Search Climate Insights Directory

The proposal aims to address the lack of coordination between climate, biodiversity, and development strategies in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). It proposes a 24-month project to create a 30x30 investment strategy that integrates biodiversity conservation with climate mitigation and adaptation, specifically focusing on the rights and engagement of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPs and LCs). Key activities include spatial modelling to identify priority conservation areas, policy alignment analysis, the development of a business plan for 30x30 implementation, and the submission of a technically sound GCF project concept note.

The statement argues that offshore oil and gas activities across their entire lifecycle pose ecological and livelihood risks to small-scale and artisanal fishers, fish workers, and Indigenous communities. It emphasizes that halting offshore fossil fuel expansion is necessary to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C and protect ocean-dependent communities. The authors call for the meaningful participation of impacted communities in decision-making and the suspension of offshore projects that deprive fishers of fundamental human rights in favor of a transition to renewable energy.

The document evaluates the 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), highlighting a tension between its recognition of human and indigenous rights and its failure to impose binding regulations on transnational corporations. It criticizes the framework for promoting 'sustainable intensification' in agriculture and allowing 'biodiversity offsets,' which the author argues can be used as 'greenwashing' to justify continued environmental destruction. The text provides guidance for civil society and NGOs to use specific GBF targets to pressure governments for better land rights and corporate accountability.

The document evaluates the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), highlighting positive steps toward preventing species extinction and protecting indigenous rights, while warning that the framework's reliance on total area targets and 'Nature-based Solutions' may implicitly permit biodiversity offsetting. It argues that the lack of explicit prohibitions on destructive activities like deep-sea mining and Arctic hydrocarbon extraction allows ecosystem destruction to continue, and encourages civil society to use the GBF's quality and restoration targets to hold governments accountable.

The document analyzes the 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework, highlighting its recognition of indigenous rights and agroecology while criticizing its reliance on corporate self-reporting, 'sustainable intensification' in agriculture, and the implicit acceptance of biodiversity offsets (compensation). It urges civil society to use the framework's targets to pressure governments for stronger legislation and accountability.

The document analyzes the 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework, noting its commitment to a human-rights-based approach and the recognition of indigenous territories. While it praises the protection of environmental human rights defenders in Target 22 and gender equality in Target 23, it warns that Target 3's goal of protecting 30% of the world could lead to human rights violations if indigenous peoples are excluded. It highlights critical gaps in Target 15 regarding corporate accountability and Target 8 regarding climate change and human rights, and urges NGOs to push for concrete implementation protocols and legal recognition of indigenous-managed areas.

The document analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework, noting that while Target 4 promotes urgent measures to prevent species extinction and Target 3 emphasizes effective protected area management, the framework is flawed by an implicit reliance on biodiversity offsetting. The author argues that offsetting is a harmful practice that fails to address root causes of biodiversity loss and may justify the destruction of nature. Key gaps include the lack of explicit bans on high-impact activities like deep-sea mining and Arctic drilling, and a failure to adequately link conservation to industrial agriculture and fossil fuel extraction.

The document evaluates the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), noting that while Target 4 supports preventing species extinction and Target 3 emphasizes quality in conserved areas, the framework is undermined by the implicit enablement of offsetting. The author argues that the GBF lacks clear prohibitions on destructive activities like deep-sea mining and fails to adequately link conservation to industrial drivers of biodiversity loss. It suggests that civil society can use the GBF's targets on restoration and governance to hold governments accountable.

The document analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), highlighting its recognition of Indigenous Peoples' rights and the goal to protect 30% of the world's land and sea. However, it criticizes the framework for relying on corporate self-reporting, lacking mandatory regulations for transnational corporations, and promoting 'sustainable intensification' in agriculture, which may favor biotech and agribusiness. It also warns that the GBF's approach to restoration and conservation may enable harmful offsetting practices and the 'financialisation of nature'.

The document evaluates the 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework, highlighting positive inclusions such as the human rights-based approach and the protection of environmental human rights defenders in Target 22. It notes that while Target 3 recognizes Indigenous territories as conservation areas, there is a significant risk that expanding protected areas to 30% of the world could lead to human rights violations. The author identifies critical gaps, specifically the absence of human rights mentions in Target 15 (private sector) and Target 8 (climate change), and the lack of indicators for Targets 22 and 23. It concludes by advising civil society to use the GBF to push for national legislation on Indigenous-led nature areas and to demand full participation in decision-making.

