Search Climate Insights Directory

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) supports the Senate Democrats' decision to block the Fast Track trade negotiating authority bill, asserting that such authority would allow trade deals like TTIP and TPP to bypass democratic oversight and potentially weaken laws regarding toxic chemicals.

A letter from several international organizations to Member of the European Parliament Bernd Lange expressing concern that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) could weaken public health and environmental standards for toxic chemicals, specifically endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).

The document expresses concern that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) could be used by the US government and industry to pressure the EU into weakening its standards for toxic chemicals, specifically endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). It highlights a conflict between trade goals and public health, noting that the US has criticized EU hazardous chemical laws as trade barriers. The authors support a European Parliament ENVI Committee vote to exclude chemicals from TTIP to avoid trade-offs between economic goals and health, citing the high human health costs of EDCs in Europe and the risk that regulatory cooperation would hinder the ability of both EU member states and US states to regulate toxic substances.

The report examines the systemic risk posed by credit rating agencies' failure to account for climate change in their methodologies. It argues that by assuming a 'business-as-usual' scenario of $\ge 4^{\circ}C$ warming rather than a dynamic trajectory aligned with a $2^{\circ}C$ goal, agencies are artificially inflating the credit ratings of fossil fuel projects. Using a case study of the Adani Abbot Point Terminal in Australia, the document demonstrates how generic project finance methodologies ignore risks such as stranded assets, decreased coal demand, and physical climate impacts. The report concludes that this failure not only threatens global financial stability by creating a 'carbon bubble' but also exposes rating agencies to significant legal liability under the Dodd-Frank Act and common law.

The submission argues that project-level grievance mechanisms (PLGMs) are often fundamentally flawed due to a lack of independence and oversight, and urges the U.S. government to exercise caution before endorsing them. The authors recommend that any supported PLGMs must adhere to the UN Guiding Principles' effectiveness criteria, including legitimacy, accessibility, predictability, equitability, transparency, rights compatibility, continuous learning, and engagement.

The document is a statement from a coalition of civil society organizations opposing a proposed EU directive on trade secrets. The coalition argues that the directive's broad definition of trade secrets and inadequate safeguards would hinder the work of journalists and whistleblowers, restrict the mobility of professional workers, and allow companies in the health, environment, and food safety sectors to withhold critical public interest data. Specifically, it highlights risks to patient safety in pharmaceuticals, the violation of the Aarhus Convention regarding environmental emissions, and the lack of transparency in EFSA food safety assessments. The coalition also warns that similar protections being lobbied for in the US could be integrated into the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), potentially setting a restrictive global standard.

The document details a 1997 World Bank investment of $400 million to expand power plants in Singrauli, India, which led to significant displacement and pollution. Despite requests for inspection and an acknowledgment of deficiencies in resettlement and rehabilitation, the project proceeded, resulting in long-term respiratory illnesses and water pollution. By March 2014, the area was officially declared a Critically Polluted Area by the Indian government.

The document criticizes the CITES permit system for failing to prevent the illegal trade of Afrormosia timber from the Democratic Republic of Congo, noting that the 2015 export quota remains high despite incomplete inventories and widespread permit falsification. It highlights a gap in the CITES Secretariat's verification process, which only confirms if a permit was issued by the DRC Management Authority rather than the legality of the wood itself. The authors call on EU and US officials to use independent monitoring reports to assess legality rather than relying on CITES paperwork.

The document asserts that climate change is a major human rights challenge, threatening rights to life, health, and food security, particularly for vulnerable groups. It criticizes the UNFCCC for slow progress in operationalizing rights protections and recommends that the 2015 climate agreement include explicit human rights obligations, establish institutional safeguards, create a dedicated work programme on human rights and climate change, and implement a grievance mechanism to address harms caused by mitigation and adaptation activities.

The document positions climate change as a major human rights challenge, noting that environmental degradation threatens fundamental rights such as life, health, and food security. It criticizes the UNFCCC for failing to operationalize human rights protections despite recognizing them in 2010. The authors propose a human-rights-based approach to climate action, emphasizing the need to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, provide compensation for loss and damage, and establish institutional safeguards, including a formal complaints mechanism and a dedicated work program on human rights and climate change.

