Search Climate Insights Directory

The document evaluates strategies for the global control of mercury, comparing voluntary measures—such as high-level declarations, codes of conduct, and eco-labeling—against legally binding instruments. It explores utilizing existing treaties like the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions, as well as the possibility of creating a new free-standing mercury convention or a protocol to the Stockholm Convention. The analysis includes a detailed set of response measures for seven global mercury priorities, including reducing atmospheric emissions, managing mercury waste, and curbing global supply.

The WTO Panel found that Brazil's import ban on retreaded tyres (via Portaria SECEX 14/2004 and Portaria DECEX 8/1991) and its associated fines (Presidential Decree 3.179/3.919) are inconsistent with Article XI:1 of GATT 1994. The Panel also ruled that the State of Rio Grande do Sul's marketing restrictions (Law 12.114/12.381) violate Article III:4. While the Panel acknowledged that Brazil's policy of reducing waste tyre accumulation to protect human, animal, and plant health falls within the scope of Article XX(b), it concluded the measures were not justified because they were applied in a manner that constituted "unjustifiable discrimination" and a "disguised restriction on international trade," primarily due to the significant volume of used tyres imported via court injunctions to benefit domestic retreaders.

The statement commends the environmental provisions of the Peru Free Trade Agreement, highlighting it as the first bilateral trade agreement to address illegal logging. Key measures include the ability for the U.S. to detain questionable timber shipments, the creation of an independent oversight body and a focal point for prosecuting forest crimes in Peru, and the alignment of trade in protected tree species with CITES.

The briefing analyzes the EC-Biotech dispute, where a WTO panel rejected the obligation to consider the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety because they were not ratified by all WTO Members. The author argues this narrow interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties creates 'clinical isolation' for WTO law and deviates from the Appellate Body's approach in US-Shrimp, which integrated sustainable development and MEAs into its analysis. The document emphasizes that the WTO's own Committee on Trade and Environment and the Doha Mandate support 'mutual supportiveness' between trade and environmental goals.

The document discusses the EC-Biotech dispute and the European Communities' argument that WTO agreements should be interpreted in light of international law and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, particularly regarding the precautionary principle and risk assessment for GMOs.

The report examines the GEF's Resource Allocation Framework (RAF), which uses a Benefits Index (GBI) and a Performance Index (GPI) to allocate grants. It concludes that while the RAF generally conforms to COP guidance, it creates significant disparities for small island developing states (SIDS) and least developed countries (LDCs), particularly in the biodiversity focal area, and fails to align with specific priorities of the Cartagena Protocol. The author argues that the GEF is functionally autonomous, leaving COPs with few legal remedies to enforce conformity.

The document is a formal cover letter dated April 4, 2007, accompanying an amicus curiae brief submitted to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) by a coalition of organizations including the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and the Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS). The brief concerns the legal dispute between the Argentine Republic and water companies Suez and Vivendi Universal, specifically highlighting the public interest involved in the provision of essential drinking water and sanitation services.

The brief contends that Argentina's decision to freeze water tariffs during its 2001 economic crisis was a necessary action to ensure the human right to water, which is protected under various international treaties and the Argentine Constitution. It argues that human rights law should inform the adjudication of the dispute, specifically regarding 'fair and equitable treatment' and 'indirect expropriation' standards in BITs. The authors assert that investors cannot legitimately expect a state to disregard its human rights obligations, and that measures taken to protect public health fall under the 'police powers' of the state, thus precluding them from being classified as compensable expropriations.

The document argues that Argentina's 2001 emergency measures to freeze water tariffs during a severe economic crisis were consistent with its international human rights obligations to ensure access to water. It contends that human rights law should inform the interpretation of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), specifically regarding 'fair and equitable treatment' and 'indirect expropriation'. The brief asserts that the right to water is a prerequisite for the right to life and health, and that state police powers to protect public health justify regulatory changes that may affect investor profits without requiring compensation.

