Search Climate Insights Directory

The author examines the intersection of communication rights, human rights, and climate justice, arguing that 'communication poverty' prevents vulnerable populations from influencing climate policy. The text details how climate change disproportionately affects the Global South and racialized communities, often exacerbating existing systemic inequalities. It explores various frameworks of climate justice—including historical, per capita, and rights-based approaches—and highlights the role of the grassroots climate justice movement in challenging elite, market-based solutions. The document emphasizes that for Indigenous and marginalized groups to achieve 'parity of participation,' they must have access to media platforms and the ability to develop their own narratives to challenge dominant stereotypes and influence global decision-making processes.

Carbon Market Watch advocates for a dual approach to carbon market activism, combining the exposure of 'brazen greenwashing'—such as 'carbon-neutral fossil fuels'—with active participation in governance bodies like the TSVCM and VCMI to ensure human rights and accounting integrity.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation pledge as a rebranding of failed initiatives like REDD+, asserting that it facilitates corporate greenwashing through carbon credits and offsets. The statement highlights the hypocrisy of signatory nations, citing the EU-Mercosur agreement's impact on the Amazon and the lack of binding regulations to protect Indigenous Peoples' rights and stop industrial agriculture and extractive industries.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation pledge as a 'greenwashing' effort similar to failed REDD+ initiatives. The organization contends that the reliance on carbon offsets and private financing—exemplified by the UK's funding of the LEAF coalition—enables corporations like Amazon and Unilever to continue emitting while risking land grabs in the Global South. The statement highlights contradictions, such as the EU-MERCOSUR trade agreement's impact on the Amazon and Brazil's treatment of indigenous peoples, and calls for binding human rights instruments and immediate emission cuts over market-based sinks.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the COP26 deforestation promise as a 'relooking' of failed initiatives like REDD+, claiming it facilitates corporate carbon offsetting rather than actual emission reductions. The statement highlights the hypocrisy of signatory nations, citing the EU-Mercosur trade agreement and Brazil's treatment of indigenous peoples, and calls for binding regulations and direct climate finance instead of market-based mechanisms.

ClientEarth evaluates the Environment Act 2021, noting that as a framework law, its success depends on future targets and rules. The organization criticizes the Act for failing to align air quality targets with WHO guidelines and for creating a loophole in deforestation laws by only restricting commodities produced illegally under local laws, which may fail to protect the Amazon rainforest.

The document outlines the role of major soy traders in driving deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado, critiquing current sustainability policies and certification schemes as insufficient. It recommends that financial institutions make financing contingent on traders adopting a January 2020 cut-off date, full traceability, and robust monitoring, with a timeline for suspending or ceasing services for non-compliance by 2023 and 2024.

The Center for International Environmental Law asserts that COP26 faces a critical 'ambition gap' and warns against 'false solutions' such as net-zero targets and carbon capture that distract from the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels. The statement emphasizes that legitimate outcomes require equitable participation, particularly for low-income countries and Indigenous Peoples, and calls for developed nations to fulfill their $100 billion annual climate finance promise. It specifically critiques the UK's leadership for continuing North Sea oil leasing while promoting global climate action. The document advocates for a rights-based approach to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to prevent land-grabs and double-counting of emissions, and demands the establishment of a dedicated loss and damage finance facility to support the most vulnerable communities.

The document critiques the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change and the 'A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy' plan for failing to engage Indigenous peoples beyond tokenism. It asserts that these policies entrench settler colonial relations and exclude Indigenous rights holders from decision-making processes. The author emphasizes that meaningful climate action requires repairing relationships with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people, respecting generational knowledge, and shifting toward Indigenous-led policy initiatives.

The document introduces Indigenomics as a model for economic development that centres Indigenous rights, knowledge, and stewardship. It argues that a successful low-carbon transition in Canada requires economic reconciliation and the integration of Indigenous worldviews, which are described as the original 'green' and 'circular' economies. The author highlights several Indigenous-led initiatives, including the Great Bear Forest Carbon Project and the Indigenous Guardians Program, as evidence of leadership in climate action and environmental justice.

The guide argues that impactful visual narratives for the climate crisis require a depth of vision that integrates environmental, cultural, and spiritual perspectives. It advocates for imagery that moves beyond aesthetics to promote ecological preservation, territorial recovery, and indigenous rights, contrasting a sociocultural view of territory with an extractivist or economic-centric approach.

