Search Climate Insights Directory

The document emphasizes that adopting a human rights approach to climate action is essential for protecting those on the frontlines of climate impacts, including indigenous peoples and local communities. It traces the progressive recognition of human rights within the UNFCCC, from the 2010 Cancun Agreements to the 2015 Paris Agreement, and highlights the role of updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in promoting public participation. For the SB50 negotiations, it specifically identifies the need for social and environmental safeguards in Article 6 mechanisms to avoid the rights infringements seen under the Clean Development Mechanism, and notes the importance of reviewing the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage and the Gender Action Plan.

The report examines the evolving relationship between human rights and the international climate regime, specifically the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. It identifies a trend of increasing explicit and implicit references to human rights in COP decisions, though it notes these are often disproportionately linked to adaptation rather than mitigation. The document details how procedural rights, the rights of indigenous peoples, gender equality, and the right to food are being integrated into climate policy. It also reviews national-level implementation through Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and national communications, finding that while many countries reference human rights, there is a lack of harmonized guidance. The report argues that a rights-based approach is essential to increase climate ambition and protect vulnerable populations from both climate impacts and poorly designed climate responses.

The document serves as an information guide for citizens, lawyers, and NGOs on how to challenge environmental decisions and actions in Poland. It details the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention—access to information, public participation, and access to justice—and explains how these are implemented through Polish law and EU directives. It outlines specific procedures for appealing decisions on environmental information, challenging permits requiring public participation, and seeking liability for environmental damage through administrative, civil, and criminal courts. Additionally, it describes external legal avenues, including the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, and the European Court of Human Rights.

The document outlines the legal mechanisms available to the public and NGOs to ensure environmental law enforcement in France. It details the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention—access to information, public participation, and access to justice—and explains how these are transposed into EU directives (EIA, IED, ELD). The guide provides practical instructions on French national procedures, such as appeals to the CADA and administrative courts, while highlighting systemic barriers like prohibitive costs and long judicial delays. It also covers supra-national recourse options via the CJEU, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, and the European Court of Human Rights.

ClientEarth warns that the Governance Regulation (GR) may allow EU Member States to bypass meaningful public participation during the initial drafting of National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs). The briefing argues that waiting until after the first draft is submitted to the European Commission risks ignoring the interests of citizens and renewable energy developers in favor of fossil fuel operators. It highlights potential legal breaches of the Aarhus Convention and the SEA Directive, noting that some countries, such as Romania, have provided insufficient consultation windows (seven days). ClientEarth calls for a minimum eight-week consultation period before the first draft submission to ensure all policy options remain open.

The report details the efforts and challenges of integrating human rights into the COP-24 outcomes, noting that while procedural participation in NDC planning was strengthened, substantive human rights references were often diluted or removed from final texts. It also documents the restriction of civil liberties by the Polish government during the conference and highlights specific policy areas, such as the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform and the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss & Damage, where human rights frameworks were maintained or advanced.

The document argues that public participation is essential for the effective implementation of climate action, citing IPCC findings that stakeholder engagement increases the likelihood of success. It outlines specific entry points for enhancing procedural rights within the Paris Agreement's framework, including Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), Adaptation Communications, the Transparency Framework, the Global Stocktake, and Article 6 mechanisms. It also emphasizes the need for an independent grievance redress mechanism for the Sustainable Development Mechanism and the operationalization of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform to ensure indigenous voices are reflected in the UNFCCC process.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and allied environmental groups are calling for the urgent withdrawal of an amendment to the List of Activities published on 31 October 2018. The amendment doubles the permissible sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions for existing solid-fuel combustion installations, such as Eskom's coal-fired power stations and Sasol's coal boilers, from 500mg/Nm3 to 1000mg/Nm3. The CER argues that this change was made without public consultation, violating the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 and the National Environmental Management Act's requirements for transparency and public participation. The group has set a deadline of 10 December 2018 for the withdrawal of the provision, threatening High Court litigation if the request is not met.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several environmental and community organisations, sent a letter to the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) on 19 November 2018. The letter demands that NERSA conduct a formal public participation process regarding the draft Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity 2018 (draft IRP 2018), arguing that NERSA is legally required to do so before concurring with the Minister of Energy.

