Search Climate Insights Directory

The document is a solidarity statement from various U.S. environmental leaders who argue that hatred and human rights abuses are incompatible with a sustainable future. They pledge to advocate for clean air, water, and a livable climate while opposing structural racism and intolerance. The signatories specifically call on President-elect Trump to uphold the rights of all Americans and request the rescission of appointments for Steven Bannon and Jeff Sessions.

The Center for International Environmental Law and partner organizations argue that Executive Order 13141 must be implemented with the political will to fully integrate environmental considerations into the earliest stages of trade policy-making. They propose a structured, iterative review process triggered at every significant step of negotiations, from the contemplation of talks to ongoing implementation. The authors advocate for a broad analytical framework that considers global and transboundary impacts, cumulative effects of trade policy, and the evaluation of alternatives, including 'no-action' options. They emphasize the necessity of maximizing public participation to restore democratic accountability and insist that environmental agencies, rather than the USTR alone, maintain lead authority over technical environmental findings.

The document argues that the EU's proposed intellectual property (IP) provisions in Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with ACP countries are premature and potentially harmful to development. It highlights concerns that the proposals omit public interest safeguards, restrict farmers' rights through UPOV 1991, fail to address biopiracy regarding traditional knowledge, and impose enforcement standards that exceed TRIPS requirements and the administrative capacities of ACP nations.

The Alto Maipo Hydroelectric Project (PHAM) is a large-scale run-of-the-river project in Chile with an installed capacity of 531 MW and an estimated annual output exceeding 2,100 GWh. Despite being pitched as a public good, the project faces significant opposition due to its potential to reduce the flow of the Yeso, Volcán, and Colorado Rivers by up to 60%, threatening drinking water for Santiago's 7 million residents and irrigation for 120,000 hectares of farmland. Financially, the project has seen costs rise to US$2.4 billion, with the Grupo Luksic consortium withdrawing in January 2017 at a loss of $350 million. The project is funded by several multilateral banks, including the IFC (US$150 million) and the IDB (US$200 million), both of which are facing complaints regarding violations of environmental and social policies. Environmental concerns include accelerated desertification, erosion of riverbeds, and risks to protected areas like the Glacial Natural Monument. The Chilean government has penalized the project for 14 separate violations of environmental norms.

The report analyzes conflicts between WTO trade rules and fisheries conservation, particularly regarding production and processing methods (PPMs), subsidies, and investment liberalization. It argues for a broader interpretation of GATT Article XX to protect conservation measures and recommends international cooperation on ecolabeling and the elimination of destructive subsidies to avert a global fisheries crisis.

The document asserts that the phaseout of fossil fuels is a legal requirement under customary international law, human rights law, the law of the sea, and climate treaties like the Paris Agreement. It argues that States must use all available means to prevent significant climate harm, including curbing fossil fuel production, licensing, and subsidies. The authors emphasize that developed States bear a higher burden of responsibility and must provide financial and technological support to developing nations for a just transition. Furthermore, the letter claims that climate obligations are 'erga omnes' and should take precedence over investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims.

The document presents a collection of statements from legal experts and policy advisors asserting that international law, supported by rulings from bodies such as the International Court of Justice, requires states to phase out fossil fuels to prevent climate harm and protect human rights.

The document asserts that the phase-out of fossil fuels is a legal requirement derived from customary international law, human rights law, environmental law, and the law of the sea. It emphasizes that states must employ all available means to prevent significant climate damage, prioritize emissions reduction at the source over speculative technologies, and ensure a just transition, particularly for the least developed countries and small island developing states. The authors argue that these obligations are 'erga omnes' and should prevail over investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submits this brief to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) regarding Case 12.696. It contends that Chile's Agricultural and Livestock Service (SAG) provided incomplete and ambiguous information about GMO crops, failing to disclose specific planting locations and the identities of companies involved. The document argues that scientific uncertainty regarding GMO risks to human health and biodiversity necessitates a transparent regulatory framework and public participation. It supports its claims by citing international instruments like the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Aarhus Convention, as well as jurisprudence from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and the European Court of Justice, all of which emphasize the public's right to environmental information.

