Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) should be terminated by 2020 to prevent it from undermining the Paris Agreement. The authors claim the CDM encourages a 'zero-sum game' that hinders domestic climate action, has increased global emissions due to 'junk' credits, and has led to human rights violations and inequitable benefit distribution.

The document establishes that climate change undermines fundamental human rights such as health, food, and water, while a lack of human rights protections increases the vulnerability of marginalized communities. It provides a framework for businesses to understand this nexus and operational principles to manage associated risks and opportunities.

The report details the efforts and challenges of integrating human rights into the COP-24 outcomes, noting that while procedural participation in NDC planning was strengthened, substantive human rights references were often diluted or removed from final texts. It also documents the restriction of civil liberties by the Polish government during the conference and highlights specific policy areas, such as the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform and the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss & Damage, where human rights frameworks were maintained or advanced.

The document argues that the RSPO serves as a greenwashing tool for the industrial palm oil industry, failing to address a production model based on land grabbing, deforestation, and labor exploitation. It asserts that voluntary certification cannot replace state regulation and calls for a moratorium on plantation expansion and a reduction in palm oil demand.

The document argues that the RSPO serves as a 'greenwashing' tool for the palm oil industry, failing to prevent deforestation and land grabbing while promoting a destructive industrial model. It calls for government moratoria on plantation expansion and a shift toward agroecology.

The document argues that the RSPO serves as a tool for 'greenwashing' the palm oil industry, masking systemic human rights violations and deforestation. It asserts that the RSPO's certification principles support a destructive industrial model based on large-scale monocultures, land grabbing, and labour exploitation. The authors call for government moratoria on plantation expansion, a reduction in palm oil demand, and the promotion of agroecology and community land rights.

The submission by Alburnus Maior, ICDER, and Greenpeace Romania contends that Gabriel Resources Ltd. failed to conduct adequate due diligence on the feasibility of its gold mining project in Roșia Montană and ignored the rights of local communities. The authors argue the company violated the right to adequate housing through coercive land acquisition and failed to obtain necessary urban, archaeological, and environmental permits required by Romanian and EU law. They further claim the company attempted to bypass these legal requirements through a proposed 'special law' and engaged in misconduct to silence critics. Consequently, the submission argues the tribunal lacks jurisdiction under the Achmea precedent regarding EU law and that the company's unlawful conduct disqualifies its investment from protection under the Canada-Romania BIT.

The submission by Alburnus Maior, ICDER, and Greenpeace Romania contends that Gabriel Resources Ltd. failed to conduct adequate due diligence on the feasibility of its Roșia Montană gold mine and ignored the rights of local communities. The authors argue the company violated the right to adequate housing through coercive land acquisition and failed to obtain necessary urban, archaeological, and environmental permits required by Romanian and EU law. They further claim the company attempted to bypass these legal requirements via a proposed 'special law' and used intimidation and misleading media campaigns to silence opposition. Legally, the submission asserts that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction because the dispute necessitates the interpretation of EU law, citing the Achmea precedent, and that the company's unlawful conduct disqualifies its activities as a protected investment under the Canada-Romania BIT.

The document argues for a fundamental shift from 'zero-sum offsetting' to a 'results based climate finance' (RBCF) model for the Article 6.4 mechanism. It recommends strict environmental integrity criteria, including a partial cancellation rate for credits and the exclusion of emission removals. To prevent the carry-over of failures from the Kyoto Protocol, it proposes a full re-assessment of existing Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects and prohibits the use of pre-2020 units for post-2020 targets. The brief also emphasizes the need for independent governance, a formal grievance mechanism to protect human rights, and mandatory local stakeholder consultations.

The report examines the gap between the official goal of freedom of movement in Southern Africa and the reality of securitised border management. It identifies key barriers including a lack of political will, unreliable data, and the prioritisation of national sovereignty over regional integration. The authors argue that migration should be viewed as a developmental opportunity rather than a security threat, noting that remittances contribute an average of 3.7% to SADC countries' GDP. South Africa is highlighted as a primary destination for migrants but a major obstacle to regional integration due to its restrictive 'detain and deport' policies and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

CIEL welcomes the IFC's official position against retaliation—including threats, intimidation, harassment, or violence—by IFC clients against those voicing opinions on projects. CIEL emphasizes the importance of integrating retaliation risks into contextual risk screening procedures to prevent harm and urges the IFC to compel its clients and co-financing partners to adopt similar zero-tolerance commitments.