The paper examines how a network of 11 community radio stations from the Colombian Amazon participated in the Belém Summit (August 8-9, 2023) to provide a grassroots perspective on the protection of the Amazon biome. It argues that community media offer a more truthful and critical treatment of information than mass media because reporters live the territorial realities, such as lack of basic services and state neglect. The author highlights that these community-led reports reached over 5 million people across Latin America and the Caribbean. The document further critiques the resulting 'Belém Declaration,' arguing that it lacks a strong position against fossil fuel extraction and fails to fully integrate the ancestral vision of indigenous peoples or the critical discourse of popular sectors.

The Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission (SEITC) is seeking relief from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights due to the impacts of hard-rock mining in British Columbia, Canada. The document argues that mining projects in the Taku, Stikine, and Unuk watersheds threaten the subsistence and cultural rights of Southeast Alaska Native communities through heavy metal pollution and habitat destruction. SEITC alleges that Canada and B.C. have failed to conduct comprehensive transboundary environmental assessments, have ignored the need for free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), and have used a flawed amendment process to expand mine operations without adequate scrutiny. The submission introduces a new claim regarding the violation of the right to a healthy environment and requests that the Commission investigate these claims and recommend the suspension of mine authorizations until transboundary harms are addressed.

The briefing note calls for further reform of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) following Bill S-5, highlighting the need for enforceable national air quality standards, the removal of barriers to citizen lawsuits against polluters, improved labelling of hazardous substances in consumer products, and enhanced environmental protections on First Nations reserve lands to address systemic inequities and health risks.

A coalition of civil society organizations is urging 50 financial institutions to pressure TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, Santos, and ENEOS to cancel the Papua LNG project. The letter argues the project is incompatible with the 1.5-degree goal of the Paris Agreement, lacks the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples, and employs insufficient biodiversity offsetting measures. The authors call for shareholders to vote against director re-elections, stop purchasing new bonds, and establish a time-bound divestment strategy if fossil fuel expansion continues.

The Canadian Climate Institute suggests that using case-by-case impact assessments to determine if projects comply with emissions reduction pathways is inefficient and subjective. Instead, the author argues that overarching policies—such as industrial carbon pricing and the oil and gas emissions cap—are better suited to ensure projects align with climate goals. This shift would allow the regulatory review system to focus on averting specific environmental harms and engaging Indigenous Peoples while accelerating the approval of clean growth projects to maintain global competitiveness.

The document outlines the environmental and health risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and methane gas, highlighting the disproportionate impact on Indigenous communities in British Columbia and the role of methane in global warming.

The report argues that social conflict surrounding wind energy in La Guajira is driven not by opposition to the technology, but by the processes of implementation and consultation. It identifies eight enabling factors for social acceptance: improving information access, regulating community advisers, recognizing the duality of Wayuu leadership, establishing benefit-sharing standards, ensuring equitable internal distribution of benefits, monitoring 'electric transfers', strengthening regional institutional capacity, and aligning industry development with territorial planning. The authors propose actionable solutions including a regional information observatory, a certification program for advisers, and peer-to-peer learning networks for communities.

The report argues that COP28 failed to uphold human rights and was subject to corporate capture, resulting in insufficient outcomes on fossil fuel phaseouts and the operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund.

The 2024 assessment finds that global goals to end deforestation and forest degradation by 2030 remain out of reach, with 6.37 million hectares of forest permanently lost in 2023. While some progress is noted in countries like Brazil and Indonesia, global pressures from unsustainable production—particularly agriculture and mining—persist. The report highlights a critical gap between 'green' and 'grey' financing, noting that environmentally harmful subsidies far outweigh investments in forest protection. It also emphasizes the ongoing struggle for indigenous land rights and the increasing threat of human-induced forest fires. The document recommends a radical shift in consumption patterns, the reallocation of harmful subsidies, and the implementation of rights-based governance to protect global forest ecosystems.

The 2024 Forest Declaration Assessment finds that the world is off track to meet 2030 forest goals, with 6.37 million hectares of forest permanently lost in 2023. Deforestation is primarily driven by commodity production, including agriculture and mining, with significant demand from industrialized nations like China, the EU, and the U.S. While some progress has been made in forest law enforcement and the establishment of protected areas, the report highlights a massive gap between 'green' and 'gray' finance, noting that environmentally harmful subsidies reach USD 2.6 trillion annually. The assessment emphasizes the critical need for rights-based governance and direct funding for Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ensure sustainable forest management.