Search Climate Insights Directory

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 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.

The document outlines specific critiques and proposed amendments to the AfDB's IRM Operating Rules and Procedures (ORP). The signatories argue for greater independence of the mechanism from Bank management, enhanced public disclosure of complaint documents, the inclusion of all human rights violations in the IRM's scope, and the removal of restrictive barriers that prevent individuals and NGOs from filing complaints.

The IAI Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) report for 2013-2014 details the implementation of the CRN3 project process, including 17 international teams and various integration projects. The SAC is promoting a shift toward interdisciplinarity between human and natural sciences in global change research, emphasizing co-designed research and capacity building. Key strategic activities include evaluating science impact beyond publishing, exploring roles within Future Earth and IPBES, and developing a framework for a Science-Policy Advisory Committee (SPAC). The report also highlights a need for the Conference of the Parties (CoP) to address SAC membership vacancies to maintain the required 10-member count.

The SAC report for 2013-2014 details the implementation of the CRN3 project, the promotion of interdisciplinary research between social and natural sciences, and the evaluation of scientific impact. It outlines strategic goals including the integration of Future Earth as an organizing theme, the development of capacity-building programs, and the need to involve indigenous peoples of the Americas in regional scientific efforts.

The paper examines the legal obligations of conservation actors regarding the rights of indigenous peoples, tribal peoples, and local communities. It argues that while states are the primary duty-bearers, international organizations, corporations, and NGOs also have responsibilities to respect human rights based on international customary law and 'social licenses'. The text specifically links these obligations to the implementation of Aichi Target 11 for biodiversity.

The document warns forest communities in tropical regions about the dangers of signing REDD and forest conservation contracts, which it argues can lead to 'deterritorialization' and loss of autonomy. It details how these contracts often use technical language to hide restrictive obligations, such as banning traditional agriculture and wood use, while granting companies extensive access to biodiversity and carbon credits for long periods (30 to 80 years). The guide advocates for the recognition of indigenous land rights and the implementation of public policies that support collective, non-market-based community forest management as a more effective way to preserve biodiversity and prevent deforestation.

The document examines the legal obligations of conservation actors under international human rights law, arguing that while States are primary duty-bearers, international organizations, businesses, and NGOs also bear responsibilities to respect human rights based on customary law or social licenses to operate.

A coalition of social movements and NGOs argues that the FAO's current forest definition is reductionist and primarily benefits industrial timber, pulp, paper, and rubber companies. The authors contend that by defining forests simply as land with a certain percentage of tree cover, the FAO erroneously classifies large-scale monoculture plantations as 'reforestation' and ignores the structural and cultural importance of forests to the 300 million people who depend on them for their livelihoods. The letter calls for a new, community-led definition process that recognizes the role of forests in food sovereignty and biological diversity.

The document critiques the EBRD's draft Environment and Social Policy for removing commitments to international human rights law, limiting transparency, and failing to implement robust human rights due diligence. It specifically highlights concerns regarding forced evictions, the definition of indigenous peoples, and gaps in the Project Complaint Mechanism (PCM).

The document investigates the expansion of the oil palm industry in Palawan, operated primarily by Palawan Palm & Vegetable Oil Mills, Inc. (PPVOMI) and Agumil Philippines, Inc. (AGPI). It finds that while promoted as an economic opportunity, the industry has led to significant grievances, including contractual deception of smallholder cooperatives, land dispossession of indigenous peoples, and illegal encroachment into protected forestlands. The study highlights a failure in institutional oversight, noting that environmental clearances were often obtained after project initiation and that the legal framework fails to distribute liability fairly, leaving smallholders with most of the financial risk. It concludes with ten recommendations to strengthen corporate accountability, including contract revision, stricter government 'gatekeeping', and the promotion of RSPO certification.

Indonesia possesses the world's largest geothermal potential at 27 GW, yet less than 5 percent has been developed. Investment was historically hindered by regulatory frameworks favoring coal, high exploration risks, and pricing distortions. To counter this, the Indonesian government passed a law in 2003 targeting 6,000MW by 2020, established a geothermal exploration fund in 2011 to share risk, and implemented a regional feed-in-tariff. While the country is unlikely to meet its original targets, these 'readiness' activities, supported by international partners, are intended to create a stable environment for scaled-up investment.

