Search Climate Insights Directory

The document explains that Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are national plans submitted every five years under the Paris Agreement to show progress toward global climate goals. It argues that human rights-based policies are the most effective form of climate action and that all Paris Agreement parties have obligations to respect and protect human rights, gender equality, and a just transition. The guide urges civil society to act by contacting governments, participating in official drafting processes, reviewing NDCs using a provided scorecard, and holding governments accountable through advocacy or legal action.

The document argues that human rights-based climate action is more effective and a legal obligation for all Parties to the Paris Agreement. It provides a comprehensive checklist for the preparation and evaluation of NDCs, covering mitigation ambition, participatory planning, gender justice, indigenous rights, just transition, adaptation, and accountability mechanisms.

The Alto Maipo Hydroelectric Project in Chile, verified under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), is cited as a failure that violated multiple human rights and environmental standards. The project involves rerouting three tributaries of the Maipo River through tunnels in the Andes Mountains, which the document claims threatens the drinking water of 7 million people in the Santiago metropolitan area and risks reducing river flows by 60-90%. Specific violations include threats to the rights to a healthy environment, water, life, health, food, adequate housing, work, and cultural participation. The document recommends that the project be removed from the CDM list and its construction halted. It further urges COP25 negotiators to ensure that Article 6 of the Paris Agreement incorporates robust social and environmental safeguards and independent grievance mechanisms to prevent similar outcomes in future 'sustainable development' projects.

The document serves as a practical guide for indigenous and local community leaders to navigate the human rights implications of REDD+ initiatives. It explains the mechanism's goals, the seven UNFCCC safeguards, and the specific collective rights—such as self-determination, land tenure, and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)—that are often at risk. The guide provides strategic advice for negotiations and lists national and international grievance mechanisms, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and World Bank inspection panels, to address rights violations.

The document outlines the basic concepts of REDD+, the associated safeguards agreed upon under the UNFCCC, and the specific human rights—such as self-determination, land tenure, and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC)—that may be impacted by forest governance initiatives. It provides practical advice for community leaders on negotiating REDD+ activities and lists national and international mechanisms for seeking justice and reporting rights violations.

The briefing emphasizes the need for coherence between international trade rules and sustainable development. It highlights how various multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and UN agencies address the impacts of services trade on the environment, health, and human rights. The author contends that WTO Members should not conduct services negotiations in isolation but should instead employ transparent, comprehensive sustainability assessments—incorporating social and environmental metrics—before establishing new legally binding obligations under GATS.

The document argues that the IFC's proposed Approach to Responsible Exit fails to establish remedial responsibilities for the IFC or the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), effectively allowing the institutions to exit projects without addressing harms caused by their investments. The authors contend that remedy should be a prerequisite for exit, as divestment removes the financial leverage necessary to drive corrective action. They propose four core principles: ensuring exits do not undermine ongoing Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) processes, conducting pre-divestment due diligence verified by communities, implementing meaningful consultation at least 12 months prior to divestment, and establishing protocols to prevent and manage reprisals against affected populations. The submission includes a table of projects in China, Egypt, Chile, Colombia, Nicaragua, and elsewhere where the IFC allegedly exited without providing remedy for documented harms such as forced labor, environmental damage, and human rights violations.

The document argues that the UNFCCC has reached a 'critical breaking point' due to systemic failures in delivering climate justice and the undue influence of the fossil fuel industry. It proposes a shift from consensus-based to majority-based decision-making to prevent a few nations from blocking progress. The authors demand a strict Conflict of Interest Policy to exclude polluting industry lobbyists from official spaces and a 'rightsizing' of COPs to end their transformation into 'global trade fairs'. Additionally, the statement calls for enhanced compliance mechanisms for Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), greater transparency in negotiations to end 'closed doors' meetings, and the protection of human rights for participants. It suggests strengthening international climate governance by aligning the UNFCCC with the other Rio Conventions and pursuing complementary legal pathways, such as the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Global Plastics Treaty, to achieve a full fossil fuel phase-out.

