctions, and professional misconduct findings. It details how climate risk impacts investment strategies, funding assumptions, and employer covenants, and provides a framework for actuaries to manage these liabilities.

The report examines the discrepancy between the frequent WTO litigation of renewable energy subsidies and the absence of cases against fossil fuel subsidies. It argues that while political factors and the 'undercapture' of consumer subsidies by WTO law play a role, producer subsidies may still be actionable if sufficient evidence of adverse trade effects is provided. Through five G20 case studies, the authors highlight the difficulty of proving 'adverse effects' and the lack of transparency in subsidy notifications. The report recommends five avenues for reform: technical assistance, enhanced transparency, subsidy reform pledges, political declarations, and expanding the category of prohibited subsidies.

The document analyzes the vote of Minister Luiz Fux on several Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (ADIs) concerning the Brazilian Forest Code. It highlights significant legal contradictions in the Minister's approach to the July 22, 2008, cutoff date for consolidated areas and warns that declaring the entire Environmental Regularization Program (PRA) unconstitutional could undermine the Forest Code's implementation. While the Minister upheld mechanisms like the Environmental Reserve Quote (CRA) and the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR), the briefing argues that his rulings on vegetation recovery and penal amnesty create legal insecurity for landowners.

The report examines the 'moonlighting' of ICJ judges in ISDS arbitrations, noting that 20 judges have served in at least 90 such cases. It highlights the significant financial incentives for judges to act as arbitrators compared to their fixed ICJ salaries and argues that this practice may undermine the ICJ's reputation for impartiality and independence.

The paper analyzes the UN's efforts to create global frameworks for migration and refugee management via the Global Compact for Migration (GCM) and the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR). It highlights that while the GCR benefits from established international law and the leadership of the UNHCR, the GCM is a more politicized, state-led process lacking a foundational legal base. The author expresses concern over the minimal participation of African states and the African Union in the GCM process, arguing that this lack of engagement may lead to a framework that favors Global North interests, such as border security and return policies, over the socio-economic needs and mobility of African citizens.