Search Climate Insights Directory

The report critiques the Land Value (Amendment) Act, 2019, specifically its failure to distinguish between community and private land during compulsory acquisition. It highlights the risks of undervaluing community land through a market-value approach, the removal of Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) for development-induced displacement, and the creation of a state-controlled Land Acquisition Tribunal. The author argues these provisions may be unconstitutional and recommends a separate valuation index for community lands and the restoration of FPIC.

The report examines the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, describing it as a "parallel justice system" that privileges wealthy investors and multinational corporations over public interests. Through ten case studies across Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the document illustrates how ISDS is used to challenge environmental protections, public health measures, and land rights. It specifically criticizes the European Union's efforts to institutionalize the system through the Investment Court System (ICS) and a proposed Multilateral Investment Court, arguing these reforms do not address the fundamental imbalance of power. The report concludes that ISDS creates a "regulatory chill," where governments avoid passing progressive laws to avoid multi-billion dollar lawsuits, and calls for the complete dismantling of these "VIP courts."

The Clean Air Task Force criticizes the EPA's Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule for repealing the Clean Power Plan (CPP) and replacing it with a system focused on minor heat rate improvements for coal plants. The author contends that this approach ignores the existing trend of shifting toward cleaner energy sources and will lead to increased CO2 emissions and public health risks, including premature deaths. The document asserts that the ACE rule fails to employ the "best system of emission reduction" required by the Clean Air Act and announces plans to challenge the rule in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

This document is a written contribution from Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) to the UN's open-ended working group (IGWG) regarding a proposed legally binding treaty to regulate transnational corporations (TNCs) and other business enterprises in relation to human rights. FoEI analyzes the 'Zero Draft' presented in 2018, arguing that it is too weak to end corporate impunity and represents a setback compared to previous 'Elements' papers. The document details specific legal gaps in the draft—such as the lack of direct obligations for corporations and insufficient definitions of value chains—and includes testimonies from affected peoples across different continents calling for an international court and the primacy of human rights over investment agreements.

This report by Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) provides a critical analysis of the 'Zero Draft' of a proposed UN legally binding instrument to regulate transnational corporations (TNCs) and other business enterprises in relation to human rights. FoEI argues that the draft is too weak, lacks essential principles, and fails to provide effective mechanisms to end corporate impunity. The document includes general comments on the draft's structure, specific contributions from FoEI representatives across different continents, and recommendations for the revised version of the treaty to be presented at the 5th session of the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG).

This written submission by Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) analyzes the 'Zero Draft' of a proposed UN legally binding instrument to regulate transnational corporations (TNCs) and other business enterprises in regarding human rights. FoEI argues that the Zero Draft is too weak, lacks direct obligations for corporations, and fails to provide effective mechanisms to end corporate impunity, calling for a revised version that prioritizes human rights over commercial interests.

The report examines the systemic injustices of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime, using ten case studies to demonstrate how corporations use international arbitration to bypass domestic courts and challenge public interest laws. It highlights the 'regulatory chill' effect, where the threat of multi-billion dollar lawsuits deters governments from implementing climate, health, and environmental protections. The document specifically criticises the European Union's proposed reforms, arguing that the Investment Court System (ICS) and the Multilateral Investment Court maintain the same substantive investor privileges that allow corporations to claim compensation for lost future profits and ignore human rights obligations.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) critiques the 'Zero Draft' of the UN binding treaty on transnational corporations (TNCs) and human rights, describing it as a 'setback' and 'way too weak'. FoEI argues that the draft fails to establish direct legal obligations for TNCs, lacks a robust definition of 'value chains', and does not sufficiently prioritize human rights over trade and investment agreements. The document calls for the creation of an International Court on TNCs and Human Rights to end corporate impunity, particularly in the Global South. It further denounces the European Union's disengagement from the process and the influence of corporate lobbies, such as the International Organization of Employers, which FoEI claims threaten to 'capture' the treaty process.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) argues that the Zero Draft presented by the IGWG is too weak and fails to establish a robust mechanism to end the impunity of transnational corporations. The organization advocates for the primacy of human rights over trade and investment agreements, the establishment of an international tribunal for TNCs, and the inclusion of direct legal obligations for corporations rather than relying on voluntary principles or state-centric responsibilities. FoEI also criticizes the European Union for its lack of constructive participation and for favoring corporate interests over human rights.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) argues that the 'Zero Draft' presented by Ecuador for the UN binding treaty on transnational corporations (TNCs) is too weak to end corporate impunity. FoEI advocates for the treaty to establish direct legal obligations for TNCs, prioritize human rights over trade and investment agreements, and create an international tribunal for corporate human rights violations. The document criticizes the European Union for its lack of substantive participation and warns against 'corporate capture' of the negotiation process, emphasizing the need for a gender perspective and the protection of human rights defenders.

