Search Climate Insights Directory

The document provides a detailed comparative analysis of six EIA regimes, examining how they determine which activities require assessment, who conducts and pays for the studies, the timing of the process, scoping requirements, the types of impacts considered, the evaluation of alternatives, mitigation measures, review processes, final decision-making, post-decision monitoring, and the extent of public participation.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) asserts that trade liberalization in forest products, specifically through WTO tariff reductions and APEC non-tariff measure reviews, can intensify forest loss, degradation, and the introduction of alien species. CIEL argues that current international and national forest protection frameworks are inadequate to ensure sustainable trade. The document criticizes the USTR/CEQ review process as inadequate in duration and scope, urging the U.S. government to adopt formal environmental assessment procedures based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and to promote forest protection measures in tandem with trade liberalization.

The document provides legal arguments to support a lawsuit against the Panamanian National Environmental Authority (ANAM) regarding the Barro Blanco Hydroelectric Project. It contends that the project's EIA was approved without adequate consultation or the free, prior, and informed consent of the Ngäbe people, violating international human rights and environmental law. The brief highlights specific failures, including a single public forum conducted only in Spanish and the omission of critical data regarding indigenous territories adjacent to the Ngäbe-Buglé Comarca.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the BTC Pipeline Project's legal framework undermines the rule of law and sovereign regulatory power in Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey. CIEL identifies significant deficiencies in the project's approach to climate change, public consultation, and compensation for affected populations, particularly in Turkey. The document further contends that the project fails to demonstrate a measurable contribution to poverty alleviation, potentially violating IFC mandates.

The research paper examines the public participation framework of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol, specifically focusing on the rules established by the Marrakech Accords. It identifies significant gaps in how information is made 'publicly available,' the lack of standardized environmental impact assessment (EIA) requirements, and the absence of formal redress mechanisms for stakeholders. The authors argue that current rules risk excluding local communities and NGOs, as most information is released after decision-making has occurred. To address these issues, the paper recommends the creation of a 'Good Practice Manual for Public Consultation and Disclosure' and the establishment of an independent watchdog mechanism similar to the World Bank's Inspection Panel.

The briefing argues that CETA's 'domestic regulatory disciplines' limit the discretion of regulators in EU Member States, specifically using Greece as a case study. It highlights that Greek mining laws—which rely on expert judgment, public input, and evolving scientific data—may be vulnerable to legal challenges under CETA's requirements that licensing processes be 'objective' and 'established in advance'.

The brief asserts that customary international law requires states to exercise due diligence to prevent significant transboundary environmental harm, a principle rooted in the 'sic utere' doctrine and affirmed by the International Court of Justice and various international declarations. It argues that the 1988 U.N. Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances does not act as lex specialis to displace this obligation because the Convention focuses on cooperation against drug trafficking rather than state liability for environmental damage.

The Alto Maipo Hydroelectric Project (PHAM) is a large-scale run-of-the-river project in Chile with an installed capacity of 531 MW and an estimated annual output exceeding 2,100 GWh. Despite being pitched as a public good, the project faces significant opposition due to its potential to reduce the flow of the Yeso, Volcán, and Colorado Rivers by up to 60%, threatening drinking water for Santiago's 7 million residents and irrigation for 120,000 hectares of farmland. Financially, the project has seen costs rise to US$2.4 billion, with the Grupo Luksic consortium withdrawing in January 2017 at a loss of $350 million. The project is funded by several multilateral banks, including the IFC (US$150 million) and the IDB (US$200 million), both of which are facing complaints regarding violations of environmental and social policies. Environmental concerns include accelerated desertification, erosion of riverbeds, and risks to protected areas like the Glacial Natural Monument. The Chilean government has penalized the project for 14 separate violations of environmental norms.

The document asserts that the phase-out of fossil fuels is a legal requirement derived from customary international law, human rights law, environmental law, and the law of the sea. It emphasizes that states must employ all available means to prevent significant climate damage, prioritize emissions reduction at the source over speculative technologies, and ensure a just transition, particularly for the least developed countries and small island developing states. The authors argue that these obligations are 'erga omnes' and should prevail over investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms.

This evaluation report by the Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) examines a complaint regarding the Pangue hydroelectric project in Chile. The report analyzes the International Finance Corporation's (IFC) role as a minority shareholder and lender, focusing on social mitigation failures, lack of transparency, and the cumulative environmental impacts of the Pangue and Ralco dams.

