Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of civil society groups, including Oxfam Novib, Both ENDS, SOMO, and Recourse, criticizes FMO's October 2022 Position Statement on Impact and ESG for Financial Intermediaries. The groups argue that FMO's indirect investment model—which constitutes approximately 40% of its total portfolio—carries higher risks than direct lending but lacks sufficient safeguards against human rights abuses and environmental harm. Specifically, they highlight a gap in FMO's fossil fuel phase-out commitments, which apply to direct investments but not to those made via financial intermediaries, such as the Africa Finance Corporation. The statement also notes that a lack of transparency prevents impacted communities from accessing remedies for adverse project impacts.

Global Witness reports that the expansion of soy monocultures in Paraguay is driving illegal land grabs, forced evictions of indigenous and peasant communities, and toxic pesticide poisoning. The report traces these products through global traders like ADM, Cargill, and Bunge to major European meat producers 2 Sisters and Danish Crown, and numerous high-street retailers. It argues that voluntary sustainability certifications, such as 'mass balance', act as 'accounting tricks' that mask the origin of 'tainted' soy, and calls for mandatory human rights due diligence legislation in the EU and UK.

Nearly a decade after Typhoon Haiyan, residents of resettlement sites in Tacloban report that durable solutions criteria have not been achieved. While safety from water-related hazards has improved, significant gaps remain in land tenure security, access to water, and livelihood opportunities, with vulnerabilities intersecting across gender and housing provider types.

The briefing highlights the risks associated with treating critical minerals as undifferentiated commodities, noting that a lack of transparency hides environmental and social costs. It advocates for a paradigm shift toward commodity differentiation through product-level standards, tracking technology, and regulatory tightening to ensure the energy transition is just and sustainable.

The Windhoek+30 Declaration, issued following a 2021 UNESCO conference in Namibia, asserts that information is a public good essential for human rights, democratic governance, and addressing global emergencies. It identifies critical threats to this good, including the economic crisis facing independent media, the proliferation of digital disinformation, and physical and legal attacks on journalists. The document outlines a series of calls to action: governments are urged to create enabling environments for free press and universal internet access; technology companies are asked to increase transparency in their automated systems and conduct human rights risk assessments; and intergovernmental bodies are encouraged to develop joint funding instruments to support media viability.

The WSIS Civil Society Declaration argues that information and communication technologies (ICTs) must be grounded in human rights, social justice, and gender equality rather than profit-driven market motives. It advocates for universal access to information, the protection of the public domain of knowledge, and the use of Free Software to empower marginalized communities. The declaration emphasizes the need for multistakeholder governance of the Internet and the implementation of environmentally sustainable ICT solutions, particularly in Africa.

The document calls for the recognition of the link between the climate crisis and violence against environmental defenders. It proposes specific actions within the Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) plan and the Global Stocktake to protect defenders' rights to information and participation, while urging COP host governments to guarantee freedom of assembly for civil society observers.

The authors contend that the climate crisis is a human rights crisis, citing the 2022 Pakistan floods as an example where the right to life, housing, food, education, and health were severely impacted. They argue that wealthy industrialized nations and corporate actors bear the primary responsibility for these harms but have neglected the duty to provide effective remedy. The document calls for COP27 to establish a needs- and rights-centered Loss and Damage Finance Facility and to operationalize the Warsaw International Mechanism and Santiago Network in a rights-compliant manner.

The toolkit argues that rights-based approaches lead to more effective and legitimate climate outcomes. It outlines a three-step process for integrating rights into NDCs: inclusive planning, transparent communication of how rights informed that planning, and reflecting human rights obligations in implementation and monitoring. The document provides specific recommendations across seven thematic areas: ambition, participatory planning, general human rights integration, gender mainstreaming, Indigenous Peoples' rights, land tenure, and just transition. It emphasizes that states must align their climate ambition with the 1.5°C target to fulfill human rights obligations and should account for all emissions under their jurisdiction, including extraterritorial ones. The toolkit includes guiding questions and illustrative examples from the NDCs of Canada, Mexico, Vanuatu, Nepal, Costa Rica, Bolivia, and Chile to demonstrate best practices in human rights-based climate action.

