Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that conservation initiatives frequently violate the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, despite an increasing international legal consensus on their protections. It asserts that responsibility for upholding these rights extends beyond states to include international organisations, businesses, and NGOs. The authors analyse a vast array of international instruments and find that while normative trends are moving toward greater recognition of rights, enforcement and redress remain significant challenges. The document concludes by suggesting the creation of core standards, stakeholder guidance, and potentially a dedicated global grievance mechanism or 'Roundtable on Ethical Conservation' to ensure just conservation practices.

The document examines the challenges Indigenous Peoples and local communities face when seeking redress for human rights violations linked to conservation, such as the eviction of the Endorois in Kenya. It categorizes redress mechanisms into state-based (national courts, NHRIs) and non-state-based (UN systems, regional human rights courts, financial institution accountability mechanisms, and corporate mechanisms). While state-based systems can issue binding decisions, they are often inaccessible due to discrimination and lack of recognition of collective rights. Non-state judicial mechanisms often have high procedural hurdles, such as the exhaustion of domestic remedies, while non-judicial mechanisms frequently lack enforcement power. The author suggests exploring a 'Roundtable for Ethical Conservation' as a specialized mechanism to ensure compliance with human rights standards.

The report analyzes state-state dispute settlement (SSDS) in investment treaties as an alternative or complement to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). It details various mechanisms—including ad hoc arbitration, judicial bodies like the ICJ, and quasi-judicial systems like those in ASEAN—and categorizes claims into diplomatic protection, interpretive, and declaratory relief. Through case studies such as Italy v. Cuba and Ecuador v. United States, the document highlights the legal complexities of 'dispute' definitions and the interaction between parallel state-state and investor-state tracks. It concludes by recommending that states explicitly define the relationship between these mechanisms and clarify requirements such as the exhaustion of local remedies to increase predictability.

The guide analyzes state-to-state dispute settlement in investment treaties, detailing judicial, quasi-judicial, and arbitral forms. It explores three types of claims—diplomatic protection, interpretation, and declaratory judgments—using case studies like Italy v. Cuba and Ecuador v. United States. It also discusses the complex relationship between state-to-state and investor-state mechanisms, particularly under the ICSID Convention, and offers best practices for treaty drafting to increase predictability and state control over treaty interpretation.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) expresses concern that TTIP's focus on reducing 'non-tariff' barriers will lead to a 'chilling effect' on environmental and health legislation. CIEL specifically warns that regulatory coherence mechanisms, such as the proposed Regulatory Cooperation Council, could prioritize trade impacts over public safety and impede the ability of U.S. states and EU member states to enact stronger standards. The document highlights a profound divergence in toxic chemical regulation, arguing that U.S. efforts to target EU laws as 'technical barriers to trade'—including those regarding endocrine disruptors and nanomaterials—threaten to lower global safety standards through harmonization or mutual recognition.

The report explores diverse strategies to advance international climate policy, including the adoption of a 'green growth' narrative, the application of social psychology to fairness and equity, and the use of 'clubs' or public-private technology pools to bypass traditional negotiation impasses. It specifically examines the legal interpretation of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' (CBDR), the potential of green bonds to mobilize private finance, and the 'Quisqueya Platform' for creating synergies between mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.

The document explores diverse strategies to advance international climate policy, including the adoption of a 'green growth' narrative, the application of social psychology to fairness and equity disputes, and the use of 'clubs' or public-private technology pools to bypass traditional negotiation impasses. It specifically examines the legal interpretation of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' (CBDR), the potential of green bonds to mobilize private finance, and the 'Quisqueya Platform' for creating synergies between mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.

The report examines the 'peace potential' of oil and gas resources, analyzing how joint development, revenue sharing, and infrastructure projects like pipelines can either mitigate or fuel conflict. It contrasts successful cooperation, such as the Saudi-Kuwaiti Partitioned Neutral Zone and Turkey-Iraqi Kurdish relations, with failures in the Caucasus and disputes in the South China Sea and Eastern Mediterranean. The study also addresses the role of international environmental law and the climate impact of transitioning from coal to natural gas.

The paper examines the legal obligations of conservation actors regarding the rights of indigenous peoples, tribal peoples, and local communities. It argues that while states are the primary duty-bearers, international organizations, corporations, and NGOs also have responsibilities to respect human rights based on international customary law and 'social licenses'. The text specifically links these obligations to the implementation of Aichi Target 11 for biodiversity.

