Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of organizations calls on FMO and DEG to address human rights failures and environmental damage caused by the Barro Blanco dam project in Panama, specifically regarding 'test flooding' conducted without community consultation or Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

The document is a petition signed by over 105,000 people urging the Panamanian government to stop the forced eviction of approximately 270 Ngäbe indigenous people to make way for the Barro Blanco dam. It highlights that the project threatens to flood six hectares of indigenous territories, including homes, schools, and cultural sites. Despite the concessionary, GENISA, being fined $775,000 in September 2015 for failing to reach agreements with stakeholders, the government has allowed construction to proceed by declaring the project a matter of national interest.

The document is an open letter from several international organisations urging President Varela of Panama to stop test flooding at the Barro Blanco Hydroelectric Power Plant. The authors argue that the flooding threatens the safety and sacred lands of Ngäbe communities, specifically Kiad, Nuevo Palomar, and Quebrada Caña, and violates international human rights law regarding free, prior and informed consent.

The document examines how climate mitigation projects—specifically under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), REDD+, and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs)—have failed to uphold international human rights obligations. Through case studies in Panama, India, Mexico, and Georgia, it demonstrates that inadequate stakeholder consultation, lack of sustainable development criteria, and absent grievance mechanisms have led to rights violations, including forced evictions and loss of livelihoods. The brief argues that while the Paris Agreement's preamble recognizes human rights, these obligations must be translated into specific, mandatory guidelines and independent accountability processes to prevent future harm.

Stakeholder organizations are urging the CDM Executive Board to intervene in the Barro Blanco Hydroelectric Power Plant Project in Panama due to ongoing human rights concerns, including threats of forced eviction of Ngäbe indigenous communities and failure to obtain free, prior and informed consent. The authors highlight that the project developer, GENISA, was fined $775,200 by Panama's Environment Ministry for non-compliance with its environmental impact assessment, including failures to relocate and compensate affected people. The stakeholders request that the Board notify UN human rights bodies, inquire with Panamanian authorities, and consider withdrawing the project's registration if it violates CDM procedures.

The document examines the systemic marginalisation of African communities affected by mining, highlighting the gap between official policy and the reality of environmental degradation, forced relocation, and health hazards. It details specific tools for empowerment, such as community protocols in Kenya and Zimbabwe, paralegal interventions in Sierra Leone, and strategic litigation regarding silicosis in South Africa. The text emphasizes the disproportionate burden on women and the necessity of moving beyond narrow legal definitions of 'indigenous peoples' to protect all customary landholders through the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

The document is a declaration by social movements and civil society organizations criticizing the trend of adapting the UN's Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (VGGT) into business-centric tools. The authors argue that guides produced by entities like USAID, the G7 New Alliance, and the Interlaken Group transform a human rights framework into a corporate social responsibility (CSR) tool, effectively legitimizing land grabbing. They contend that these guides erroneously treat states and corporations as equal stakeholders and dangerously suggest that private investors can manage land rights recognition and conflict resolution—tasks that are the sole legitimate mandate of the state. The statement calls for states to implement the VGGT based on human rights obligations, for the FAO to provide technical support for state regulation of businesses, and for the adoption of a legally binding international instrument on multinational corporations and human rights.

The statement criticizes recent guides developed by agencies like USAID and the Interlaken Group that frame the VGGT as a tool for corporate risk management and corporate social responsibility. The authors argue that this 'multi-stakeholder' approach wrongly transfers state duties—such as identifying tenure rights and resolving conflicts—to private investors, thereby legitimizing land grabs and ignoring power asymmetries. They call for states to enact laws regulating transnational corporations, ensure free prior and informed consent, and establish a robust monitoring mechanism within the UN Committee on World Food Security.

The document examines the human rights obligations of states and the private sector in the context of climate change mitigation. It analyzes failures in stakeholder consultation and sustainable development within the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), REDD+, and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), using case studies from Panama, India, Mexico, and Georgia. The brief concludes that current UNFCCC mechanisms lack sufficient specificity and grievance procedures, recommending that the Paris Agreement explicitly mandate the respect, protection, and fulfillment of human rights in all climate actions.

A coal mining concession in Kenya's Mui Basin, awarded to Chinese companies, threatens the livelihoods of approximately 100,000 people in Kitui County through large-scale evictions and environmental risks. The project disproportionately affects women, who face health risks from water pollution and limited decision-making power over land. Despite a 2015 court ruling in favor of the government, the court mandated greater community consultation and participation regarding compensation and resettlement.