The document criticizes the cosmetics industry's efforts to gain more direct influence in TTIP negotiations, warning that the agreement seeks the 'lowest common denominator' in safety standards rather than elevating protections. It highlights the disparity between EU and US chemical bans and argues that the secrecy of the negotiations excludes civil society while allowing industry to draft text that could undermine public health and environmental laws.

The document describes the OECD's framework for the safety of manufactured nanomaterials, centered on the Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN). It details four steering groups focusing on testing, risk assessment, exposure measurement, and sustainable use. Key mechanisms discussed include the Mutual Acceptance of Data (MAD) and Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) to harmonize international chemical safety standards.

The report argues that TTIP's regulatory cooperation provisions, primarily based on EU proposals, would institutionalize oversight of US state-level legislation and regulations by federal and international bodies. This framework would likely lead to 'regulatory chill' through onerous procedural requirements, such as early warning systems and trade impact assessments, which favor industry influence over public interest. The document highlights that US states often act as the primary regulators of toxic chemicals and pesticides when federal action is lax, and that TTIP's goal of 'regulatory compatibility' could effectively set federal or international standards as a ceiling, preventing states from adopting more protective measures. It specifically warns that such mechanisms could be used to challenge state-level bans on substances like Bisphenol A (BPA) or pesticide residue monitoring programs in California.

This case study examines Mexico's development of a national safeguards system for REDD+, noting that the process provides valuable lessons for other countries and the UNFCCC, and underscores the need for international guidance even in countries with advanced REDD+ progress.

The document examines how extraterritorial obligations (ETOs), as clarified by the Maastricht Principles, are essential for holding states accountable for environmental destruction and climate change that impact human rights beyond their own borders. It highlights gaps in protection caused by globalization, specifically regarding transnational corporations and intergovernmental organizations. Using examples like tropical deforestation and shipbreaking in South Asia, the guide illustrates how state omissions and the failure to regulate non-state actors lead to severe human rights impairments. It concludes that a human rights-based approach to climate change is necessary to ensure equitable mitigation and protection for the world's most vulnerable populations.

The document examines how states' extraterritorial obligations (ETOs), as defined by the Maastricht Principles, are essential for regulating transnational corporations and state actions that cause cross-border environmental damage. It highlights the vulnerability of indigenous peoples and environmental defenders, and uses examples such as illegal logging in tropical forests and shipbreaking in South Asia to illustrate the need for international legal accountability. The report further links climate change to threats against human health, global security, and fundamental human rights, advocating for a human-rights-based approach to climate policy.

CIEL argues that the EU's release of TTIP chemicals documents is inadequate, as it omits critical chapters on Technical Barriers to Trade, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Regulatory Coherence, Investor-State Dispute Settlement, and Pesticides. The organization warns that TTIP could undermine the ability of the EU, US, and their sub-national entities to regulate toxic chemicals and maintain high environmental and health protection standards, which are often viewed by trade negotiators as non-tariff barriers to trade.

The document emphasizes that a precise legal definition of nanomaterials is a prerequisite for effective regulation, as voluntary safety measures have failed. It warns that definitions that are too restrictive allow hazardous materials to bypass safety checks, while overly broad definitions include materials that do not require nano-specific oversight. The author notes that creating such a definition is challenging due to the rapid evolution of scientific understanding and imaging technologies.

The document examines the challenges of defining nanomaterials for regulatory purposes, contrasting size-based and property-based approaches. It highlights the European Union as the only jurisdiction with a horizontal legal definition, while noting that internal EU sectoral regulations remain unharmonized. The text details technical difficulties in measurement and the ongoing conflict between industry preferences for higher thresholds and scientific/civil society calls for broader, more precautionary definitions.

The document analyzes Mexico's progress in establishing a National Safeguard System (SNS) and a Safeguard Information System (SIS) for REDD+, highlighting the integration of these systems with national laws like the General Law on Sustainable Forest Development (LGDFS). While Mexico is a frontrunner in REDD+ preparation, the study identifies critical gaps in the operationalization of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), clarity on carbon ownership for avoided emissions, and the risk of diluted standards resulting from the World Bank's safeguard review process. It argues that explicit international guidance from the UNFCCC is necessary to help countries translate safeguard principles into action and avoid the conceptual confusion and sporadic progress experienced by Mexico.