Search Climate Insights Directory

The document synthesizes the work of UN human rights treaty bodies (HRTBs) in addressing climate change, specifically focusing on Concluding Observations issued to States. It highlights that while climate change is not explicitly in key human rights treaties, HRTBs increasingly use their monitoring roles to argue that protecting human rights requires specific climate action. The report details recommendations across several themes, including the disproportionate impacts on women, children, and indigenous peoples, the need for gender-sensitive and child-sensitive climate strategies, and the obligation of some States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel extraction to meet human rights standards. It provides detailed analysis of the three most active bodies: CEDAW, CESCR, and CRC.

The document outlines the CESCR's monitoring of the ICESCR, highlighting how climate change threatens substantive rights such as the right to water, food, and health. It details the Committee's increasing use of Concluding Observations to urge States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, transition to renewable energy, and protect vulnerable groups, particularly indigenous peoples, from climate impacts.

The document serves as a reference tool to track the recognition of Indigenous Peoples' rights and traditional knowledge within the UNFCCC process, highlighting over 60 decisions and the establishment of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform.

The document advocates for a land-use framework in the post-2020 climate agreement based on four principles: rights, ambition, equity, and biodiversity. It warns that treating terrestrial carbon sequestration as fungible with fossil fuel emissions undermines climate ambition and risks human rights violations. The authors recommend separate targets for industrial and land-based emissions, the protection of tenure rights for indigenous peoples and local communities, and a per capita allocation of agricultural emissions to ensure global food security.

The document argues that the Loss and Damage Fund (LDF) must move beyond procedural participation to a human-rights-based framework that empowers the most affected communities. It recommends establishing robust modalities for Active Observers, creating a community access window for small grants, and implementing an independent grievance redress mechanism. The brief emphasizes that relying on World Bank standards for environmental and social safeguards or information disclosure is insufficient for the LDF's specific mission of climate justice.

The document outlines five key areas for designing and implementing virtual or hybrid international meetings to prevent the erosion of public participation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It emphasizes that while virtual formats can increase access for some, they often lack the depth of in-person interaction and introduce new risks regarding censorship, digital divides, and participant security. The guide argues that in-person meetings should remain the default for high-stakes policy negotiations, while innovative virtual tools should be used as parallel options to expand breadth of participation without consigning civil society to remote access.

The document argues for a transparent, country-driven MRV system for REDD+ that integrates carbon monitoring with social and environmental safeguards. It emphasizes the need for clear definitions of 'forest' using FAO categories to distinguish between the five REDD+ activities and calls for the full participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in the MRV process. The submission also highlights the necessity of a common reporting format for REDD+ finance to ensure transparency and accountability, particularly regarding 'new and additional' funding and the Green Climate Fund safeguards.

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 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.

ClientEarth advocates for a mandatory due diligence framework for all companies placing forest-risk commodities on the EU market, arguing that such a measure would be more effective than voluntary schemes or certification. The organization emphasizes that due diligence must extend beyond mere compliance with producer-country laws to include the protection of indigenous peoples' land rights and other natural ecosystems. Additionally, ClientEarth calls for the inclusion of the financial sector in the legislation, the strengthening of forest partnerships with producer countries, and the reform of Free Trade Agreements to ensure binding environmental and social standards.

The report provides a comparative analysis of community forestry laws across five Congo Basin countries, detailing the legal basis, duration, surface area, and allocation processes for community forests. It highlights significant systemic weaknesses, including the lack of recognition for customary land rights, complex bureaucratic procedures, and the risk of elite capture, which hinder the effectiveness of community-led forest management in the region.

Carbon Market Watch advises the CMA against adopting the Supervisory Body's text on removals under the Article 6.4 mechanism without further guidance to ensure environmental integrity. The organization calls for stricter definitions of removal durability, the creation of a science-based risk assessment tool, mandatory post-crediting monitoring, and clear rules on avoidable reversals and buffer pool replenishment. Regarding methodology development, it suggests requiring proponents to prove carbon credit revenues were a significant income source and conducting additionality analyses for different activity types.

The Human Rights and Climate Change Working Group and associated organisations call on EU leadership to champion human rights within the Paris Agreement. They argue that climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable populations and that climate actions themselves can cause human rights abuses without safeguards. The letter specifically requests support for an amended Article 2(2) of the draft text to recognise the protection of human rights, indigenous peoples' rights, gender equality, and a just transition for the workforce.

Carbon Market Watch has filed a complaint with the ICVCM, asserting that Verra violated the Core Carbon Principles (CCP) Assessment Framework by failing to ensure impartiality during its review of human rights allegations made by Human Rights Watch. The complaint highlights that Verra relied on the project implementer and the same validation/verification bodies that had previously approved the project, creating inherent conflicts of interest. Carbon Market Watch calls on the ICVCM to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of Verra's grievance mechanism and to implement a broader process for assessing program compliance beyond written commitments.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the current Sustainable Development (SD) Tool under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement lacks robust safeguards for communities affected by land-intensive projects. The organization recommends a fundamental reconsideration of the Tool's structure, advocating for shared decision-making mechanisms, independent validation by Designated Operational Entities (DOEs), the primacy of international human rights standards over weak national laws, and the expansion of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) to all affected communities and land-related impacts.

The document argues that forest-based carbon credits should be treated as financial contributions to climate action rather than offsets for fossil emissions. It recommends shifting support from individual projects to jurisdictional programs to drive large-scale policy change, reduce leakage, and ensure better environmental integrity. The author emphasizes the need for conservative baselines, comprehensive social and environmental safeguards, and the full involvement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including the requirement for Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

The report finds that while a majority of Indonesians are worried about global warming, deforestation, and forest fires, there is a significant lack of basic knowledge regarding the definition and causes of climate change. Most respondents feel a strong moral obligation to protect the environment and believe in collective efficacy, yet very few engage in active environmental or political activism.

The document presents a framework of values for a proposed Fossil Fuel Treaty, emphasizing a just transition, non-proliferation of fossil fuels, and a fair phase-out. It advocates for centering the public good over private interests, redressing global imbalances through the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC), and protecting human rights and Indigenous self-determination. The text identifies risks such as 'false solutions' and 'dilution of ambition' and proposes operational strategies at national, regional, and global levels to ensure accountability and equity.

The document argues that current global models of production and consumption driven by neoliberal economic globalisation lead to increasing human and environmental rights violations. It advocates for the recognition of specific new rights, including the right to a sustainable livelihood, a clean and healthy environment, and the right to resist unwanted developments. It emphasizes that collective rights are essential for the survival and cultural preservation of indigenous peoples and minorities, noting that some legal recognition exists in Colombia, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Additionally, it highlights the necessity of the 'right to know' to counter corporate and government secrecy and the 'right to resist' as a fundamental democratic right, despite the risks faced by activists worldwide.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) advocates for a shift from 'fortress conservation' to a rights-based approach in the design of protected areas (PAs). The document emphasizes that the most effective conservation outcomes occur when lands are governed by indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs). It highlights the significance of Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs), which potentially cover 21% of the global territory, and calls for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework to recognize and protect 100% of these areas. FoEI proposes a hierarchy for expanding PAs that prioritizes the recognition of historical IPLC contributions, the protection of critical ecosystems in uninhabited regions, and the improvement of ecological representativeness and connectivity, all while ensuring public funding and the exclusion of biodiversity offsets.