The submission by Alburnus Maior, ICDER, and Greenpeace Romania contends that Gabriel Resources Ltd. failed to conduct adequate due diligence on the feasibility of its gold mining project in Roșia Montană and ignored the rights of local communities. The authors argue the company violated the right to adequate housing through coercive land acquisition and failed to obtain necessary urban, archaeological, and environmental permits required by Romanian and EU law. They further claim the company attempted to bypass these legal requirements through a proposed 'special law' and engaged in misconduct to silence critics. Consequently, the submission argues the tribunal lacks jurisdiction under the Achmea precedent regarding EU law and that the company's unlawful conduct disqualifies its investment from protection under the Canada-Romania BIT.

The Defenders in Development Campaign urges states and development finance institutions (DFIs) to integrate human rights protections into development projects, noting that defenders of land and environmental rights face extreme risks of violence and criminalization.

The document emphasizes that National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) are essential tools for EU Member States to transition to net-zero emission societies and meet Paris Agreement commitments. It argues that for these plans to be successful, they must exceed minimum EU ambition levels and be developed through active, multi-stakeholder dialogue involving civil society, academia, and the general public. The author notes a significant lack of transparency and timeliness in the submission of draft plans, with only Sweden having published its draft by August 2018, warning that many other states may treat the process as a "check-the-box" exercise to meet the December 2018 deadline.

The Escazú Agreement is a legally binding regional agreement for Latin America and the Caribbean that codifies access rights to information, participation, and justice in environmental matters. It is the first such instrument to mandate that States protect environmental and human rights defenders from retaliation. The author argues that immediate ratification is urgent due to the rising number of attacks on defenders in the region.

CIEL argues that IDB Invest's Access to Information Policy must be rooted in democratic principles and international law to protect affected communities and environmental defenders. Key recommendations include eliminating fees for information requests, extending the disclosure window for environmental and social documents to 120 days before Board approval, and ensuring the policy aligns with the Escazú Agreement. CIEL also emphasizes the need for robust protections for indigenous peoples' free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) and the safety of environmental human rights defenders in the region.

The document provides specific wording suggestions to ensure that the Paris Agreement's rights-based vision is reflected in the guidelines for Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the Transparency Framework, the Global Stocktake, and Article 6 mechanisms. It emphasizes that these guidelines should promote the integration of human rights, gender equality, and indigenous rights without creating new obligations for Parties or new conditionalities for climate finance.

The 2018 Talanoa Dialogue, facilitated by the Fijian and Polish presidencies, aims to raise climate ambition by taking stock of progress toward the Paris Agreement and informing 2020 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The process uses a non-adversarial, story-based methodology to foster consensus. NHRIs and civil society are encouraged to provide actionable, positive inputs that link climate action to human rights, including gender equality, indigenous peoples' rights, and just transitions. The dialogue consists of preparatory phases (online submissions and in-session dialogues) and a final political phase at COP-24 in Katowice, Poland.

The report concludes that RCEP negotiations have failed transparency and public participation tests, operating largely in secret while granting privileged access to business lobby groups. It examines the specific failures of participating nations—including Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, China, Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia—highlighting the exclusion of parliaments and civil society. The document warns that this secrecy facilitates corporate influence over intellectual property, investment rules, and public services, and recommends a shift toward a democratic, participatory policy-making process.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, on behalf of the Life After Coal/Impilo Ngaphandle Kwamalahle Campaign, supports the elimination of 'rolling postponements' for emission standards but argues that the draft legislation lacks sufficient safeguards. The submission recommends that postponement applications be contingent on ambient air quality compliance, require full public disclosure of decommissioning schedules, and mandate stricter emission standards for facilities seeking once-off suspensions, particularly in air quality priority areas.

The report details a consultation process led by the Cameroon Climate Change Working Group under the African Climate Legislation Initiative to identify priority areas for climate legislation. Participants identified land use and farming as the most critical sectors for regulatory intervention and highlighted corruption and limited public participation as primary barriers to successful law implementation. As a result, the Legal Response Initiative provided a legal opinion on improving the delivery of rainfall forecasts to farmers, suggesting revisions to Decree No. 2005/118 regarding the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

ClientEarth and the European Environmental Bureau are calling on EU Environment Ministers to push the Commission to revise the Aarhus Regulation. This follows a 2017 finding by the Aarhus Convention's Compliance Committee that the EU is in non-compliance because environmental NGOs have virtually no access to the Court of Justice of the EU to challenge EU institutional acts and omissions, except in cases involving access to documents.