Search Climate Insights Directory

The report advocates for the adoption of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in the mining sector to integrate environmental and social considerations into high-level policies, plans, and programs (PPPs). Unlike project-level Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA), SEA provides a broad perspective to manage cumulative effects, balance sectoral interests with other development goals, and improve governance. Through case studies in Namibia, Ghana, Romania, and Mozambique, the report demonstrates that SEA can lead to optimized infrastructure, sustainable mine closures, and better regulation of artisanal and small-scale mining. Key obstacles identified include limited institutional capacity, lack of political will, and insufficient stakeholder awareness. The report recommends that governments prioritize capacity building, inter-ministerial collaboration, and the active involvement of Indigenous and local communities, particularly when managing critical minerals for the energy transition.

The 2024 state of global environmental governance is characterized by a 'polycrisis' of geopolitical tension, climate disasters, and economic instability. While some progress was made in Indigenous Peoples' participation and the establishment of the Cali Fund for biodiversity, major negotiations on plastic pollution and chemicals failed to reach landmarks. Climate finance remains a central point of contention, with the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) of USD 300 billion per year by 2035 falling short of developing countries' expectations. The report highlights a growing trend of environmental litigation at global courts and the persistent challenge of 'siloed' governance, where the three Rio Conventions operate independently despite the interconnected nature of climate, biodiversity, and land degradation.

The document outlines how to apply a human rights-based approach (HRBA) to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), emphasizing the distinction between duty bearers and rights holders. It provides detailed guidance on identifying vulnerable groups—including Indigenous Peoples, women, youth, and environmental human rights defenders—and integrating principles of equity, participation, and access to justice into biodiversity planning, financing, and monitoring. The guide specifically maps the 23 GBF Targets to human rights actions, advocating for the recognition of traditional territories, the implementation of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), and the adoption of gender-responsive policies to ensure that biodiversity conservation does not lead to human rights violations.

Natural Justice's 2024-2028 strategy focuses on empowering African indigenous peoples and local communities to defend their land, resource, and human rights against environmental threats and extractive projects. The organization employs a 'litigation plus' approach, combining strategic legal action with community legal education and advocacy. Key priorities include fighting fossil fuel expansion, securing land tenure, and protecting traditional knowledge, with a specific emphasis on feminist leadership and the decolonization of environmental justice.

The document outlines the identity, history, and biocultural rights of the OvaHerero of Kaokoland, spanning Namibia and Angola. It details their semi-nomadic pastoralist lifestyle, the spiritual significance of their ancestral lands and the Kunene River, and their traditional governance systems based on the principle of Ubuntu. The protocol identifies threats such as land encroachment, cultural erosion due to modernisation, and climate change, while proposing solutions including the recognition of customary land rights and the implementation of Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for developments on their territory.

The briefing highlights the negative environmental and social impacts of critical mineral extraction in Argentina, Indonesia, and Guinea, arguing that the UN Secretary-General's Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals must center the voices of affected communities to avoid 'green extractivism'. It documents issues such as the violation of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) in lithium mining, pollution and labor abuses in nickel downstreaming, and the loss of agricultural land in bauxite mining. The document concludes with recommendations for governments and companies to protect indigenous rights, ensure transparency in GHG emissions, and end the criminalization of environmental defenders.

The report examines the socio-environmental crises and communication barriers in the Amazonian regions of Ecuador, Brazil, and Colombia. It highlights how extractivism, deforestation, and political influence marginalize local voices, particularly those of indigenous and Afro-descendant communities. The document argues that community radio is the most effective tool for amplifying local knowledge and ensuring participation in climate policy, provided that challenges regarding financial sustainability, language diversity, and safety for journalists are addressed.

LandMark is a global platform that maps Indigenous Peoples' and local communities' lands to support land rights advocacy. A 2024 redesign expanded its map coverage to over 30% of the world's land and introduced new analytical tools focusing on biodiversity and climate change mitigation, specifically tracking forest greenhouse gas fluxes and intersections with key biodiversity areas. The platform provides evidence used in legal battles for land recognition in Suriname and the Philippines, and supports national reporting for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

The Living Planet Report 2024 documents a 73% average decline in monitored wildlife populations from 1970 to 2020, with freshwater species suffering the most (85%). The report warns that cumulative pressures from habitat loss, overexploitation, and climate change are pushing ecosystems toward irreversible tipping points, such as the potential collapse of the Amazon rainforest and coral reefs. It argues that current national commitments for biodiversity and climate are insufficient, and calls for a systemic transformation of the global food system (the leading cause of habitat loss), the energy system (the primary driver of climate change), and the financial system (which currently provides almost US$7 trillion annually in nature-negative flows).

The document contends that the Loss and Damage Fund (LDF) adopted at COP28 is insufficient because it treats climate reparations as voluntary donations rather than legal obligations. It argues that the fund's governance excludes frontline communities and indigenous peoples, lacks a human rights framework, and ignores the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. The authors request that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights clarify that UNFCCC decisions do not limit state obligations to provide full reparation to climate victims.