The document identifies two contradictory trends in tropical land tenure: a 'global land rush' where agricultural land is transferred from governments and communities to corporate control, and a simultaneous increase in forestland tenure granted to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The author argues that while agricultural land transfers are driven by economic factors—such as rising food prices, changing diets, and biofuel demand—forestland transfers are primarily political, driven by rights campaigns and the financial incentives of national-scale REDD+ programs. The paper notes regional disparities, with community tenure increasing significantly in Latin America, while corporate land-grabbing is most prevalent in Africa.

The document provides a detailed critique and set of recommendations for the World Bank's Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies. It argues that the Bank has failed to incorporate current international standards and suffers from inadequate monitoring, noting that between 1999 and 2008, more than one-third of projects were inadequately monitored. The authors advocate for the adoption of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) as a cross-cutting requirement for all safeguards, the recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ and Community Conserved Territories and Areas (ICCAs) as legitimate conservation measures, and the integration of human rights due diligence into the Bank's operational framework.

The document highlights that both climate change impacts and the implementation of mitigation and adaptation policies can infringe upon the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. It notes that the international climate change regime has largely failed to address these implications, only recognizing the importance of respecting human rights in the Framework Convention in 2010. The authors suggest that the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) provides an opportunity to implement four concrete options to guarantee substantive and procedural rights and establish a redress mechanism for loss and damages.

The Arctic Resilience Interim Report 2013 examines the interdependence of human societies and ecosystems in the Arctic, arguing that a resilience framework is essential for managing rapid, interacting changes. It highlights that while climate change is a key driver, social, political, and economic factors also profoundly impact the region's adaptive capacity. The report warns that abrupt environmental changes risk crossing thresholds with global consequences, such as sea ice loss and permafrost thaw. It further notes that past policy decisions have often eroded traditional indigenous safeguards of resilience, necessitating flexible, participatory governance to manage future uncertainties and conflicting priorities.

The Arctic Resilience Interim Report 2013 provides a framework for understanding the interdependence of Arctic social and ecological systems. It identifies biophysical thresholds—such as sea-ice loss and permafrost degradation—and social thresholds that threaten the well-being of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. The report emphasizes that resilience is not merely the ability to maintain a state but includes the capacity for adaptation and transformation. It highlights the critical role of traditional knowledge and the need for adaptive governance to manage the cumulative impacts of climate change, industrial development, and geopolitical shifts.

The report examines the status of ICCAs in Kenya, highlighting a tension between traditional community stewardship and centralized state management. It identifies key types of ICCAs, including pastoralist rangelands, sacred Kaya forests, and Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs). A central theme is the impact of the 2010 Constitution, which proposes converting 'trust land' to 'community land' to provide better tenure security. The document notes that while forestry and fisheries have moved toward co-management, the wildlife sector remains highly centralized, with a ban on consumptive use since 1977. It highlights the 'Endorois case' as a landmark for indigenous land rights in Africa and discusses specific case studies like the Loita Forest and Namunyak Wildlife Conservancy to illustrate the effectiveness of local stewardship and the threats posed by government encroachment.

The report examines the legal and political landscape of Canada regarding Indigenous peoples' rights to land and conservation. It argues that the Canadian state generally does not recognize ICCAs, instead maintaining a colonial framework that prioritizes Crown sovereignty and resource extraction over Indigenous self-determination. While comprehensive agreements for Inuit and some First Nations provide a level of co-management, most Indigenous peoples face systemic barriers, including the Indian Act and a lack of political will to respect inherent rights. The document highlights the 'duty to consult' as a critical legal tool and provides case studies on Torngat Mountains National Park, Gwaii Haanas, and Ipperwash Provincial Park to illustrate the spectrum from co-governance to violent conflict.

The report examines the status of ICCAs in Taiwan, highlighting a systemic lack of formal legal recognition for indigenous customary land and resource rights. While the Basic Act of Indigenous Peoples (2005) provides some theoretical recognition, state agencies—particularly the Forestry Bureau—remain reluctant to share decision-making power. The document details several community-led conservation successes, such as the Danayiku Nature Park and the Smangus village's collective management, and notes a positive shift in judicial trends where courts have begun to recognize traditional territories.