Search Climate Insights Directory

The Geneva Pledge, signed by 19 nations in February 2015, commits governments to foster collaboration between their human rights and climate change experts. The signatories acknowledge that climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable populations and pledge to ensure that the transition to a low-carbon economy respects human rights and ensures no one is left behind.

The document asserts that climate change is a major human rights challenge, threatening rights to life, health, and food security, particularly for vulnerable groups. It criticizes the UNFCCC for slow progress in operationalizing rights protections and recommends that the 2015 climate agreement include explicit human rights obligations, establish institutional safeguards, create a dedicated work programme on human rights and climate change, and implement a grievance mechanism to address harms caused by mitigation and adaptation activities.

The document positions climate change as a major human rights challenge, noting that environmental degradation threatens fundamental rights such as life, health, and food security. It criticizes the UNFCCC for failing to operationalize human rights protections despite recognizing them in 2010. The authors propose a human-rights-based approach to climate action, emphasizing the need to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, provide compensation for loss and damage, and establish institutional safeguards, including a formal complaints mechanism and a dedicated work program on human rights and climate change.

The document details a 2014 expert meeting hosted by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) to rethink international investment dispute settlement. Experts argued that the current status quo is unsatisfactory and proposed moving away from a focus solely on investor rights and state obligations. They emphasized the need for inclusive mechanisms that allow individuals, local communities, and other affected stakeholders to seek remedies for issues such as human rights abuses and environmental damage. The report outlines four proposed models: a 'toolbox' of ad hoc mechanisms, a dedicated International Investment Mediation Service (IIMS), a multilayered procedure involving mandatory fact-finding and a choice between judicial or arbitral paths, and a comprehensive treaty-based institution with judicial, investigative, and mediation functions.

The author argues that the border fence at the Evros river, praised by Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, has not stopped migration but merely shifted flows toward the sea, leading to increased arrivals on Greek islands and more deaths at sea. The text frames this as part of a wider European trend where leaders in the UK, France, and Germany adopt right-wing rhetoric to counter populist parties, which the author claims ultimately strengthens the far-right.

The authors argue that current development modes often ignore the socio-political contexts that constrain climate adaptation. To remedy this, they introduce a tool based on human rights principles—focusing on equality, transparency, accountability, and empowerment—to identify the institutional barriers and processes of marginalization that create disparities in adaptive capacity.

The paper analyzes the evolution of the 'Women, Peace and Security' (WPS) framework, centered on UN Security Council Resolution 1325. While the author notes rapid normative spread and broad political acceptance among member states and regional organizations, she highlights a significant failure to translate these norms into practice. This is evidenced by low female representation in UN peace operations and political missions, insufficient funding, and a lack of accountability at leadership levels. The author argues that while shifting global power dynamics and opposition from states like Russia and China pose risks, the continued pressure from transnational women's networks remains the primary driver for future progress.

The report provides an 'Afro-realistic' analysis of accountability in Africa, contrasting the potential of continental initiatives like the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) and Agenda 2063 with the practical challenges of domestic implementation. It investigates the roles of the African Union (AU), national parliaments, ombudsman offices, and civil society in curbing executive power and ensuring sustainable peace. The text highlights a tension between economic development and democratic governance, noting that while some states achieve growth, it often occurs at the expense of human rights.

The report establishes a framework for assessing the positive societal impacts of crisis management (CM) tools, specifically for the DRIVER project. It defines societal resilience as a multi-dimensional concept encompassing technical, political, psychological, and value-based dimensions. By reviewing 23 policy documents from the UN, EU, and IFRC, the report identifies core societal values—such as trust, solidarity, and participation—that should guide CM interventions. It proposes a consolidated list of assessment criteria (e.g., accountability, diversity, and transparency) to ensure CM tools foster rather than infringe upon societal values. The document concludes with general recommendations for positive intervention, emphasizing people-centered, bottom-up approaches and the importance of international cooperation and legal frameworks in building resilience.

The document reports on a side event held during COP20 in Lima, where experts and community representatives argued that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) lacks sufficient social safeguards and sustainable development criteria. Presenters highlighted specific hydroelectric projects in Guatemala and Panama where the absence of free, prior, and informed consent led to human rights violations and loss of life. The event called for the integration of international human rights law into climate policies and the establishment of effective appeals procedures and procedural regulations to protect vulnerable communities and environmental defenders.

