Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines the development of safeguard information systems (SIS) for REDD+, focusing on how to leverage existing systems to meet UNFCCC Durban guidance. It analyzes eight existing frameworks—including UN-REDD SEPC, FCPF SESA, and the Convention on Biological Diversity—and provides case studies from Ethiopia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Tanzania, and Vietnam. The findings emphasize the need for harmonized reporting, multistakeholder participation, and country-driven processes to ensure transparency and avoid duplicative burdens on national focal points.

The document examines Viet Nam's efforts to create a transparent and equitable benefit distribution system for the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) scheme. It highlights the transition from fixed payments to performance-based models and the importance of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for indigenous and local communities. Key challenges include legal contradictions regarding the status of village communities and uncertainties over carbon rights.

The policy paper advocates for a human rights-based approach to climate finance, emphasizing that mitigation and adaptation measures must not violate human rights. It evaluates existing mechanisms—the Global Environment Facility (GEF), REDD+, and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)—finding that while some integrate social safeguards, others lack transparency and accountability. The authors propose a comprehensive institutional safeguard system for the Green Climate Fund (GCF), including mandatory social and environmental policies, independent monitoring, and a robust grievance mechanism based on international standards.

The report argues that secrecy in large-scale land deals drives bad governance and human rights abuses. It proposes a precautionary principle of "if in doubt, disclose" and identifies four critical entry points for transparency: participatory land use planning, free prior and informed consent (FPIC), public disclosure of all contracts, and independent multi-stakeholder oversight.

The document advocates for a human rights-based approach to climate finance to prevent social and environmental harm and promote sustainable development. It evaluates the Global Environment Facility (GEF), REDD+ initiatives, and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), finding that while some have integrated safeguards, others lack transparency and accountability. The report concludes with detailed recommendations for the Green Climate Fund (GCF), emphasizing the need for international safeguard policies, robust monitoring systems, a formal grievance mechanism, and meaningful civil society participation.

The document outlines a methodology for creating Biocultural Community Protocols (BCPs), which are community-defined instruments used to communicate local values, customary laws, and priorities to external actors. It provides a structured approach across four parts: understanding the toolkit and the role of the facilitator, documenting the community's biocultural foundations, implementing the protocol through dialogue and negotiation, and reflecting on outcomes to revise the protocol. The guide emphasizes endogenous development, legal empowerment, and participatory methods—such as community mapping, participatory video, and 'Forum Theatre'—to reduce power asymmetries between local communities and entities like governments, corporations, and NGOs.

The document is a practical guide for creating biocultural community protocols—instruments that document a community's customary laws, values, and decision-making processes to manage interactions with external actors. It emphasizes an endogenous development approach, where change is initiated and controlled from within the community. The toolkit provides a wide array of participatory tools for mapping resources, analyzing power dynamics, and engaging in legal advocacy. It outlines a four-part process: understanding the community and facilitator's role, documenting the community's foundations, implementing the protocol through engagement and negotiation, and continuously reflecting on and revising the instrument.

The document examines how community protocols and FPIC processes empower indigenous and local communities to protect their land, resources, and traditional knowledge. Through various case studies in countries such as India, Peru, Ghana, and Cameroon, it argues that these tools are most effective when they are bottom-up processes designed and controlled by the communities themselves rather than imposed top-down by governments or corporations. The report highlights the role of the Nagoya Protocol and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in providing international legal support for these tools, while noting that national implementation often remains inadequate.

The report critiques the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP), a bilateral agreement between Australia and Indonesia designed to pilot REDD carbon offsets. It argues that the project ignores indigenous land rights, fails to address the primary drivers of deforestation, and risks creating social conflict. The document further contends that market-based REDD mechanisms generally shift climate responsibility from rich to poor nations and are prone to 'leakage' and permanence issues.

The paper examines the conflict between the AmaDiba community, the South African government, and Mineral Commodities Limited (MRC) over a proposed ilmenite mine. It highlights failures in community consultation, contradictions between the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) and the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs (DWEA), and the misuse of black economic empowerment (BEE) legislation via the Xolobeni Empowerment Company (XolCo). The author argues for the adoption of the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) protocol to ensure a 'social licence' for mining.

