Search Climate Insights Directory

The report evaluates Mexico's mining policy framework, identifying strengths in geological data and regulatory development, while highlighting critical weaknesses in national planning, indigenous consultation, and mine closure regulations. It notes a lack of a cohesive national mining policy and significant gaps in the formalization and regulation of artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM). The assessment recommends modernizing laws, improving the distribution of financial benefits to local communities, and establishing robust financial guarantees for mine closures.

The assessment finds that while Mexico possesses strong geological data and technical environmental regulations, it lacks a comprehensive national mining policy and suffers from an outdated Mining Law. Key weaknesses include inadequate consultation with Indigenous Peoples, a lack of financial assurance for mine closures, and a neglected artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) sector. The report recommends modernizing the legal framework, improving the distribution of financial benefits to local communities, and establishing robust mine closure regulations.

The document examines a legislative report by Senator Carlos Fávaro that favors Bill (PL) no 510/2021 over Bill (PL) no 2633/2020. The authors argue that the proposed changes primarily benefit medium and large land occupants while failing to assist small farmers, potentially incentivizing illegal deforestation and increasing land conflicts in Brazil, particularly in the Amazon.

The report analyzes the structural decline of Colombia's coal industry, highlighted by the 2020 crisis and the exit of companies like Prodeco. It emphasizes the extreme economic dependence of the Cesar and La Guajira regions on coal and warns that national and local actors are in a state of 'denial' regarding the sector's sunset. The authors propose a just transition based on seven principles, including active decarbonization, regional economic diversification, labor protections, and responsible mine closure regulations.

The report examines the mechanisms used to ensure mining companies provide sufficient funds for environmental rehabilitation if they fail to meet closure obligations. It details various financial instruments, cost estimation methodologies, and policy requirements from leading jurisdictions including Australia, Canada, Germany, South Africa, and the United States.

The LIFE-A2J-EARL project focused on bridging the 'implementation gap' of EU environmental laws by empowering the judiciary, public administrations, and public interest lawyers. Operating across eight EU Member States, the project produced a comprehensive legal guide, national toolkits, and a digital platform to facilitate access to justice. It delivered 48 training sessions and 12 webinars, reaching over 2,000 participants. Despite delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and shifting judicial attitudes in some regions, the project successfully increased stakeholder awareness of the Aarhus Convention and EU case-law. Key outputs included a database of 117 public interest lawyers from 15 countries and a final virtual conference attended by 285 participants.

The report argues that the oil and gas industry is in an inevitable decline, leaving behind millions of unplugged wells that pose severe risks to public health and the environment. It highlights how inadequate bonding requirements and bankruptcy laws in the US and Canada enable companies to offload decommissioning costs onto taxpayers. The document warns that unconventional drilling, such as fracking and deepwater projects, is significantly more expensive to close than conventional wells, creating material financial risks for investors and governments. It concludes that a just transition requires strict enforcement of the 'polluter pays' principle and the closure of legal loopholes to ensure companies, rather than the public, fund the remediation of toxic assets.

The document analyzes the legal mechanisms for accessing justice in environmental matters within the EU, focusing on the Aarhus Convention and EU directives. It details the rights to access environmental information, public participation in decision-making, and the ability to challenge acts or omissions that affect the environment. The guide examines standing requirements for individuals and NGOs, the scope and standard of judicial review, and the necessity of effective remedies, including injunctive relief. It also addresses the specific challenges of challenging decisions made by EU institutions.

The document examines the legislative process of Brazil's new Concessions Law bill, highlighting gaps in environmental licensing, feasibility studies, and investor liability. It argues that the current draft maintains ambiguity regarding the Preliminary Environmental License and fails to mandate Technical, Economic and Environmental Feasibility Studies (EVTEA) before bidding. The authors recommend that sector regulations define licensing responsibilities to increase predictability, that EVTEA be a prerequisite for greenfield project bidding, and that provisions limiting investor environmental liability be removed to avoid judicial conflict and align with the National Environmental Policy Act.

The document examines the socio-environmental gaps in the proposed new Concessions Law in Brazil, specifically regarding environmental licensing, feasibility studies, and the liability of financiers. It argues that current ambiguities in the bill regarding the Preliminary Environmental License (LP) and the omission of mandatory Technical, Economic, and Environmental Feasibility Studies (EVTEA) increase project risks. Furthermore, it warns that the bill's attempt to limit the civil liability of financiers contradicts current judicial trends and the National Environmental Policy, potentially leading to increased litigation.