The document analyzes how the core principles of the GATT—such as most-favored-nation and national treatment—often conflict with environmental measures, particularly those targeting production process methods (PPMs) or resources in the global commons. It examines specific frictions within the Montreal Protocol, CITES, and the Basel Convention, as well as U.S. laws like the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The authors argue that trade and environmental policies must be reconciled under the overarching goal of sustainable development, suggesting options such as reinterpreting 'like products' to include lifecycles, increasing transparency in dispute resolution, and utilizing market-based cost internalization.

This research paper analyzes a 1991 General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) dispute resolution panel decision regarding a U.S. embargo on Mexican tuna. The panel found that the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) violated GATT by imposing quantitative restrictions on imports. The authors examine the legal conflict between international trade rules and environmental protections, arguing that the decision limits the ability of nations to enforce environmental standards on imported products unless those standards affect the physical makeup of the product or its sale.

The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) was established in 1990 as a three-year pilot program to address global warming, ozone depletion, biodiversity loss, and international water pollution. Operated by the World Bank, UNDP, and UNEP, the GEF provides grant or concessional funding for projects that offer global environmental benefits but lack economic viability without assistance. However, the facility faces significant criticism from NGOs and developing countries regarding its lack of transparency, restricted membership—due to a SDR $4 million contribution requirement—and the potential for 'greenwashing' World Bank projects. As the pilot phase ends in 1993, there are calls for restructuring to ensure universal membership and greater accountability to the climate change and biodiversity conventions.

This document is an amicus curiae intervention submitted by the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR) and the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) to the High Court of Kenya. The intervention argues that the Lamu Port – Southern Sudan – Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) project, as planned, violates the Constitution of Kenya and various international treaties regarding the right to development, environmental protection, the prohibition of forced evictions, and the rights of indigenous peoples and cultural heritage.

The document analyzes the Convention on Biological Diversity as an innovative legal instrument that integrates ecological economics into trade. It highlights the shift from viewing genetic resources as a 'common heritage' to a regime of sovereign control and equitable benefit-sharing. The author argues that local and indigenous economies are often more sustainable than industrial ones and emphasizes the importance of Articles 8(j) and 10(c) in protecting traditional knowledge and customary resource use. The text concludes by recommending that the United States ratify the convention and that its principles serve as minimum standards for international trade law.

The guide provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal frameworks governing the trade of tangible and intangible biodiversity assets in the Andean Region. It examines the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Andean Community (CAN) Decision 391 regarding genetic resources, the CITES convention for endangered species, and WTO agreements (Agriculture, SPS, TBT, and GATS) for agricultural and intermediate products. It also addresses the protection of traditional knowledge, intellectual property rights, and the opportunities for Andean countries to participate in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol to mitigate climate change.

The report details how decaBDE, used in plastics and textiles, acts as an endocrine disruptor and neurotoxin, disproportionately affecting children and workers. It frames these health risks as violations of international covenants, such as the ICCPR and CESCR, and calls for a global ban under the Stockholm Convention.

The report details how the hazardous materials in e-waste—including lead, mercury, and cadmium—violate fundamental human rights such as the right to life, health, and food. It highlights the severe health consequences for workers and children in informal recycling sectors, particularly in China, India, Ghana, and the Philippines, where archaic recovery methods lead to systemic toxic exposure.

The report details how the lifecycle of electronic products, characterized by rapid obsolescence and the use of toxic materials, leads to severe human rights violations. It highlights the presence of hazardous substances like lead, mercury, and cadmium in e-waste and documents the resulting health crises in informal recycling hubs, particularly in China, India, Ghana, and the Philippines. The document argues that unregulated recycling practices violate the rights to life, health, adequate food, and safe working conditions, disproportionately affecting children and marginalized populations.

The report details how lead pollution causes irreversible health damage, particularly in children, and links these outcomes to violations of international human rights treaties. It highlights specific crises in Nigeria, Kazakhstan, and China, while noting that lead battery manufacturing and recycling are primary global exposure sources.

The report details the severe health risks of lead exposure, particularly for children, and links these impacts to violations of international human rights treaties. It highlights specific cases of lead poisoning in Nigeria, Kazakhstan, and China, and identifies leaded fuel, lead-based paint, and battery recycling as primary sources of contamination.