Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines Mexico's progress in implementing REDD+ safeguards, highlighting the transition from confusing the SIS with the SNS to establishing a framework based on national law and sustainable rural development. While Mexico has strong institutional capacity and a history of community forestry, the report identifies critical gaps in the operationalization of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), clarity on avoided emission carbon rights, and the risk of weakened World Bank safeguard policies. It argues that international guidance from the UNFCCC is necessary to standardize reporting and ensure the protection of indigenous and local community rights.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) faces significant legal, financial, and reputational risks due to its investments in fossil fuel companies. CIEL highlights that GPFG invests in 44 of the 90 'Carbon Majors' responsible for 63% of industrial greenhouse gas emissions from 1854-2010, increasing the likelihood of successful climate change litigation. The document specifically calls for immediate divestment from coal, citing the industry's financial decline, systemic demand drops in the US, and severe environmental and human rights abuses in India and China. Furthermore, CIEL asserts that continued fossil fuel investment contradicts Norway's international obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its commitment to inter-generational equity.

The document calls for the business and insurance sectors to stop funding climate denialism and instead catalyze ambitious action to limit global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celsius. It highlights the role of fossil fuel companies in subverting legislative action and the severe economic costs of climate change, citing the Philippines as an example. The author advocates for holding company directors personally liable for misleading the public about climate risks and urges insurers to reconsider providing coverage for anti-climate activities.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) expresses concern that TTIP's focus on reducing 'non-tariff' barriers will lead to a 'chilling effect' on environmental and health legislation. CIEL specifically warns that regulatory coherence mechanisms, such as the proposed Regulatory Cooperation Council, could prioritize trade impacts over public safety and impede the ability of U.S. states and EU member states to enact stronger standards. The document highlights a profound divergence in toxic chemical regulation, arguing that U.S. efforts to target EU laws as 'technical barriers to trade'—including those regarding endocrine disruptors and nanomaterials—threaten to lower global safety standards through harmonization or mutual recognition.

The policy brief analyzes a leaked 'chemicals annex' of the TTIP, asserting that the proposed regulatory cooperation framework would allow the chemical industry to delay the implementation of health-protective laws. It highlights a stark divide between the EU's proactive chemical regulations and the US's outdated legislation, warning that TTIP could erase these protections through harmonization and mutual recognition. The document outlines six primary concerns shared by over 110 civil society organizations, including the potential to block sub-federal regulatory action in US states and EU Member States, limit public access to toxic chemical information, and derail EU leadership on emerging issues like endocrine disruptors and nanomaterials.

The letter argues that the Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) role concentrates too much influence in one person, lacks transparency, and is susceptible to corporate lobbying, urging the President-elect of the European Commission to seek more diverse and objective scientific expertise.

The document provides legal commentary on the dispute between Pac Rim Cayman LLC and the Republic of El Salvador, asserting that the state's regulatory framework for mining is a necessary tool to prevent human rights infringements and environmental damage. It emphasizes that the 'public interest' must be defined through environmental democracy and access rights, as outlined in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration. The brief further details the social conflict and violence, including murders of environmental defenders, resulting from Pac Rim's activities in the Cabañas department.

The document is a legal submission to the ICSID tribunal in the case of Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. Republic of El Salvador. It argues that the state's refusal to grant a mining concession is a legitimate exercise of its duty to protect human rights and the environment, particularly in a region with high population density and water scarcity. The brief emphasizes that environmental impact assessments and community consultations are essential legal requirements, not mere formalities, and that the 'public interest' must be defined through environmental democracy and the rights of access to information and participation. Furthermore, it documents a pattern of violence and attacks against environmental defenders in the Cabañas Department, which it links to the social conflict generated by Pac Rim's presence.

A statement from a coalition of EU, U.S., and international organizations expressing strong opposition to the inclusion of chemical regulations within the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The authors argue that TTIP proposals would prioritize chemical industry interests over public health and the environment by freezing protective regulations, limiting public access to hazard information, and empowering corporations to challenge domestic laws through investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms.

The document is a statement from various EU, U.S., and international organizations urging the U.S. Trade Representative and the European Commission to exclude chemicals—including pesticides and industrial chemicals—from the TTIP. The authors argue that regulatory cooperation frameworks, investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, and harmonization efforts would freeze the development of stronger health-protective laws, empower corporations to challenge environmental regulations, and erode the EU's leadership on emerging issues like endocrine disruptors and nanomaterials.

A briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and other NGOs criticizing the decision by CITES to remove Afrormosia (Pericopsis elata) from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) from the Review of Significant Trade. The document argues that the DRC has failed to implement sustainable management practices, continues to engage in widespread illegal logging, and has provided an insufficient non-detriment finding (NDF) to justify its export quotas.

The document expresses disappointment over the removal of Pericopsis elata (Afrormosia) from the CITES Review of Significant Trade for the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It argues that the DRC continues to disregard CITES norms, with an estimated ninety percent of timber harvested being "illegal or informal" and actual harvests reaching "eight times the official harvest." The authors claim the DRC's May 2014 non-detriment finding (NDF) is insufficient, lacking a scientific basis for export quotas and failing to address widespread corruption and the use of falsified permits. The document highlights that the DRC is rated as one of the "two most problematic countries in Africa for illegal exploitation of natural resources" and requests a comprehensive review and suspension of trade in all CITES-listed plants and animals from the DRC until compliance is guaranteed.

The report argues that the EU's proposed regulatory cooperation on chemicals under TTIP aligns too closely with industry interests and threatens to undermine EU chemical laws. It specifically warns that cooperation on prioritizing chemicals, classification alignment, and 'new and emerging issues' like endocrine disruptors could freeze progress on toxic substance regulation and stifle the transition to safer alternatives. The authors conclude that meaningful cooperation is impossible without significant structural reform of the US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The document argues that the IFC's 'lessons learned' process is insufficient because it ignores institutional culture, fails to address the systemic miscategorisation of project risks, and lacks a formal implementation and monitoring framework. While acknowledging some positive steps, the authors highlight ongoing failures in projects across Honduras, Burma, Indonesia, and Nicaragua, and call for a time-bound plan to integrate human rights assessments and poverty reduction goals into IFC operations.

The letter warns BHP Billiton's leadership that funding climate denial and obstructing climate action may lead to personal civil or criminal litigation and impact Directors and Officers (D&O) liability insurance coverage.

The letter argues that fossil fuel companies responsible for the majority of global industrial emissions may have funded climate denial and disseminated misleading information, potentially exposing their directors and officers to personal civil or criminal litigation risks that could impact D&O insurance coverage.

The document argues that TTIP's focus on removing 'non-tariff' barriers through regulatory cooperation may lead to a roll-back of existing environmental and health laws. It highlights concerns over the proposed Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC), the use of cost-benefit analyses that prioritize trade, and the potential for undue corporate influence in lawmaking processes.

CIEL argues that TTIP would allow the chemical industry to weaken safety regulations and limit access to critical health and safety data. The statement highlights the divergence between the U.S. risk-based approach and the EU's hazard-based REACH system, asserting that regulatory harmonization would likely result in lower standards. CIEL also warns that Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms would enable corporations to bypass domestic courts and challenge public interest laws, creating a 'regulatory chilling effect'.

Carroll Muffett of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that industry proposals for stricter data protection and confidential business information (CBI) standards within the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations would hinder public health, consumer safety, and environmental protections by limiting access to critical information.

This report provides an overview of nanomaterials, their impacts on health and the environment, the current market for nanoproducts, and regulatory initiatives for their management, with a specific focus on the Global South.