The document serves as a guide for the public, NGOs, and legal professionals on how to exercise the right to environmental justice in Slovakia. It details the three pillars of environmental democracy—access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice—explaining how these are implemented through the Aarhus Convention and EU directives. The manual specifically outlines Slovak national laws, such as the Administrative Court Procedure Act, and provides practical instructions on filing lawsuits, appealing decisions, and utilizing international remedies like complaints to the European Commission.

The document argues that the absence of a dedicated EU-level legislative framework for soil protection has left soil governance fragmented and disconnected from land policies. It analyzes the failure of a 2006 proposal for a Soil Framework Directive and suggests several legal pathways to address this gap, including the adoption of a new Directive based on Article 191 or 192 TFEU, strengthening soil standards within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and integrating soil management into the 8th Environment Action Programme and the EU Biodiversity Strategy.

The document outlines the legal mechanisms available to the public and environmental NGOs in Estonia to challenge environmental decisions, access information, and participate in decision-making. It details the 'three pillars' of the Aarhus Convention—access to information, public participation, and access to justice—and explains how these are implemented through EU directives and Estonian laws. The guide describes specific court procedures in Estonia, the role of the European Court of Justice, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, and the European Court of Human Rights, while highlighting challenges such as court costs and the strict 'personal interest' requirements for standing.

The document analyzes the implementation of the Aarhus Convention in Austria, detailing the legal paths for accessing environmental information, public participation in decision-making, and the right to challenge environmental violations. It highlights significant deficits in the Austrian system, particularly regarding the third pillar of the Aarhus Convention (access to justice for general environmental violations), and examines the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) in shaping these rights.

The document serves as a guide for citizens, NGOs, and legal professionals to navigate the complex system of environmental litigation in Germany. It details the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention—access to information, public participation, and access to justice—and explains how these are implemented through EU directives and German national law. The toolkit outlines specific procedures for challenging government inaction or illegal acts, the standing of recognized environmental associations, and the roles of international bodies like the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC), and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

The document outlines the legal pathways for citizens and NGOs in Spain to access justice regarding environmental information, public participation, and the enforcement of environmental laws. It details the application of the Aarhus Convention and EU Directives within the Spanish legal system, highlighting the role of the 'acción popular' for non-profit organizations. A significant portion of the text focuses on the right to free legal aid (AJG) for environmental NGOs, noting a recent Spanish Supreme Court ruling that removes the requirement to prove financial insufficiency. It also describes international recourse options via the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

The document serves as an information guide for citizens, lawyers, and NGOs on how to challenge environmental decisions and actions in Poland. It details the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention—access to information, public participation, and access to justice—and explains how these are implemented through Polish law and EU directives. It outlines specific procedures for appealing decisions on environmental information, challenging permits requiring public participation, and seeking liability for environmental damage through administrative, civil, and criminal courts. Additionally, it describes external legal avenues, including the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, and the European Court of Human Rights.

The document outlines the legal mechanisms available to the public and NGOs to ensure environmental law enforcement in France. It details the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention—access to information, public participation, and access to justice—and explains how these are transposed into EU directives (EIA, IED, ELD). The guide provides practical instructions on French national procedures, such as appeals to the CADA and administrative courts, while highlighting systemic barriers like prohibitive costs and long judicial delays. It also covers supra-national recourse options via the CJEU, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, and the European Court of Human Rights.

The document outlines the state of Perú's green economy transition, noting that while the public sector has been slowed by political turmoil and corruption, the private sector—particularly green SMEs—is emerging as a driver for change. It identifies critical barriers for green businesses, including limited access to finance, a lack of labeling standards, and tax systems that favor 'brown' businesses. The text emphasizes the need for better alignment of scattered initiatives and the potential for international cooperation (via PAGE, GIZ, and GGGI) to help implement a national green growth plan.

The report examines seven international examples of soil remediation financing, ranging from federal programs like the US Superfund to private equity funds like Ginkgo Fund I. It identifies that while the 'polluter pays' principle is a common legal baseline, its implementation varies, often requiring public grants or innovative funds to bridge funding gaps. Key findings highlight that urban sites with high redevelopment potential are more likely to attract private investment, whereas rural or highly toxic sites often rely on general fiscal revenue or industry-wide voluntary funds. The report concludes that there is no uniform approach to financing, and the choice of instrument must be fit-for-purpose based on the site's socioeconomic context and revenue potential.