GVL strongly refutes Global Witness's allegations of coercion, intimidation, and flawed consent processes in its Liberian oil palm operations. The company asserts its compliance with RSPO standards, highlights its role as a major regional employer, and denies accelerating land conversion during the 2014 Ebola outbreak. GVL further defends its financial dealings with Liberian politicians as transparent, arm's-length rental agreements.

The report details how Golden Veroleum (GVL), backed by Golden Agri-Resources (GAR), has expanded its palm oil operations in Liberia through a process of intimidation, arbitrary arrests, and flawed consent mechanisms. It highlights a 'legal vacuum' in Liberia's agricultural sector and argues that the company's Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with local communities provide negligible benefits while stripping residents of their land rights. The document also notes a suspicious acceleration of land acquisition during the 2014 Ebola crisis and identifies financial ties between GVL and high-ranking Liberian politicians.

The report examines how international law can address the systemic discrimination women face in forest tenure, which risks being exacerbated by REDD+. It provides a typology of relevant rights—including land tenure, gender-specific, procedural, FPIC, and environmental rights—and analyzes how these can be leveraged within the UNFCCC and World Bank's FCPF frameworks to ensure women are recognized as key stakeholders and rights-holders.

Natural Justice submits that the World Bank's Draft Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) fails to align with modern human rights standards, specifically criticizing the 'opt-out clause' in ESS7. This clause allows borrowers to waive ESS7 protections for indigenous peoples if they claim identifying such groups would risk 'ethnic tension' or 'civil strife,' or if it conflicts with national constitutions. Natural Justice contends this nullifies essential protections like Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), promotes a regressive view of indigenous identity, and sets a dangerous precedent for other international financial institutions.

The document outlines a pilot project by Natural Justice and partners to implement biocultural community protocols (BCPs) in four countries to safeguard community rights against extractive industries. It details specific regional efforts—addressing infrastructure and oil/gas/coal in Kenya, diamond mining in Zimbabwe, lithium mining in Argentina, and various mining forms in India—while identifying BCPs as tools for internal consensus and external rights assertion. The report highlights successes in community mobilization and challenges such as political will, safety threats, and the difficulty of defining 'community' in non-homogenous groups.

The Ogiek Bio-Cultural Community Protocol (BCP) serves as a community-determined framework to protect the rights and traditional knowledge of the Ogiek, an indigenous hunter-gatherer group in Kenya. It documents their unique relationship with the Mau Forest Complex, detailing their eco-climatic zoning system, traditional medicinal knowledge, and sustainable honey-harvesting practices. The protocol outlines the challenges the community faces, including forced evictions, forest degradation from logging and charcoal burning, and cultural erosion. It establishes a community agreement based on national and international law, demanding Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for development projects and equitable Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) for the use of their resources. The document also defines a traditional governance structure led by a Council of Elders and proposes a land management system divided into biodiversity conservation, rehabilitation, and settlement zones.

The document analyzes the evolution of community-company engagements in the mining, oil, and gas sectors, emphasizing the need for community-driven processes to ensure fair outcomes. It categorizes types of agreements—ranging from Joint Venture Agreements to Consultation and Negotiation Agreements—and evaluates the risks associated with government-led processes. Through case studies in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and Ghana, the paper highlights the importance of self-identification of affected communities and the role of international human rights frameworks, such as the UN Guiding Principles and FPIC, in protecting community rights.

The document analyzes Mexico's progress in establishing a National Safeguard System (SNS) and a Safeguard Information System (SIS) for REDD+, highlighting the integration of these systems with national laws like the General Law on Sustainable Forest Development (LGDFS). While Mexico is a frontrunner in REDD+ preparation, the study identifies critical gaps in the operationalization of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), clarity on carbon ownership for avoided emissions, and the risk of diluted standards resulting from the World Bank's safeguard review process. It argues that explicit international guidance from the UNFCCC is necessary to help countries translate safeguard principles into action and avoid the conceptual confusion and sporadic progress experienced by Mexico.

The document examines Mexico's progress in implementing REDD+ safeguards, highlighting the transition from confusing the SIS with the SNS to establishing a framework based on national law and sustainable rural development. While Mexico has strong institutional capacity and a history of community forestry, the report identifies critical gaps in the operationalization of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), clarity on avoided emission carbon rights, and the risk of weakened World Bank safeguard policies. It argues that international guidance from the UNFCCC is necessary to standardize reporting and ensure the protection of indigenous and local community rights.

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.