The statement advocates for the UN General Assembly to recognize the right to a healthy and sustainable environment, noting that while over 100 national constitutions and various regional treaties already protect this right, the lack of global UN recognition creates a gap in the human rights protection regime. It asserts that such recognition would prioritize the prevention of environmental degradation and strengthen legal remedies against corporate and public policy failures.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) emphasizes that the IPCC Special Report on 1.5C confirms the necessity of limiting global warming to 1.5C to avoid irreversible impacts on ecosystems and human communities. CIEL argues that the difference between 1.5C and 2C of warming will be measured in human lives and rights, particularly for marginalized populations. To achieve the 1.5C goal, CIEL highlights the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly half by 2030 and reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 through a complete economic transformation away from fossil fuels. Furthermore, CIEL rejects 'overshoot and return' scenarios that rely on hypothetical carbon dioxide removal, labeling such strategies as dangerous and immoral.

The proposal argues that existing national and international legal mechanisms are insufficient to hold multinational corporations accountable due to corporate complexity, state collusion, and the non-binding nature of current guidelines. It advocates for a permanent, itinerant international tribunal with broad jurisdiction over parent companies and their supply chains, featuring a reversed burden of proof and cost-free access for victims. The document includes a detailed draft statute for the 'International Tribunal on Multinationals, Other Enterprises and Human Rights' (TIMEDH), emphasizing complementarity with national courts and the use of class actions to secure reparations for affected communities.

The guide highlights corporate human rights abuses in Asia—including land grabs in Malaysia and Sri Lanka, coal power threats to mangroves in Bangladesh, and nuclear risks in Russia and Palestine—to advocate for a UN Binding Treaty on Transnational Corporations. It calls for an enforceable legal mechanism, international grievance systems, and accountability for global supply chains and international finance.

The report examines the 'architecture of impunity' that allows transnational corporations (TNCs) to evade legal accountability for human rights and environmental violations. It specifically critiques the European Union for acting as a key opponent to the UN Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group's (OEIGWG) efforts to establish a legally binding treaty, instead promoting voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and 'multi-stakeholderism'. The document details how 'corporate capture' occurs within EU and UN institutions, where private sector interests shape the regulations intended to govern them. This is illustrated through case studies of European TNCs—including Shell, Engie, and Glencore—operating in the Global South, where the report claims they outsource severe impacts while using CSR to deflect criticism. The report highlights the 2017 French 'duty of vigilance' law as a rare successful example of binding national legislation against this trend.

The document identifies a significant gap between South Africa's stated goal of harnessing the strategic potential of African migration and its implementation of restrictive policies. While the Department of Home Affairs has proposed progressive measures like SADC visas and regularisation schemes, these have stalled. Instead, the government is fast-tracking the Border Management Authority Bill and the Refugees Amendment Act of 2017, and pursuing the construction of expensive asylum processing centres. The author argues that these measures are based on unsubstantiated claims that low-skilled migrants and asylum seekers pose security risks, and that they distract from endemic administrative corruption and management failures within the Department of Home Affairs.

Carbon Market Watch calls for the operationalization of rules for Article 6 that prioritize the avoidance of double counting, a clear end date for the transition from Kyoto Protocol mechanisms, and the implementation of robust human rights and social safeguards to prevent the adverse impacts seen under the Clean Development Mechanism.

The document argues that empowering women in artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) requires a holistic approach combining economic, social, technical, and political interventions. Key recommendations include literacy and awareness campaigns to challenge traditional norms, technical and leadership training to reduce dependency on men, and the provision of gender-sensitive financial services and equipment. It emphasizes the need for legislative reforms, such as mandatory gender-impact assessments within environmental impact assessments, and the promotion of women-led cooperatives and associations to improve market access and governance.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and a coalition of eight civil society organisations defend their legal opposition to a proposed coal mine by Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd. CER argues that the mine would threaten a Strategic Water Source Area and a protected environment, while asserting that coal mining in Mpumalanga has historically failed to alleviate poverty or provide sustainable local employment. The document clarifies that CER does not represent local farmers or WWF-SA and disputes claims that its actions are 'anti-development', citing the constitutional right to a healthy environment.