Search Climate Insights Directory

Recourse calls on Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) at COP28 to end all financing for fossil fuels, prioritize grant and concessional finance over private-sector profit, and center local communities and human rights in energy investments. The organization also argues that the World Bank is an unsuitable host for the Loss and Damage Fund and demands an independent hosting mechanism accountable to the UNFCCC.

CIEL condemns the use of force against peaceful protesters in Panama who are opposing metallic mining and a copper mine concession. The organization calls for the protection of human rights and the full implementation of the Escazú Agreement's guarantees for environmental information, participation, and justice. Additionally, CIEL recommends postponing public forums for the Fourth Electric Transmission Line project due to ongoing public disorder.

The document analyzes how New York and California are reforming their permitting processes to overcome delays in clean energy deployment, highlighting the use of 'one-stop shops', legal deadlines, and community benefit agreements. While these reforms aim to improve financial viability and public support, the study identifies risks such as imprecise legal language, potential infringement on Indigenous rights, and persistent bottlenecks in grid interconnection that require federal intervention.

The document analyzes how New York and California are reforming permitting processes to overcome delays in clean energy deployment. Key measures include creating 'one-stop shop' agencies, setting statutory time limits for approvals, and mandating community benefit agreements to reduce local opposition. While New York has seen project approval timelines drop from five-ten years to under two years, challenges remain regarding administrative capacity, Indigenous rights, and the failure of state reforms to address the critical backlog of grid interconnections, which remains a federal jurisdiction.

The Stockholm Environment Institute warns that the EU Critical Raw Materials Act may exacerbate human rights breaches and 'green colonialism' in the Sámi homeland. While welcoming the inclusion of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and FPIC in the draft, the authors argue these are insufficient due to gaps in national legislation in Sweden and Finland, the potential for weak certification schemes, and the lack of resources for Sámi communities to engage with fast-tracked licensing. They propose an EU-level oversight mechanism, stricter certification standards requiring FPIC, and a funding mechanism to support affected rights-holders.

The document argues that current impact assessment processes in Sweden and Finland fail to account for the cumulative effects of industrial land use, leading to violations of Sámi Indigenous rights. It emphasizes the necessity of treating Indigenous peoples as rights-holders rather than stakeholders and advocates for the implementation of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) supported by robust cumulative impact data to ensure a just green transition.

The report finds that most National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) fail to meaningfully engage Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and local communities (LCs) or secure their land tenure and rights. While traditional knowledge is more frequently recognized, there is a critical absence of safeguards to prevent human rights violations during conservation efforts. The assessment recommends a rights-based approach that treats IPs and LCs as full and equal partners, ensures direct access to finance, and enshrines legal safeguards and land tenure security within national biodiversity strategies.

The document examines the intersection of South Africa's renewable energy goals and indigenous land rights, focusing on the Boegoebaai site in the Northern Cape. It highlights how the failure to resolve historical land dispossessions and finalize restitution claims for the Richtersveld community risks further alienating indigenous populations during the energy transition. The brief advocates for moving beyond narrow definitions of 'justice'—which currently focus on employment and BBBEE—toward a framework that recognizes indigenous land sovereignty and implements inclusive partnership models.

The report identifies eight enabling factors to improve social acceptance of wind energy projects in La Guajira, Colombia, where high social conflict has led to project delays and suspensions. It emphasizes the need for transparent information, regulated community advisors, recognition of ancestral Wayuu leadership, and standardized benefit distribution to ensure a just energy transition.

The report examines the social and environmental risks associated with the surge in demand for transition minerals like nickel, lithium, and cobalt. It criticizes current IFI approaches, such as the World Bank's 'climate-smart mining,' for treating environmental and social governance (ESG) as commercial risks rather than human rights imperatives. Through case studies in Indonesia, Guinea, Argentina, and the DRC, the document illustrates harms including forced evictions, water scarcity, and corruption. It proposes solutions centered on reducing mineral demand through circular economy models, implementing binding due diligence, and supporting mineral sovereignty for resource-rich countries in the Global South.

