Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines the denial of amicus curiae status to CIEL and the Sociedad Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera Puerto Chale in the ICSID case UNCT/20/1, which concerns the Don Diego deep-sea mining project in Mexico. The author argues that the tribunal's majority decision ignored significant public interests, including environmental risks to the Gulf of Ulloa and the human rights of local fishers. By relying on discretionary power rather than an obligation to recognize public interest, the report contends that the tribunal undermined the legitimacy of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system and failed to integrate international environmental and human rights law into the proceedings.

The document analyzes the denial of third-party participation in the Odyssey v. Mexico case, arguing that the tribunal's discretionary power to exclude affected communities undermines the legitimacy of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system and ignores critical environmental and human rights considerations.

This document introduces a legal overview designed to inform the development of a new global instrument to address the plastics crisis. It notes that 10 formal propositions were submitted between 2017 and 2020 and that negotiations were set to begin at the United Nations Environmental Assembly (UNEA5.2) in February 2022. The report analyzes the typology of international legal instruments, with a focus on Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), to help negotiators determine the appropriate structure and type of agreement.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has increased its focus on climate change in State reviews, shifting from a primary focus on developing nations to a balanced approach including developed countries. Key areas of concern include adaptation, child participation, and a growing emphasis on mitigation obligations, specifically targeting fossil fuel subsidies and emissions in the transport and aviation sectors. The CRC is also increasingly scrutinizing the role of financial institutions in funding fossil fuels. Legally, the CRC established in the Sacchi et al. v. Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey case that it has jurisdiction over transboundary harm if a causal link exists between a State's emissions and the impairment of children's rights abroad, although the specific claim was dismissed on procedural grounds for failing to exhaust domestic remedies.

The CESCR referenced climate change in 81% of its state reporting outputs in 2020 and 2021, focusing on mitigation policies, extractive activities, climate finance, and adaptation measures. The Committee specifically urged developed states to increase the ambition of their emissions targets and questioned the compatibility of continued fossil fuel use with human rights obligations. Additionally, the CESCR addressed the 'right to science' in General Comment No. 25 and developed a draft General Comment on Land, emphasizing the nexus between land rights and the climate emergency.

The report analyzes the 2020-2021 outputs of seven UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies (HRTBs), noting a significant increase in climate-related references despite COVID-19 disruptions. It highlights a shift toward questioning developed nations on mitigation and fossil fuel extraction, alongside a consistent focus on adaptation and the participation of vulnerable groups. The document also examines key individual communications, such as Teitiota v. New Zealand and Sacchi et al. v. Argentina et al., which establish precedents for climate-induced human rights violations and extraterritorial jurisdiction.

The Human Rights Committee (CCPR) has increased its focus on climate change, issuing more recommendations and questions to states between 2019 and 2021. While early outputs primarily targeted Small Island Developing States and developing countries, the Committee has expanded its scope to include developed nations like Germany and Canada. Key areas of inquiry include mitigation, adaptation, procedural rights, and the regulation of private actors, with specific concerns raised regarding fossil fuel extraction in Guyana, Tanzania, and São Tomé and Príncipe. In the case of Teitiota v. New Zealand, the CCPR recognized that climate change could trigger non-refoulment obligations if it creates real threats to the right to life, though it found no breach in that specific instance. Additionally, the Pereira Benega v. Paraguay ruling established a precedent for state obligations to prevent environmental threats to private, family, and cultural life.

The report exposes the agricultural sector as a major user of intentionally added microplastics through plastic-coated agrochemicals. It argues that these products directly pollute soils and food chains, acting as vectors for toxins while potentially increasing the toxicity of the active ingredients. The document challenges industry claims of 'climate-smart' efficiency and calls for a comprehensive global ban on primary microplastics in agriculture.

The Center for International Environmental Law argues that COP26 failed to address the root causes of the climate crisis, specifically fossil fuels, and instead relied on 'false solutions' like carbon offsets. The statement highlights the exclusion of civil society and Indigenous Peoples from negotiations, the inadequacy of climate finance for adaptation and loss and damage, and the persistence of 'greenwashing' by corporate interests. While noting some progress in marginal alliances like the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance, the author concludes that the official negotiated outcomes lack the ambition and equity required to keep global warming below 1.5°C.

