Search Climate Insights Directory

This research paper by Maria Julia Oliva of the Center for International Environmental Law examines the 'Development Agenda' of the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Doha Work Programme. The author evaluates whether the subsequent July framework maintains the original commitment to prioritize the needs of developing countries, specifically analyzing sectors such as agriculture, non-agricultural market access (NAMA), services, and the intersection of trade and environment.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law, prepared for the United Nations Environment Programme, evaluates the effectiveness of trade and positive measures within the Montreal Protocol. It analyzes how these mechanisms—ranging from import/export bans on ozone-depleting substances (ODS) to financial assistance for developing nations—have driven near-universal ratification and compliance to reduce global emissions of controlled substances.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and Greenpeace analyzes the tensions between international trade rules, primarily those of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the conservation of global fisheries. It argues that current trade interpretations often hinder sustainable fisheries management by prohibiting regulations based on production and processing methods (PPMs). The authors propose a framework to integrate the precautionary approach into trade law, eliminate destructive subsidies, and ensure that investment liberalization does not undermine the ability of states to protect marine resources and traditional fishing communities.

This policy brief by the Center for International Environmental Law argues that the success of the Kyoto Protocol depends on the United States exercising moral leadership through domestic emission reductions and the closure of treaty loopholes.

This report chapter analyzes the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as a pioneering legal instrument that integrates environmental conservation with economic and trade goals. It specifically examines the CBD's regime for the trade of genetic resources, its recognition of the role of local and indigenous communities in sustainable production, and the contrast between the CBD's ecological economics approach and the neoclassical economic views prevalent in traditional trade agreements like GATT and NAFTA.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law outlines the human rights implications of hazardous pesticide manufacture, sale, and use, emphasizing the obligations of States to protect rights and businesses to conduct due diligence to prevent harm.

This fact sheet by the Center for International Environmental Law examines the intersection of hazardous pesticides and international human rights standards, arguing that states and corporations have obligations to prevent harm caused by these substances.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes a leaked draft of the investment chapter of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The analysis concludes that the draft largely mirrors or expands upon the investor-state protections found in NAFTA Chapter 11, which the authors argue undermines democratic governance, environmental protection, and national sovereignty by granting corporations the power to challenge domestic laws in international tribunals.

This executive summary by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that stricter regulations on hazardous chemicals stimulate innovation and the commercialization of safer alternatives. While noting the risk of 'regrettable substitution,' the document provides six policy recommendations to ensure that chemical innovation leads to a healthier market.

The Center for International Environmental Law and other organizations argue against launching multilateral investment negotiations at the WTO. They contend that such an agreement would restrict the policy space of developing countries, be driven by the interests of industrialized nations, and utilize an inappropriate dispute settlement mechanism that favors investors over sustainable development and public health.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law examines how modern investment treaties and investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms can undermine environmental regulations and public health protections by allowing foreign investors to sue host states for 'indirect expropriation'.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes the impact of intellectual property rights (IPRs) on sustainable development, specifically critiquing the draft Chapter on IPRs within the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The author argues that the FTAA proposes "TRIPS-plus" standards that exceed multilateral requirements, potentially hindering public health, food security, and technological development in developing countries by restricting regulatory flexibility and expanding private patent rights.

This research paper by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) chapter of the draft Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement. The author argues that the draft represents a 'TRIPS-plus' approach that increases protection levels beyond the WTO's TRIPS Agreement, thereby reducing the regulatory flexibility of developing countries to address public health, food security, and sustainable development.

This policy brief by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms act as a major legal and financial barrier to climate action. It contends that ISDS allows fossil fuel investors to sue governments for implementing climate regulations, creating a "chilling effect" that deters states from phasing out fossil fuels and aligning financial flows with the Paris Agreement.

This research paper by the Center for International Environmental Law and the International Rivers Network analyzes the establishment of the World Bank's Inspection Panel on September 21, 1993. The authors evaluate whether this new mechanism for citizens and NGOs to request investigations into Bank-funded projects truly increases accountability, highlighting concerns regarding the panel's independence from Bank leadership and its lack of public transparency.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes the European Commission's October 2020 "Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability." It evaluates the strategy's potential to create a "toxic-free environment" and provides recommendations for the EU to lead global chemical management by strengthening international standards and eliminating the "double standard" of exporting hazardous substances banned within the EU.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes the European Commission's October 2020 "Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability." It evaluates the strategy's potential to create a toxic-free environment and provides specific recommendations for the EU to lead global chemical management by strengthening international standards, eliminating double standards in exports, and implementing rigorous internal safety frameworks.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) analyzes a proposal by pesticide industry lobby groups CropLife America and the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) regarding the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). CIEL argues that the industry is using 'regulatory cooperation' as a mechanism to compel the European Union to lower its health and environmental standards to match the weaker standards of the United States, effectively creating a 'regulatory ceiling' that would hinder global pesticide regulation.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes the Protocol to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants (LRTAP POPs Protocol) and evaluates its suitability as a model for global negotiations on persistent organic pollutants (POPs). The author argues that while the Protocol is a positive regional step, it is inadequate as a global model because it focuses on risk management and air transmission rather than total elimination and pollution prevention, and it lacks provisions for developing countries.

This briefing, based on a joint WWF-CIEL paper, examines the relationship between Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). It argues that current WTO negotiations focus on areas requiring the least clarification and proposes several practical measures to enhance compatibility between trade and environmental governance, while urging non-trade policymakers to ensure that trade rules do not undermine the jurisdiction or objectives of MEAs.