The document argues that the protection of environmental defenders is critical for combating the climate crisis and that the Escazú Agreement provides the necessary legal framework to ensure access to information, public participation, and justice. It highlights the disproportionate risks faced by women and indigenous peoples, and warns that the energy transition must not replicate the extractive and colonial patterns of the fossil fuel industry.

The Global Climate and Health Alliance (GCHA) provides legal and scientific commentary to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, detailing how climate change exacerbates health crises in Latin America and the Caribbean. The document highlights the disproportionate impact of heat, wildfires, air pollution, and vector-borne diseases on vulnerable populations, including indigenous peoples and children. It argues that states have a legal duty under the American Convention on Human Rights and the Paris Agreement to prevent climate-related health harms. The brief recommends a transition away from fossil fuels, the elimination of 'sacrifice zones', and the adoption of sustainable land management to achieve health co-benefits and uphold human rights.

The Global Climate & Health Alliance (GCHA) argues that climate change is a critical threat to public health in Latin America and the Caribbean, exacerbating inequalities and violating human rights. The document details specific health impacts—including heat-related deaths, respiratory issues from wildfires and air pollution, and the spread of vector-borne diseases like dengue—while highlighting the vulnerability of indigenous peoples, children, and the elderly. It asserts that states have legal obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights and the Paris Agreement to prevent climate-related health harms. The GCHA recommends a transition away from fossil fuels, the elimination of 'sacrifice zones,' and the implementation of sustainable land management and urban design to achieve health and climate co-benefits.

Earthjustice argues that the American Convention on Human Rights requires States to implement a just transition to clean energy based on their 'fair share' of historical and current emissions. The brief advocates for the immediate phase-out of fossil fuel extraction and power generation, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, and the mandatory use of comprehensive climate assessments—including scope 3 emissions—for all new energy projects and policies. It emphasizes that human rights obligations may necessitate more ambitious mitigation than those outlined in the Paris Agreement and warns against 'false solutions' like carbon capture and storage.

The report argues that Canada must add over 10 GW of zero-emission capacity annually until 2050 to reach its climate goals. To achieve this, it proposes a 'fast track' permitting process for modest projects using proven technologies, contrasting with an existing track for large-scale or experimental projects. The proposed framework focuses on three pillars: technology (proven, low impact), location (objective, binary criteria), and timeline (fixed limits for each project phase). It emphasizes the central role of municipal and Indigenous governments in granting approvals to ensure social acceptability and the protection of key ecological elements. The document also analyzes the constitutional competencies of federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, and Indigenous authorities to implement these reforms.

The document is a formal statement of opposition to S. 1281, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act. The authors argue that the bill would allow mining claimants to permanently occupy federal lands, construct waste dumps, and build infrastructure without the permits or fair market value payments currently required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). They contend that the bill could be weaponized to block renewable energy projects and would threaten environmental and cultural resources. The coalition suggests that critical mineral needs for the energy transition should instead be met through a circular minerals economy and carefully sited mines with high environmental standards.

The brief provides scientific and legal arguments to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, asserting that the climate emergency constitutes a threat to fundamental human rights. It emphasizes that States have a positive obligation to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available science, specifically the 1.5°C target. The document argues that this duty includes regulating 'Carbon Majors' and avoiding 'false solutions' like carbon offsetting and unproven geoengineering, which may undermine genuine decarbonization. It concludes that failure to take effective, science-based action violates the rights to life, health, and a healthy environment, particularly for marginalized groups and future generations.

The paper examines how strategic assessments can be used to streamline the approval of clean growth projects in Canada, particularly in light of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling on the Impact Assessment Act. It suggests that by shifting the regulatory burden from individual project assessments to broader strategic analyses of policies and systemic issues, Canada can accelerate its energy transition. The author recommends implementing clear triggers, a tiered approach to assessment, and robust outcome tracking, drawing on international examples from the EU and US.

The paper examines how strategic assessments—which analyze policies and systemic issues rather than individual projects—can accelerate Canada's net zero transition. It highlights that while the 2019 Impact Assessment Act provides a framework, the tool remains underused and lacks formalization. By adopting global best practices such as tiering, formal triggers, and outcome monitoring, Canada could more efficiently manage cumulative impacts and share regulatory burdens between strategic and project-level assessments.

Canada needs to add over 10 gigawatts of new zero-emission electricity annually until 2050 to reach net zero. The author argues that current inclusive permitting processes are too slow and complex. They propose a two-track system: one for major or unproven projects and a second, expedited track for proven technologies like wind, solar, and lithium-ion batteries. This fast-track process would rely on binding, objective 'yes/no' criteria focusing on local government support, avoidance of key ecological features, and the mitigation of uncompensated off-site impacts. The paper concludes that all five orders of government (federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, and Indigenous) have the legal authority to implement these reforms, and recommends that municipal and Indigenous governments lead the project decisions for fast-track approvals.