ClientEarth's contribution to the European Commission's evaluation of food contact materials (FCM) rules highlights critical gaps in public health protection. The organization argues that the current lack of EU-wide harmonisation for 13 of the 17 listed FCM categories allows for inconsistent safety standards and a 'race to the bottom' due to the principle of mutual recognition. Furthermore, ClientEarth criticizes the current risk assessment model based on 'migration' limits, which allows hazardous chemicals like CMRs and EDCs to be used if exposure is deemed acceptable. They propose a 'cut-off' criterion—similar to that used in pesticides regulation—to completely prohibit these substances in FCM to better protect human health and incentivize safer innovation.

The Life After Coal Campaign (LAC) opposes the establishment of a panel of experts intended to provide guidance on managing sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions from existing power plants in South Africa. The LAC argues that such a panel is unnecessary, would duplicate previous work done to set Minimum Emission Standards (MES), and would delay essential actions such as retrofitting plants with abatement technology or decommissioning non-compliant facilities. The campaign expresses concern that the panel could be used to weaken legal emission requirements or grant rolling postponements to operators like Eskom and Sasol. Additionally, the LAC notes a lack of transparency regarding the panel's terms of reference and criticizes the Minister of Environmental Affairs for previously weakening SO2 limits in the amended List of Activities published on 31 October 2018 without proper consultation.

ClientEarth calls on the European Commission to remedy backlogs in chemical authorisations and restrictions under REACH, arguing that delays prolong exposure to dangerous chemicals and undermine the development of safer alternatives. The document criticises the Commission for allegedly prioritising companies that missed application deadlines over health and environmental protections and demands greater transparency regarding the decision-making process and the reasons for delays.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) argues that the draft IRP 2018 is unlawful and irrational because it includes 6,732MW of new coal capacity despite its own findings that a least-cost plan would exclude coal. The CER highlights severe failures in the draft, including inflated electricity demand forecasts, outdated and high cost assumptions for renewables and battery storage, and a total lack of consideration for water and climate change externalities. The document specifically objects to the Thabametsi and Khanyisa coal projects, citing their high emissions and risks to water resources in the Waterberg and Highveld regions. Furthermore, the CER criticizes the Department of Energy for failing to conduct meaningful public consultations with impacted communities and for withholding the Plexos modelling data necessary for transparent stakeholder review.

ClientEarth criticizes the European Commission's claim that the existing EU regulatory framework for endocrine disruptors (EDCs) is 'comprehensive', highlighting significant gaps in the identification and prevention of adverse effects. The organization argues that EDCs should be established as an independent regulatory class, similar to carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic (CMR) substances, to ensure systematic risk management across all sectors, including toys and cosmetics. ClientEarth further notes that the current substance-by-substance approach leads to problematic substitutions, such as replacing Bisphenol A with Bisphenol S, and calls for a grouping approach to regulation.

The document argues that the proposed amendments to the Land Value Index Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2018, risk further marginalizing vulnerable groups by reducing compensation protections, limiting judicial oversight, and removing requirements for free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). Natural Justice advocates for stricter definitions of prompt payment, the inclusion of the National Land Commission in index development, and the retention of legal safeguards to ensure livelihood restoration for displaced persons.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, representing the Life After Coal/Impilo Ngaphandle Kwamalahle campaign, has raised concerns to the South African Minister of Environmental Affairs about ambiguities in greenhouse gas (GHG) and pollution prevention reporting. The campaign argues that current regulations allow for aggregated company-level reporting instead of the necessary facility-level data, which undermines the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory and South Africa's international obligations under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. They also highlight contradictions in the submission and review timelines for pollution prevention plans and call for greater public transparency of emissions data.

The document critiques the European Commission's proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court, asserting that it merely rebrands the controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system without addressing its substantive flaws. It argues that ISDS allows corporations to challenge public interest laws—including those related to health, environment, and human rights—through biased tribunals, often resulting in massive taxpayer-funded payouts. The report claims the proposed court would further institutionalize this imbalance, undermine national judiciaries, and create a parallel legal system accessible only to foreign investors. It concludes by advocating for the termination of bilateral investment treaties and the adoption of a UN treaty to regulate transnational corporations.

The Clean Air Task Force criticizes EPA Administrator Pruitt for attempting to repeal the Clean Power Plan by asserting that the EPA only has authority to mandate 'inside the fence' measures at individual plants. The authors argue that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act allows for a 'best system of emission reduction' that includes shifting to cleaner energy sources, noting that compliance costs for CO2 reduction dropped from $26/ton at the plan's finalization to $17/ton by January 2017. The document contends that Pruitt is prioritizing the coal industry over public health and has inappropriately requested that the D.C. Circuit Court delay its decision on the plan's legality.

The Center for International Environmental Law and partners express concern over IDB loan HO-L1191, which supports the establishment of ZEDEs in Honduras. They argue that the ZEDE legal framework creates an undemocratic governance structure, allows for the imposition of zones without community consultation, and enables the use of foreign judges and private police. The authors claim this model undermines constitutional rights, labor protections, and environmental governance, while violating IDB policies on transparency, environmental safeguards, and involuntary resettlement.