The document argues that the US uses bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs) to implement "TRIPS-plus" intellectual property standards that undermine the 2001 Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. These provisions—including data exclusivity, patent term extensions, and restrictions on compulsory licensing—increase drug prices and delay generic competition, thereby hindering access to essential medicines in developing countries. The author suggests that civil society should raise public awareness in both negotiating countries and the US, engage ministries of health, and advocate for a WTO moratorium on TRIPS-plus provisions. Furthermore, the paper argues for shifting the global discourse from intellectual property protection to a health-needs-driven R&D model, citing evidence that high IP standards have not significantly boosted research for diseases predominantly affecting the developing world.

The submission by several legal and environmental organizations argues that Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited failed in its duties as an investor during the privatization of water services in Dar es Salaam. The Amici contend that the investor's failure to conduct proper due diligence and its poor operational performance led to the investment's failure, rather than government action. They further suggest the investor may have used a 'renegotiation strategy'—bidding low to win the contract with the intent to force more favorable terms later. The document asserts that because water is a basic human right and essential for sustainable development, investors in this sector must be held to the highest standards of responsibility, and that the Tanzanian government was justified in terminating the contract to protect these rights.

The document argues that IFIs, as subjects of international law, are bound by human rights obligations regardless of whether their charters explicitly mention them. It asserts that member States cannot escape responsibility for human rights violations resulting from IFI projects, even when acting through IFI decision-making bodies. The analysis concludes that IFI internal safeguard and accountability mechanisms are not equivalent to universal or regional human rights protections, and suggests that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has the mandate to engage IFIs operating in the Americas.

The ICSID Tribunal granted five non-governmental organizations permission to file a joint amicus curiae submission in the case of Suez et al. v. Argentina, finding that the dispute involves significant public interest regarding water and sewage services in Buenos Aires. While the Tribunal affirmed the suitability of the petitioners based on their expertise in human rights and the environment, it denied their request for unrestricted access to arbitration documents, ruling that they possessed sufficient information from other sources to provide the necessary perspectives without the record.

The policy brief by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) proposes specific amendments to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules to distinguish 'State arbitrations' from private commercial ones. The authors argue that because State arbitrations often involve public funds, governmental misconduct, and critical public policy issues—such as drinking water systems or hazardous waste bans—they require higher standards of transparency. The brief proposes revisions to four articles to ensure public notice of proceedings, open hearings, public access to awards and documents, and the explicit ability for tribunals to accept amicus curiae briefs.

The document analyzes the challenges developing countries face when implementing 'TRIPS-Plus' intellectual property (IP) provisions found in free trade agreements (FTAs), particularly those signed with the USA, EU, and EFTA. It argues that while these agreements often impose higher standards of protection than the WTO's TRIPS Agreement, countries can adopt a 'creative and forward looking' implementation strategy. This includes utilizing existing flexibilities such as compulsory licensing and parallel imports, and modernizing national institutions and competition laws to balance IP protection with local innovation and public health needs.

The document serves as a strategic manual for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to navigate WIPO's complex institutional framework. It analyzes how WIPO's focus on increasing intellectual property protection often conflicts with sustainable development goals in areas such as public health, food security, and biodiversity. The guide details WIPO's governing bodies, the influence of the International Bureau, and the mechanisms for civil society participation, while highlighting the WIPO Development Agenda as a key opportunity for institutional reform.

The document outlines the processes for using the OPIC Accountability Mechanism, specifically the Compliance Review and Problem-Solving paths, and details the U.S. laws and international standards OPIC must follow.

The document examines the failures of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the subsequent emergence of state-level regulations in the U.S. to manage industrial chemicals. It highlights how state actions, such as bans on polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), are influenced by international frameworks like the EU's REACH regulation and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The author argues that these 'twin levers' of state and international progress are essential for driving the U.S. toward a more sustainable national chemical policy by 2020.

The 11th Session of the WIPO IGC saw a divide between developing countries and indigenous groups, who advocated for a binding legal instrument to protect traditional knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs), and developed countries, such as the US and Japan, who argued against substantive discussions at this stage. Despite this deadlock, the committee recommended renewing its mandate for two years under the 2005 WIPO General Assembly conditions, though it failed to include language requiring convergence on a specific outcome.

The document analyzes the gap between the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) framework on traditional knowledge (TK) and the demands of indigenous peoples, while reporting on IP negotiations at the WTO, WIPO, WHO, and UNCTAD, as well as various bilateral trade agreements.