Search Climate Insights Directory

South Africa's Critical Minerals and Metals Strategy aims to maximise the economic value of its vast mineral reserves—including PGMs, manganese, and vanadium—by shifting from raw ore exports to local beneficiation and high-tech manufacturing. The strategy identifies a specific list of high, moderate-to-high, and moderate criticality minerals and proposes six pillars of intervention: geoscience mapping, value addition, R&D, infrastructure/energy security, financial instruments, and regulatory harmonisation. It emphasizes the need to overcome domestic bottlenecks in energy and logistics, foster regional integration within Africa, and navigate geopolitical tensions, particularly China's dominance in the supply chain, to secure a role in the global green energy transition.

The document argues that the increasing use of manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) in consumer and industrial products creates significant risks in the waste stream due to unknown toxicity and difficulties in characterization. It demands that governments and companies implement extended producer responsibility, restrict the transboundary movement of MNM waste, and establish public registries of nano-products, particularly within the European Union, to ensure safe recycling and disposal.

The document argues that manufactured nanomaterials (NM) in waste streams pose risks to health and the environment due to incomplete toxicity understanding. It demands the implementation of extended producer responsibility, restrictions on transboundary movements of NM waste, and the creation of a public registry of nano-products in the EU to ensure transparent quantification of waste flows. Additionally, it advocates for public funding of research into waste prevention and the development of safe recycling and disposal technologies that prevent cross-contamination of secondary materials.

The document analyzes the 'Development Agenda' of the WTO's Doha Work Programme, arguing that while the original 2001 declaration promised to place the interests of developing countries at the heart of trade negotiations, the subsequent July framework shows a shift toward accommodating the policies of developed nations. It examines specific sectors including agriculture, Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA), services, and the 'Singapore issues', while also discussing the contested relationship between trade and environmental agreements.

The statement argues that the World Bank's recent updates to the Inspection Panel's Toolkit are insufficient to modernize the independent accountability mechanism. While welcoming the addition of an advisory role and improved information sharing, the signatories contend that the failure to implement monitoring and dispute resolution functions leaves the Panel deficient compared to other mechanisms. They specifically criticize the reliance on the management-led Grievance Redress Service (GRS) as a substitute for independent dispute resolution and call for the complaint filing deadline to be extended to at least two years after project completion or loan closure.

The document argues that the export of pesticides prohibited or not approved in Europe (EU, Switzerland, and the UK) to parties of the Bamako Convention in Africa and the Central American Agreement constitutes a violation of international law. It asserts that these substances are classified as hazardous waste under the national laws of importing countries and the terms of these regional agreements, thereby breaching the Basel Convention. Furthermore, the text claims that these exports violate international human rights obligations regarding the right to health. The analysis extends to other exporting nations like Canada, China, and Russia, concluding that all Basel Convention parties must immediately prohibit the export of such hazardous chemicals.

The document examines the World Bank's historical reluctance to integrate non-economic factors—specifically governance, civil society, and human rights—into its development mission. It argues that the Bank's adherence to a strict interpretation of its Articles of Agreement leads to an ad hoc approach to governance and a failure to protect civil and political rights. While noting progress in 'mainstreaming' public participation and the creation of the Inspection Panel, the author contends that these efforts are often superficial or undermined by an institutional 'culture of approval' that prioritizes loan volume over project quality.

The document argues that exporting pesticides banned in their country of origin to Africa and Central America violates the Bamako Convention, the Central American Agreement, and the Basel Convention, as these substances are defined as hazardous waste by the importing nations. It asserts that European states and other Basel Convention parties (such as Canada, China, and Russia) are failing their international legal and human rights obligations by allowing this trade, which harms health and ecosystems in low- and middle-income countries.

The document argues that the increasing use of manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) in consumer, industrial, and medical products is leading to their proliferation in waste streams, posing risks to human health and the environment that are not yet fully understood. Signatories demand that governments and companies implement extended producer responsibility, restrict the transboundary movement of MNM waste, and establish a public registry of nano-products in Europe to ensure transparency. The statement also advocates for the development of safe recycling technologies and the integration of waste prevention into publicly funded nanotechnology research to support a safe circular economy.

The Declaration on Waste Containing Nanomaterials argues that the increasing presence of manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) in waste streams poses risks to human health and the environment due to uncertainties regarding their toxicity. The signatories call for the implementation of full producer responsibility, the restriction of transboundary waste movements, and the creation of an EU-wide public nano-product registry to ensure transparent quantification of waste flows. They further advocate for innovation in waste prevention, the development of safe recycling and disposal technologies, and the establishment of verifiable end-of-waste criteria to support a circular economy without introducing new environmental risks.