The Center for International Environmental Law asserts that geoengineering technologies, including solar radiation modification and carbon dioxide removal, are unproven, unfeasible at scale, and violate human rights obligations. The organization warns that these technologies are being used as excuses to avoid phasing out fossil fuels and notes that unregulated experiments often occur on Indigenous Peoples' territories without consent. It advocates for a rapid, fair fossil fuel phase-out and the adoption of a global binding instrument via the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative to limit global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The authors provide a classification of land-based mitigation technologies and practices (LMTs), identifying afforestation, reforestation, and forest management as having high potential worldwide. While bioenergy with carbon capture and storage and biochar are more viable in higher-income countries due to funding and technology, the broader deployment of LMTs is hindered by insufficient financing and limited implementation knowledge. The text emphasizes that large-scale deployment must account for gender and the rights of Indigenous Peoples and marginalised groups to avoid increasing inequalities.

Indonesian and international CSOs are calling on global fashion brands to phase out both fossil fuels and biomass energy, arguing that biomass is a 'false solution' that drives deforestation and violates human rights. The letter highlights that brands like H&M, Puma, Adidas, and Inditex are promoting biomass in Southeast Asia despite its high emissions and negative impacts on biodiversity and local communities. The authors argue that woody biomass can generate more CO2 per kilowatt hour than coal and risk the loss of over 2 million hectares of natural forest in Indonesia.

Indonesian NGOs and international think tanks are calling on global fashion brands to stop using biomass as a 'low carbon' alternative to fossil fuels. They argue that biomass leads to deforestation, violates indigenous rights, and produces high emissions, specifically citing the risks to the Leuser ecosystem and the flaws in carbon accounting used by the Indonesian government and companies like H&M, Puma, Adidas, and Inditex.

The report identifies critical methodological failures in Verra's REDD+ carbon credit system, specifically regarding overestimated baselines, underestimated leakages, inflated carbon accounting, and ignored permanence risks. It concludes that these credits do not represent real emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions, recommending a shift from 'offsetting' to 'contribution' funding for forest conservation.

The report identifies critical methodological failures in REDD+ forestry projects certified by Verra, specifically regarding baselines, leakage, carbon accounting, permanence, and safeguards. It argues that project developers exploit methodological flexibility to inflate emission reductions, resulting in low-quality carbon credits that do not represent real climate benefits. The document concludes that REDD+ credits are not equivalent to emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions.

The report identifies systemic failures in Verra's REDD+ methodologies, specifically regarding baseline inflation, underestimated leakage, exaggerated carbon accounting, and underestimated reversal risks. It argues that these flaws allow project developers to maximize credit issuance through 'convenience' selections rather than scientific accuracy. The document concludes that REDD+ credits do not represent real emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions, recommending a shift toward 'contribution' claims and stricter, independent oversight.

The report finds that REDD+ projects under Verra's methodologies systematically over-credit their climate benefits due to inflated baselines, underestimated leakage, and exaggerated forest carbon stocks. It further argues that social safeguards are often treated as a 'check-box activity,' failing to protect vulnerable forest communities from displacement and rights violations. The authors conclude that REDD+ is ill-suited for generating carbon offsets and recommend a shift toward a contributions-based approach and rights-based safeguards.

The report examines the legal and social conflicts surrounding Shell South Africa's attempt to conduct seismic surveys off the Wild Coast. It identifies critical gaps between the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) and the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), arguing that the 'One Environmental System' created regulatory obscurity. Fieldwork reveals that Shell's consultation process was inadequate, relying on a top-down approach via traditional leaders while excluding fishing communities and ignoring indigenous customs. The document also highlights potential conflicts of interest between the ruling ANC party, its investment arm Thebe Investment Corporation, and Shell, noting that the Makhanda High Court ultimately ruled the exploration right unlawful due to a lack of meaningful consultation.

The report documents violence by joint security forces (Polri, TNI, Satpol PP, and BP Batam) against residents of Pulau Rempang during land marking activities for the Rempang Eco-city project. It identifies excessive use of force, including tear gas fired near schools, arbitrary arrests, and the creation of a climate of fear through military-style checkpoints. The authors argue that the project, designated as a National Strategic Project (PSN), prioritizes capital interests over the rights of indigenous Malay communities, leading to systemic human rights violations.