The complaint argues that the State of Chile facilitated the forced eviction of Mapuche-Pehuenche communities from their ancestral lands in the Alto Bío Bío region to allow ENDESA to build the Ralco Hydroelectric Project. The petitioners claim that the state bypassed the Indigenous Law (Ley 19.253) and environmental conditions set by CONAMA, which required voluntary land swaps (permutas) approved by CONADI. Instead, the state used the 'Electric Law' (Ley Eléctrica) to impose flood easements and monetary compensation, which the petitioners describe as a form of 'ethnocide' that destroys their cultural, spiritual, and physical existence. They further allege a denial of justice by Chilean courts, which they claim have been ineffective or biased in favor of the company.

The document contains an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for Reconnaissance Energy Namibia (Pty) Ltd's proposed drilling of stratigraphic wells in the Kavango Basin, Namibia, and a technical report on shale oil and gas resources in South Africa's Karoo Basin.

The UNEP Compendium documents the intersection of human rights and environmental law through a curated selection of global and regional instruments and judicial decisions. It analyzes how substantive rights (such as the rights to life, health, and property) and procedural rights (access to information, public participation, and access to justice) are used to address environmental degradation. The document highlights the 'greening' of human rights law, where tribunals increasingly interpret existing rights to encompass environmental protections, particularly for indigenous peoples and marginalized groups. It also details state obligations regarding industrial pollution and natural resource extraction, emphasizing duties of prevention, regulation, and the requirement for free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for indigenous communities.

The document argues that the LAPSSET project violates Kenyan constitutional and international legal obligations. It highlights failures in meaningful participation and access to information, which infringe upon the right to development. The amici assert that the project risks causing environmental degradation that would violate rights to adequate housing, water, food, and health. Furthermore, it claims the project would lead to unlawful forced evictions and harm the rights of the Lamu people as indigenous/tribal peoples. Finally, it argues that the project threatens the cultural and natural heritage of Lamu Old Town, a UNESCO World Heritage site.

This report details ten landmark climate change cases across different countries, highlighting how courts are holding governments and corporations accountable. Key examples include the Urgenda case in the Netherlands, which established a state's legal duty to increase climate ambition, and the Milieudefensie v. Shell case, which held a private company liable for inadequate emissions reductions. The document explores diverse legal strategies, including human rights obligations, fiduciary duties of corporate boards, and the necessity of climate considerations in environmental impact assessments.

The document analyzes the legal mechanisms for accessing justice in environmental matters within the European Union, structured around the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention: access to environmental information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice for breaches of environmental law. It details the scope of review, standing requirements for individuals and NGOs, and the standards of judicial scrutiny required to ensure effective legal protection. The guide specifically highlights the disparities in implementation across Member States and the restrictive nature of judicial review for decisions made by EU institutions.

ClientEarth's feedback on the EU's Offshore Renewable Energy Strategy emphasizes the need for high environmental standards, public transparency, and regional cooperation. It argues that the strategy must adhere to the 'do no harm' principle and the precautionary principle, ensuring that the deployment of offshore wind and other ocean energies does not compromise biodiversity or ignore the rights of public participation under the Aarhus Convention. The document suggests a regional approach to grid development and targeted financial support for technologies that have not yet reached grid parity, such as wave energy.

The document argues that Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) are essential, self-standing legal obligations that must be conducted prior to the adoption of plans to effectively influence policy and assess cumulative climate impacts. It specifically contends that for fossil fuel projects, failing to assess 'downstream' emissions—which can exceed extraction emissions by up to 900%—renders an assessment partial and misleading. ClientEarth links these procedural requirements to the European Convention on Human Rights, asserting that fossil fuel extraction constitutes 'dangerous industrial activities' and that the principle of intergenerational equity requires the Court to consider the disproportionate risks posed to future generations and young people under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention.

The document assesses the UK's proposed law to minimise deforestation linked to 'forest risk commodities', arguing that its reliance on 'relevant local laws' creates a loophole that would allow commodities from Brazil to enter the UK market even if they result from legalised deforestation. It details several Brazilian legislative proposals (such as PL 2633/2020 and PL 490/2007) that aim to legalise land grabbing and restrict Indigenous land rights. ClientEarth recommends that the UK adopt an objective standard covering all deforestation, mandate free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) for Indigenous Peoples, and explicitly include cattle, soy, and non-agricultural commodities like mining and oil and gas in the framework.

The author contends that the requirement to integrate environmental protection into EU policies is a binding objective, not a mere principle, and is essential for achieving sustainable development. The paper argues that EU institutions have largely abandoned governance mechanisms intended to operationalize this integration, such as the 'Cardiff process'. To remedy this, the author proposes that citizens and civil society use their fundamental right of access to environmental information (via the Aarhus Convention) to force EU bodies to explain and justify how specific legislative acts and policies ensure a high level of environmental protection and improvement.