The briefing details a systemic pattern of violence, criminalization, and state neglect targeting environmental defenders in Mesoamerica, specifically those opposing mining projects. Testimonies from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Panama highlight a recurring cycle where high metal prices and trade agreements drive mining expansion, while weak regulatory frameworks and state complicity lead to the murder, disappearance, and harassment of activists. The document argues that states often fail to investigate crimes or protect defenders, instead using the legal system to criminalize protest and ignore the right to free, prior, and informed consent of affected communities.

The report documents a regional trend of violence against environmental defenders in Mexico and Central America linked to industrial mining. It argues that this violence stems from state failure to manage environmental impacts and a lack of protection for defenders, often exacerbated by the influence of foreign mining companies from Canada and the United States. Through case studies in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Panama, the document details threats, kidnappings, and assassinations, while recommending stronger institutional protections, the implementation of free, prior, and informed consent, and greater accountability for home states of foreign corporations.

The report documents a growing trend of repression and violence against environmental defenders in Mexico and Central America, linked to the expansion of industrial mining. It argues that this violence stems from state failure to manage environmental impacts and a lack of protection for human rights defenders, often characterized by high levels of impunity in both host and home countries of mining companies.

The report documents a regional trend of violence against environmental defenders in Mexico and Central America, linking these abuses to the social and environmental impacts of industrial mining and the failure of states to protect human rights. It provides case studies from five countries and recommends strengthening institutional protection, environmental regulations, and the right to free, prior, and informed consent.

The document argues that the IFC's shift toward an "outcomes-based" approach has reduced its accountability and oversight, leading to inadequate risk identification and poor development outcomes. It calls for a return to more stringent, verifiable requirements, particularly regarding the rights of indigenous peoples, climate change mitigation, and transparency in financial intermediary lending.

The document analyzes the 40-year history of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), identifying its strengths in promoting public engagement and its failures in baseline data quality and mitigation enforcement. It argues that Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) can avoid these pitfalls by adopting specific procedural improvements, such as earlier implementation, broader definitions of affected parties, and external monitoring of mitigation measures.

The document outlines systemic failures in the IFC's environmental and social due diligence, highlighting an overreliance on unverified client data and inadequate project categorization. It calls for the explicit integration of international human rights standards, including the right to free, prior and informed consent for indigenous peoples, and a strategic shift away from fossil fuel investments toward renewable energy. The authors also criticize the 'loophole' created by financial intermediaries and demand greater transparency in extractive industry contracts.

The complaint, filed by the coalition Frente de Defensa San Miguelense (FREDEMI) and prepared by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), argues that Goldcorp Inc. and its subsidiary Montana Exploradora de Guatemala, S.A. have violated human rights and environmental standards. Key allegations include the acquisition of communal indigenous lands without free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), causing structural damage to homes via explosives, contaminating local water sources with arsenic and cyanide, and depleting water resources. The document also highlights a pattern of retaliation and criminalization of community protesters. FREDEMI requests that the Canadian National Contact Point investigate these claims and recommend that Goldcorp suspend operations, close the mine, and adopt a policy respecting indigenous consent.

The Manila Declaration outlines the severe environmental and human rights violations caused by extractive industries on Indigenous lands, calling for a moratorium on new projects and the mandatory application of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

The Manila Declaration, issued by Indigenous Peoples and support organisations from 35 countries, condemns the environmental degradation, human rights violations, and land dispossession caused by extractive industries. It argues that Indigenous territories hold over 60% of the world's most coveted mineral resources, leading to unsustainable exploitation and contributions to climate change. The document demands a moratorium on new extractive projects, the recognition of Indigenous Peoples as rights holders rather than stakeholders, and the strict implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIP). It specifically calls for the end of fossil fuel investment, the protection of the human right to water, and the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in climate change negotiations.