The document compares the Rwanda-Peru (RP) and Japan (JP) draft resolutions for UNEA 5.2, highlighting that while both seek a global legally binding instrument and an intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC), they differ significantly in scope and mandate. The RP resolution adopts a broad 'plastic pollution' scope across all environments using a full lifecycle approach (upstream production to downstream waste), whereas the JP resolution focuses specifically on 'marine plastic pollution' with a stronger emphasis on downstream interventions and a goal to reduce additional marine plastic pollution to zero by 2050. Additionally, the RP resolution proposes an 'open mandate' for the INC and a stronger institutional framework, including a financial mechanism and a scientific and socio-economic body, which are absent or more limited in the JP draft.

The briefing argues that the Komstroy ruling effectively bars investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) between EU investors and Member States under the ECT, creating significant legal obstacles to the enforcement of awards and potentially allowing EU State aid law to block compensation payments.

The document provides a comprehensive set of recommendations for the design and operation of Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs) within financial institutions. It argues that effective IAMs must have a dual mandate of preventing harm and ensuring remedy for affected people and the environment, while fostering institutional learning. The guide details essential structural requirements for independence—such as direct reporting lines to the Board and restrictions on 'revolving door' employment—and outlines best practices for information disclosure, outreach, and the handling of complaints. It specifically analyzes three core functions: Compliance Review, which investigates policy violations to recommend remediation; Dispute Resolution, which facilitates voluntary, party-driven solutions; and Advisory, which uses systemic trends to improve institutional performance. The authors emphasize the need for low barriers to entry for complainants, protection against retaliation, and the requirement for management to implement remedial action plans.

The document argues that the rapid growth of chemical production, which nearly doubled between 2000 and 2017, necessitates more robust international governance to protect human health and the environment. It identifies four primary challenges: the delayed onset of harm, the ability of chemicals to travel through air and water, their ubiquity in the environment, and information asymmetry between manufacturers and consumers. To address these, the author proposes a governance framework based on ten pillars divided into three stages: chemicals control before market entry (making determinations, accessing information, issuing bans, and restricting use), management during manufacture and use (disseminating information, meeting treaty obligations, monitoring exposure, and ensuring safety), and end-of-life management (preventing new toxic waste and cleaning legacy pollution). The document emphasizes that effective governance requires dedicated government institutions with adequate resourcing.

The briefing highlights a growing trade in natural gas liquids (NGLs), specifically ethane and propane, from US fracking basins to European petrochemical plants. It contends that because several European countries have banned fracking, the reliance on US imports creates a loophole where emissions are outsourced. The author urges the European Commission to ensure the EU Methane Regulation covers the entire supply chain and includes petrochemical feedstocks to avoid undermining emissions reductions and health policies.

The document examines the growth of the transatlantic trade in natural gas liquids (NGLs), specifically ethane and propane, from the US to Europe. It contends that this trade allows European plastics producers to bypass domestic fracking bans and climate regulations, effectively offshoring the high greenhouse gas emissions associated with extraction and transport. The author calls for the EU to expand its Methane Regulation, Emissions Trading System (ETS), and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to cover the full petrochemical supply chain and imports.

The report criticizes the COP26 Presidency and UNFCCC Secretariat for restricting observer access to negotiating areas, which the author claims undermines the monitoring of key discussions on finance, loss and damage, and Article 6, and risks the adoption of 'false solutions' due to the exclusion of frontline voices.

The document asserts that plastic is fundamentally carbon and cannot be part of a climate solution, as its production and incineration are projected to consume up to 13% of the global carbon budget for a 1.5°C limit. It systematically refutes five industry claims regarding emissions-free production, carbon-free fuel, carbon sinks, offset schemes, and bioplastics, concluding that these narratives divert policymakers from the necessary goal of reducing plastic production.

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 is an amicus curiae application and submission in the case of Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. United Mexican States. The applicants argue that the Don Diego Project, which involves dredging 91 thousand hectares of the Gulf of Ulloa seabed to extract phosphate rock, would cause irreversible ecological damage and violate human rights. They contend that the Mexican State's decision to deny the environmental permit is supported by the precautionary principle and obligations under UNCLOS, the Rio Declaration, and various human rights treaties, including the ICESCR and the American Convention on Human Rights.

The amicus curiae brief argues that the Mexican state was obligated to deny the environmental permit for the Don Diego project due to severe risks to the marine ecosystem of the Golfo de Ulloa and the human rights of local fishing communities. The authors contend that the project, which involves dredging 91,000 hectares of the seabed to extract 7 million tons of phosphate rock annually, would cause irreversible biodiversity loss and contaminate the area with radioactive elements like uranium and thorium. They assert that the precautionary principle and international treaties—including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the American Convention on Human Rights—mandate the protection of the environment and the right to work and health for the 128 families of the Puerto Chale Cooperative and other regional residents.