The report argues that the EU's proposed regulatory cooperation on chemicals under TTIP aligns too closely with industry interests and threatens to undermine EU chemical laws. It specifically warns that cooperation on prioritizing chemicals, classification alignment, and 'new and emerging issues' like endocrine disruptors could freeze progress on toxic substance regulation and stifle the transition to safer alternatives. The authors conclude that meaningful cooperation is impossible without significant structural reform of the US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The document serves as a prevention manual for forest communities, specifically in equatorial regions of Asia, Africa, and the Americas, to avoid signing REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and similar conservation contracts. It argues that these projects often use deceptive language and long-term commitments (30 to 80 years) to strip communities of their land rights, prohibit traditional agricultural and forestry activities, and transfer biodiversity benefits to private companies. The guide advocates for community-led forest management, the legal recognition of territorial titles, and public policies that support traditional conservation practices instead of market-based carbon offsets.

The guide warns forest communities against signing REDD and forest conservation contracts, which it argues are often designed to strip local people of their land rights and sovereignty. It highlights how these contracts, often written in technical jargon and spanning 30 to 80 years, impose strict prohibitions on farming and timber use, potentially forcing communities to abandon their territories. The document advocates for community-based forest management and the recognition of traditional land rights as more effective and just alternatives to market-based carbon schemes.

The document examines the legal obligations of conservation actors under international human rights law, arguing that while States are primary duty-bearers, international organizations, businesses, and NGOs also bear responsibilities to respect human rights based on customary law or social licenses to operate.

The document examines the tension between the Africa Mining Vision's goals of sustainable development and the legal constraints imposed by Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). It evaluates ownership-related policies and performance requirements, concluding that while these tools can be effective for creating national champions and local linkages, they often conflict with treaty obligations regarding national treatment and expropriation.

The document examines the tension between the 'Africa Mining Vision'—which seeks to use national champions and performance requirements to drive sustainable development—and the legal constraints imposed by international investment treaties. It evaluates ownership options (such as joint ventures and state-owned enterprises) and performance requirements (such as local content and technology transfer), concluding that while these tools can be effective if integrated into broader strategies, they often conflict with treaty obligations regarding national treatment, fair and equitable treatment, and expropriation. The briefing provides strategic drafting options for states to preserve their 'policy space' in future treaties.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) evaluates the European Commission's proposed framework for investment protection and ISDS in the TTIP. While acknowledging improvements over previous drafts, the IISD identifies significant gaps between the Commission's stated policy goals and the actual legal language provided. Key concerns include the potential for expansive arbitral interpretations of 'investment' and 'fair and equitable treatment,' the failure of MFN clauses to prevent the 'importation of standards' from other treaties, and the continued reliance on party-appointed arbitrators despite the introduction of a roster system. The report argues that the proposed measures do not sufficiently protect the right to regulate or ensure the independence of the dispute settlement process.

The document analyzes the legal and scientific interpretation of Article 2(2) of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). It asserts that to achieve the objective of maintaining fish stocks above Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) levels, the EU must set exploitation rates below FMSY. The briefing argues that setting rates exactly at FMSY is insufficient due to environmental variables and would breach the CFP's precautionary approach and other EU and international legal obligations.

The report analyzes the Myanmar–Japan Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), signed December 15, 2013. It finds that the treaty provides more expansive protections to Japanese investors than Myanmar's recent ASEAN treaties, the EU, or the US. Key concerns include the 'fair and equitable treatment' (FET) clause and an 'umbrella clause' that could make Myanmar liable for contractual changes. The report also notes inconsistencies between the BIT's liberalization commitments and Myanmar's national laws, particularly in the tourism and seed sectors, and warns that these obligations are enforceable through investor-state arbitration.

The document discusses the legal and political influence of First Nations over natural resource development in Canada, highlighting the 'duty to consult' and the impact of changes to environmental assessments. It provides data on Canada's oil production and exports, primarily to the US, and analyzes the role of royalties and fossil fuel subsidies. Finally, it argues that current energy sector support is inconsistent with the global carbon budget and the need to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius.

The report examines the five-year campaign by the Save Mapungubwe Coalition to protect the Mapungubwe World Heritage Site from the Vele Colliery project operated by Coal of Africa (CoAL). It analyzes three primary engagement strategies: strategic litigation to challenge mining licenses, bilateral negotiations to establish best-practice environmental standards, and multilateral participation in the Vele Colliery Environmental Management Committee (EMC). The document concludes that while litigation and negotiations have limitations, they provide essential leverage, and that inclusive multi-stakeholder governance via EMCs can effectively monitor corporate compliance. It also highlights the correlation between CoAL's non-compliance with environmental laws and the decline of its JSE share price.