The document critiques the negotiations surrounding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, specifically the market-based approaches in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.4. It argues that these mechanisms allow developed nations to avoid direct emission reductions and fail to provide necessary public finance to the global South. The author highlights risks such as double counting, lack of environmental integrity, and human rights abuses, including land grabbing and displacement of Indigenous Peoples. Friends of the Earth International advocates for the rejection of carbon markets in favor of non-market approaches (Article 6.8) and direct, grant-based public finance from Northern governments to Southern countries.

The document critiques the negotiations surrounding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, specifically the market-based approaches of Articles 6.2 and 6.4. It argues that carbon markets are incompatible with the 1.5°C goal and serve as a tool for developed nations and fossil fuel companies to avoid direct emission reductions. The author highlights technical risks such as double counting and the lack of a legal mandate for demand, while advocating for non-market approaches under Article 6.8 and direct public climate finance from the Global North to the Global South.

The document critiques the carbon market mechanisms being negotiated under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, specifically Articles 6.2, 6.4, and 6.8. It argues that these markets allow developed countries and fossil fuel companies to avoid direct emission reductions through offsetting, which the author claims is incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The briefing highlights technical concerns such as double counting and the lack of a legally binding demand for carbon credits, while emphasizing the risks to Indigenous peoples and local communities, including land grabbing and forced displacement. It calls for a shift toward non-market approaches and the fulfillment of public climate finance obligations by the Global North.

The report concludes that while the Paris Agreement has confirmed the role of forests in the international climate agenda, global efforts remain insufficient to stop deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. It argues that current economic systems, driven by infinite production and consumption, contradict climate goals. To address this, the report proposes six core strategies: strengthening land governance, securing indigenous and local community rights, aligning fiscal incentives with mitigation, promoting multi-stakeholder collaboration, ensuring reliable forest monitoring, and implementing demand-side measures in importing countries.

The document examines how the W8banaki Nation integrates traditional knowledge with science to adapt to climate change in the Ndakina territory. It highlights three projects: the conservation of the lake sturgeon, the management of medicinal plants and invasive species, and the assessment of riverbank erosion. The study argues that successful adaptation requires 'bottom-up' planning, flexible and stable funding, and the active involvement of knowledge holders to ensure cultural continuity and territorial integrity.

Earthjustice calls for the conservation of all mature and old-growth trees within the U.S. National Forest System and Bureau of Land Management lands. The organization argues that protecting these carbon sinks is a cost-effective climate solution, essential for meeting Paris Agreement commitments, and vital for preserving Indigenous cultural heritage and endangered species habitats.

The mid-term evaluation of the GEF6-PdP project indicates a satisfactory overall performance, with significant achievements in operationalizing the wider Patrimonio Natural del Perú (PdP) Initiative and strengthening institutional capacities within SERNANP. The project has successfully signed a Single Close Agreement (MoU) and identified seven key financial mechanisms to diversify revenue streams. However, the evaluation highlights critical gaps in inter-sectoral coordination, the lack of a formal participation strategy for local and indigenous communities, and delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. While institutional ownership is high, the project's sustainability is threatened by political instability and a lack of a national sustainable financing policy. The evaluation recommends prioritizing the update of SERNANP's Strategic Plan and developing a more robust, participatory methodology for stakeholder engagement.

The document is an open letter to the UK Prime Minister calling for amendments to the Environment Bill to ensure UK supply chains and finance are not complicit in any form of deforestation, regardless of legality in producer countries. The authors argue that the UK must protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and set a global environmental footprint target by 2030 to support the 1.5°C climate target and protect the Amazon biome.

The document advocates for the inclusion of human rights protections in the EU's upcoming legislation on forest and ecosystem-risk commodities (FERCs). It argues that deforestation is intrinsically linked to human rights abuses, particularly against Indigenous Peoples, and that protecting these rights is essential for effective forest conservation. The briefing proposes a product-based due diligence framework with a 'negligible risk' threshold, mandatory investigation of land tenure and free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), and rights of redress before EU courts. To demonstrate feasibility, it provides case studies of Brazilian beef supply chains involving JBS and Marfrig, showing that human rights risks can be identified using publicly available digital information.