The document details a discussion on the failure of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects to provide sustainable development, highlighting human rights violations and the lack of social safeguards. It specifically cites the Reliance Sasan Ultra Mega Power Plant in India for violating additionality and stakeholder consultation rules, and coal mining in Colombia for causing coercive displacement and killings. The report emphasizes the urgent need for a grievance mechanism within the CDM and introduces the CDM Benefit Tracker to monitor discrepancies between promised and actual project benefits in India.

The document examines how extraterritorial obligations (ETOs), as clarified by the Maastricht Principles, are essential for holding states accountable for environmental destruction and climate change that impact human rights beyond their own borders. It highlights gaps in protection caused by globalization, specifically regarding transnational corporations and intergovernmental organizations. Using examples like tropical deforestation and shipbreaking in South Asia, the guide illustrates how state omissions and the failure to regulate non-state actors lead to severe human rights impairments. It concludes that a human rights-based approach to climate change is necessary to ensure equitable mitigation and protection for the world's most vulnerable populations.

The report examines the tension between Mozambique's progressive legal frameworks, such as the 1997 Land Law, and a state tendency toward recentralization and the prioritization of extractive industries. While laws recognize customary land rights (DUAT), implementation is often hindered by bureaucratic hurdles, flawed community consultation processes, and legislation that gives mining operations priority over other land uses. The document highlights the failure of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) initiatives like Tchuma Tchato due to lack of genuine power devolution and the negative social impacts of large-scale resettlement projects, such as those led by Vale in Tete Province.

This guide, published by Natural Justice in December 2014, provides an overview of regional and international grievance and advocacy mechanisms available to indigenous peoples and local communities. It categorizes these tools into UN human rights systems, regional human rights systems, international and regional financial institutions, industry-specific standards, and other advocacy opportunities, detailing eligibility, processes, and potential barriers for each.

The document contends that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) lacks the necessary environmental and social standards to be integrated into results-based climate finance. It highlights that many CDM projects fail to produce real emission reductions due to a lack of additionality and have caused negative impacts on local communities, including human rights violations. The author argues that the Green Climate Fund (GCF) should not purchase stranded offset credits from existing CDM projects, as this would contradict the GCF's mandate for new and additional financial resources and its own interim environmental and social safeguards, which require stakeholder participation and grievance mechanisms that the CDM lacks.

Amigos de la Tierra de América Latina y el Caribe (ATALC) expresses solidarity following the death of 21-year-old activist Remi Fraisse, who was killed by explosive grenades used by French gendarmerie during a peaceful protest against the Sivens dam in Gaillac. The project is criticized for causing deforestation and the flooding of a strategic wetland, reflecting a model of land and water resource grabbing by corporations with state support.

Carbon Market Watch argues that previous market-based mechanisms, such as the CDM and EU ETS, failed due to oversupply and poor environmental integrity. To prevent these failures in a post-2020 regime, the organization recommends strict eligibility rules based on national ambition, the exclusion of REDD-plus and agriculture from carbon markets, and the implementation of discounting to ensure net atmospheric benefits. It further calls for a UN-led standard-setting body, a robust institutional safeguard system to protect human rights, and a share of proceeds from all traded units to be allocated to the Adaptation Fund.

The report argues that conservation initiatives frequently violate the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, despite an increasing international legal consensus on their protections. It asserts that responsibility for upholding these rights extends beyond states to include international organisations, businesses, and NGOs. The authors analyse a vast array of international instruments and find that while normative trends are moving toward greater recognition of rights, enforcement and redress remain significant challenges. The document concludes by suggesting the creation of core standards, stakeholder guidance, and potentially a dedicated global grievance mechanism or 'Roundtable on Ethical Conservation' to ensure just conservation practices.

The document maps the extensive legal landscape of international 'hard' and 'soft' law relevant to conservation, identifying over 30 categories of rights. It highlights a normative trend toward increasing recognition of Indigenous and local community rights within the CBD and IUCN frameworks, arguing that these standards must be distilled into accessible guides to prevent human rights violations, such as forced evictions, during the establishment of protected areas.

The document examines the challenges Indigenous Peoples and local communities face when seeking redress for human rights violations linked to conservation, such as the eviction of the Endorois in Kenya. It categorizes redress mechanisms into state-based (national courts, NHRIs) and non-state-based (UN systems, regional human rights courts, financial institution accountability mechanisms, and corporate mechanisms). While state-based systems can issue binding decisions, they are often inaccessible due to discrimination and lack of recognition of collective rights. Non-state judicial mechanisms often have high procedural hurdles, such as the exhaustion of domestic remedies, while non-judicial mechanisms frequently lack enforcement power. The author suggests exploring a 'Roundtable for Ethical Conservation' as a specialized mechanism to ensure compliance with human rights standards.