The document argues that climate action must be aligned with human rights to be effective and legitimate. It provides a framework for integrating these rights into NDCs, focusing on scientific ambition, inclusive public participation, gender equality, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, land tenure, and a just transition for workers.

The document argues that climate action is most effective and legitimate when based on a human rights approach. It outlines a framework for integrating these rights into NDCs, focusing on scientific ambition, inclusive public participation, gender equality, the rights of indigenous peoples, land tenure, and a just transition for workers.

The report identifies high-risk trade flows and species—specifically squid, Atlantic bluefin tuna, and swordfish—that expose the Spanish seafood industry to IUU fishing and labour abuses. While Spain is noted for its effective implementation of the EU IUU Regulation, the authors argue that government controls are insufficient to eliminate risk. They recommend that seafood businesses adopt voluntary due diligence tools, such as PAS 1550:2017, to ensure supply chain transparency and the protection of human rights.

The report argues that Ethiopia's national dialogue initiative is hindered by a fundamental clash between a 'deliberative' approach favored by the government—which seeks a rational consensus to resolve differences—and the reality of a severely divided society characterized by deep-seated historical injustices. The author contends that the process will only succeed if stakeholders shift toward an 'agonistic' model that focuses on transforming antagonistic relations into adversarial politics and reckoning with the past, rather than attempting to manufacture a final consensus on fundamental national issues.

The document outlines a framework for high-integrity benefit-sharing mechanisms (BSMs) in forest-based nature-based solutions. It organizes 12 principles under four values: Impartiality, Accountability, Rights-based approach, and Effectiveness. These principles aim to prevent elite capture and corruption while ensuring that Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) receive fair, transparent, and additive benefits that outweigh the costs of participation.

The statement highlights the high risks faced by environmental defenders in Latin America, noting that 200 deaths were recorded in 2020 alone. It criticizes the lack of effective protection provided by the Escazu Agreement and the 30x30 conservation project, emphasizing that indigenous people and women are disproportionately targeted. The text calls for UN and US government intervention to protect these activists.

The statement by Friends of the Earth International calls for a shift from non-binding guidelines to legally binding regulations for multinational corporations. It highlights the failure of the UN Guiding Principles and advocates for an international treaty currently under negotiation at the UN, supported by national legislation. The text cites the French 'duty of vigilance' law and a proposed corporate and human rights framework in Brazil as key examples of progress toward corporate accountability.

The document is a call to action from a coalition of civil society, smallholders' and Indigenous Peoples' organisations directed at EU Ministers, Commissioners, and Members of the European Parliament. It advocates for a robust EU regulation on deforestation-free products to protect biodiversity, climate, and human rights, outlining ten specific requirements for the law to be considered effective.

The document outlines a series of legislative acts and wider trends in the UK that ClientEarth argues undermine the rule of law. It details how new laws like the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill may weaken judicial oversight and strip away environmental safeguards. The report also highlights systemic issues, including the politicisation of the Attorney General, cuts to legal aid, and a trend toward 'government by decree' through the increased use of secondary legislation.

The report argues that current IFI efforts to align indirect financing through financial intermediaries with the Paris Agreement are insufficient and opaque. It highlights how this lending model allows IFIs to 'outsource' environmental and social safeguards, potentially funding fossil fuel projects. The authors provide recommendations for a rights-based alignment methodology that includes an absolute ban on new fossil fuel financing, increased support for sustainable renewables, and strict transparency requirements for sub-project disclosure.

The Center for International Environmental Law, FIAN International, and Earthjustice criticize the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee for failing to conduct meaningful consultations with Indigenous Peoples' organizations and rural communities regarding a study on 'new technologies for climate protection'. The organizations argue that the term is 'deliberately vague' compared to the established term 'geoengineering' and that the study's current outline is biased by assuming the benefits of such technologies rather than objectively analyzing their 'profound, large-scale, foreseeable and irreversible human rights impacts'.