The document catalogues alleged human rights implications across numerous international projects in sectors such as mining, energy, and forestry. It organizes these cases by the specific right implicated, including the rights to adequate food, housing, health, and life, as well as freedoms from forced labor and torture. The case studies highlight recurring issues such as forced resettlement, environmental contamination of water and land, the use of military force to suppress protests, and inadequate compensation for displaced populations.

The report argues that pesticides banned in their country of manufacture are classified as 'hazardous wastes' under the Bamako Convention and the Central American Agreement. Because many importing nations in Africa and Central America have monist legal systems or specific domestic laws incorporating these definitions, the report concludes that exporting such substances from Basel Convention parties (including the EU, UK, and Switzerland) violates the Basel Convention, international customary law, and the extraterritorial human rights obligation to protect the right to health.

The report presents the 2024 South African F-List, detailing 42 contracts between local agencies and fossil fuel clients, and highlights the reputational risks of such partnerships. It critiques the role of PR in masking the environmental and health impacts of companies like Sasol and TotalEnergies, while calling for industry awards like The Loeries to stop rewarding fossil fuel advertising.

The Global Climate and Health Alliance and various health leaders argue that a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels is essential to prevent overwhelming health consequences and to achieve the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement. They highlight that air pollution from fossil fuels causes 7 million premature deaths annually and cost the global economy over US$8.1 trillion in 2019. The letter calls for a just energy transition that prioritizes marginalized communities, the redirection of fossil fuel subsidies toward clean energy, and the exclusion of fossil fuel industry lobbyists from climate negotiations.

The document details the third pillar of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, focusing on a global just transition. It advocates for decentralized, people-centered renewable energy systems and the economic diversification of fossil-fuel-dependent nations. The text emphasizes that a successful transition requires wealthy nations to provide financial support and a 'fair share' of effort, while rejecting 'dangerous distractions' like carbon offsets and geoengineering. It calls for a fundamental shift from GDP-driven growth to 'well-being economies' to address the systemic root causes of the climate crisis.

The document argues that expanding fossil gas production in Africa is a 'fallacy' that risks creating stranded assets, increasing national debt, and exacerbating climate vulnerability. It highlights that gas reserves are concentrated in a few nations, meaning expansion will not benefit the continent broadly. Furthermore, it asserts that fossil gas infrastructure often involves high foreign ownership and poor contractual terms, pulling wealth out of Africa. The report contrasts this with the potential of renewables, noting that Africa possesses vast solar and wind resources that could provide cheaper, more accessible energy and more sustainable jobs. Environmental risks cited include the destruction of biodiversity hotspots, such as mangroves and coral reefs, and the health impacts of gas flaring and fracking. The briefing concludes that Africa should leapfrog extractive energy systems in favor of a clean, distributed energy future supported by international climate finance.

The document argues that community forest management (CFM) is a more effective strategy for forest conservation and poverty reduction than industrial logging or strict state protection. It identifies seven key rights—state obligations, self-determination, consultation, territorial rights, livelihoods and economic development, women's rights, and cultural/traditional knowledge—and maps these against international legal frameworks to provide a tool for advocates to pressure governments for the legal recognition of community-led forestry.

The report argues that while state and private ownership still dominate global forests, community forest management (CFM) is a more effective strategy for forest conservation, poverty reduction, and climate mitigation. It identifies a set of key rights—including territorial, consultation, and cultural rights—that underpin successful CFM and maps these against 17 international agreements, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and UNDRIP. The document concludes that while no single agreement mandates the creation of community forests, the collective weight of these international norms provides a strong legal and moral basis for states to devolve forest authority to local communities.

The document critiques the 'new' Green Revolution in Africa, which it describes as a corporate takeover driven by multinational agribusinesses and philanthropic foundations. It highlights the risks of genetically modified (GM) crops and synthetic fertilisers, contrasting these with the benefits of agroecology. The report argues that small-scale farmers, who produce 80% of the food consumed in Africa, are the key to food security and should be supported through policy reforms that prioritise public goods and ecological sustainability over private corporate profit.

The document argues that community forest management (CFM) is a highly effective strategy for forest conservation and poverty reduction, yet it remains under-supported by governments. It identifies seven key rights—state obligations, self-determination, consultation, territorial rights, livelihoods/economic development, women's rights, and cultural/traditional knowledge—and maps these against international legal frameworks to provide advocates with tools to pressure governments for the legal recognition of community-led forestry.