Search Climate Insights Directory

This legal opinion by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the export of pesticides prohibited or not approved in Europe to countries in Africa and Central America is illegal under international law, regional agreements, and human rights obligations.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes the European Commission's October 2020 "Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability." It evaluates the strategy's potential to create a toxic-free environment and provides specific recommendations for the EU to lead global chemical management by strengthening international standards, eliminating double standards in exports, and implementing rigorous internal safety frameworks.

This discussion paper by the Center for International Environmental Law advocates for a rights-based, comprehensive approach to land-use planning within the UNFCCC's ADP process. It argues that land-sector carbon sequestration is temporary and should not be used to offset permanent fossil fuel emissions, while emphasizing the need to protect food security, biodiversity, and the land rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.

This policy brief by the Center for International Environmental Law outlines key principles and recommendations for land-use sector mitigation within the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP). It argues that land-use mitigation must be additional to industrial reductions, prioritize food security and land rights, and avoid complex accounting frameworks that create loopholes for developed countries.

This policy brief by the Center for International Environmental Law and the Environmental Investigation Agency argues for a rights-based approach to land use in the post-2020 global climate agreement. It emphasizes that land-based mitigation must not displace industrial emission reductions, must protect the tenure rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, and must prioritize food security and biodiversity to avoid perverse outcomes from policies like biofuels and carbon offsets.

This 1996 report summarizes a regional workshop in Hong Kong focused on making environmental law more effective in East and Southeast Asia. The participants concluded that environmental protection is often undermined by a lack of integration with economic planning, corruption, and poor land-use planning. Key recommendations include simplifying laws to reduce corruption, improving inter-agency coordination, increasing public participation and transparency in monitoring and EIAs, and adopting alternative dispute resolution methods that align with local cultural contexts.

This policy brief by the Center for International Environmental Law outlines recommendations for ensuring the meaningful and effective involvement of stakeholders during the intergovernmental negotiations for a global treaty to end plastic pollution.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) analyzes a proposal by pesticide industry lobby groups CropLife America and the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) regarding the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). CIEL argues that the industry is using 'regulatory cooperation' as a mechanism to compel the European Union to lower its health and environmental standards to match the weaker standards of the United States, effectively creating a 'regulatory ceiling' that would hinder global pesticide regulation.

This legal opinion by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the European Union's Ship Recycling Regulation (SRR) is illegal under international and EU law. CIEL contends that the SRR creates an unlawful exemption for EU-flagged ships from the Basel Convention's prohibitions on exporting hazardous waste to developing countries, particularly following the entry into force of the Basel Ban Amendment on December 5, 2019.

This research paper by the Center for International Environmental Law examines the World Bank's approach to governance, civil society, and human rights. It argues that the Bank's adherence to a narrow economic view of development, rooted in its Articles of Agreement, has led it to treat these critical social and political factors as mere instrumentalities for project goals rather than essential components of sustainable development.

This legal briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the export of pesticides banned or not approved in their countries of origin—specifically from Europe to Africa and Central America—violates international law, including the Basel Convention, the Bamako Convention, and the Central American Agreement, as well as international human rights obligations.

This advocacy briefing outlines a 'participation blueprint' for the Board of the Loss and Damage Fund (LDF), arguing that meaningful participation by rightsholders and vulnerable communities is essential for the Fund's legitimacy and effectiveness. The document provides detailed recommendations for governance, operational modalities, and capacity-building to ensure the LDF adheres to human rights obligations and climate justice principles.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes the Protocol to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants (LRTAP POPs Protocol) and evaluates its suitability as a model for global negotiations on persistent organic pollutants (POPs). The author argues that while the Protocol is a positive regional step, it is inadequate as a global model because it focuses on risk management and air transmission rather than total elimination and pollution prevention, and it lacks provisions for developing countries.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law argues that offshore oil and gas activities—including exploration, production, transport, and decommissioning—pose severe threats to marine ecosystems, human rights, and the global climate. It calls for oceans everywhere to be made off-limits to these activities to address the triple planetary crises of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss.

This guide by the Center for International Environmental Law provides a framework of guiding questions for organizers of international meetings to ensure that the shift toward virtual formats during the COVID-19 pandemic does not undermine the meaningful participation of civil society, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities.

This briefing, based on a joint WWF-CIEL paper, examines the relationship between Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). It argues that current WTO negotiations focus on areas requiring the least clarification and proposes several practical measures to enhance compatibility between trade and environmental governance, while urging non-trade policymakers to ensure that trade rules do not undermine the jurisdiction or objectives of MEAs.

This research paper by Donald M. Goldberg of the Center for International Environmental Law argues that the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund (MPMF) provides a superior governance and administrative model for the financial mechanism of the Framework Convention on Climate Change compared to the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The author contends that the MPMF's structure ensures more equitable representation, transparency, and party-led project approval, whereas the GEF is overly dependent on World Bank management.

This research paper examines the conceptual and legal intersections between international human rights law and international environmental law, focusing on the Inter-American System of Human Rights. The author argues that while the two regimes historically differed in approach—human rights being anthropocentric and environmental law oscillating between anthropocentric and biocentric—they are increasingly integrated. The document analyzes how human rights tools, such as precautionary measures and state responsibility for the acts of third parties, are used to protect environmental rights and reviews regional jurisprudence from the Inter-American, African, and European systems to illustrate the environmental dimensions of the rights to life, property, and information.

The document outlines various definitions of nanomaterials used by the ISO, OECD, the European Union, and agencies in the US and Canada. It notes that while many rely on a size range of 1nm to 100nm, specific criteria (such as particle distribution percentages in the EU or property-based definitions in the US and Canada) vary. The author argues that these differing definitions lead to legal uncertainty and inconsistent safety assessments across different jurisdictions and product types.

A joint statement from environmental, worker, and consumer organisations expressing disappointment and concern regarding the European Commission's Second Regulatory Review on Nanomaterials published on 3 October 2012. The signatories argue that the Commission's approach is inconsistent with its own analysis, ignores scientific evidence of nanomaterial toxicity, and fails to implement a precautionary approach to protect human health and the environment.