The Alto Maipo Hydroelectric Project in Chile, funded by the IFC, IDB, and OPIC, resulted in severe environmental degradation and human rights violations, including threats to the water security of millions in Santiago. Despite these harms, the project's financiers used procedural loopholes and premature divestments to avoid accountability. However, strategic campaigns by Chilean activists and CIEL leveraged Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs) to force institutional changes, resulting in the repeal of the IDB's legal exclusion clause and the creation of the IFC's Remedial Action Framework and Responsible Exit Approach.

The document catalogues alleged human rights implications across numerous international projects in sectors such as mining, energy, and forestry. It organizes these cases by the specific right implicated, including the rights to adequate food, housing, health, and life, as well as freedoms from forced labor and torture. The case studies highlight recurring issues such as forced resettlement, environmental contamination of water and land, the use of military force to suppress protests, and inadequate compensation for displaced populations.

The document argues that a small number of fossil fuel and cement producers, termed 'Carbon Majors', are responsible for a significant portion of global greenhouse gas emissions and the subsequent climate crisis. It details how these entities' activities and disinformation campaigns have led to severe human rights violations, particularly in the Philippines, where climate-induced disasters like Typhoon Haiyan have caused immense loss of life and livelihood. The text leverages international human rights law, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the 'Carbon Majors' study to establish a framework for corporate accountability and legal liability for climate damages.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submits that the Article 6.4 mechanism must focus on near-term emissions reductions and the phase-out of fossil fuels rather than carbon removals. CIEL warns that relying on removals risks temperature overshoot beyond 1.5°C, which could lead to irreversible tipping points. The submission critiques land-based removals for their impermanence and limited capacity, and describes engineered removals like BECCS and DACCS as speculative technologies that threaten food sovereignty, land rights, and biodiversity. It further argues that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) primarily serves to prolong fossil fuel reliance and has a history of underperformance. Finally, CIEL calls for the establishment of robust human rights safeguards and an independent grievance redress mechanism for all Article 6.4 activities.

The document is a bibliography listing reports, academic papers, and legal documents used to analyze climate change impacts in the Maldives. It categorizes sources into sections covering physical and human impacts—including sea level rise, coral bleaching, and health risks—as well as the implications for human rights and the responsibilities of the international community.

The document argues that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is a viable forum for indigenous Arctic peoples to seek redress for global warming impacts, such as melting sea ice and thawing permafrost, which threaten their rights to life, health, property, and culture. While the Commission cannot force emissions reductions or compensation, a formal finding of human rights violations would provide a legal basis for accountability and increase global pressure on major emitters like the United States.

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 report examines the ZEDE law in Honduras, which creates autonomous zones with their own judicial and administrative systems. It argues that these zones undermine democratic governance, threaten indigenous land rights, and lack transparency. The author contends that IDB funding for ZEDEs would violate the bank's own operational policies regarding indigenous peoples, environmental governance, and access to information.

The document alleges that Wavemaker has spent over two decades helping Chevron mask its environmental and human rights record through misleading advertising. It highlights Chevron's toxic waste dumping in the Ecuadorian Amazon and pollution in Richmond, California, as evidence of the company's actual impact, contrasting these with its public image campaigns.

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 outlines the critical role of cocoa in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire, where together they produce over 60% of the cocoa for the USD$130 billion global chocolate industry. It argues that the sector is hindered by poverty, child labor, and deforestation, and proposes a series of research papers to analyze national legal frameworks, identify governance loopholes, and assess the impact of EU and UK regulations on sustainability.

ClientEarth advocates for the implementation of comprehensive framework climate laws (FCLs) to bridge the gap between political ambition in NDCs and domestic action. The brief highlights that current climate commitments are insufficient, with a projected temperature rise of 2.4°C to 2.6°C even if existing NDCs are met. It calls on countries to submit science-driven NDCs by February 2025 and to enshrine these in binding national laws by COP30. The document also details recent international legal precedents from the ICJ, ITLOS, and ECHR that strengthen the legal obligations of states to protect human rights and the environment from climate harm.