Search Climate Insights Directory

The document contends that the Loss and Damage Fund (LDF) adopted at COP28 is insufficient because it treats climate reparations as voluntary donations rather than legal obligations. It argues that the fund's governance excludes frontline communities and indigenous peoples, lacks a human rights framework, and ignores the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. The authors request that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights clarify that UNFCCC decisions do not limit state obligations to provide full reparation to climate victims.

The document argues that the protection of environmental defenders is critical for combating the climate crisis and that the Escazú Agreement provides the necessary legal framework to ensure access to information, public participation, and justice. It highlights the disproportionate risks faced by women and indigenous peoples, and warns that the energy transition must not replicate the extractive and colonial patterns of the fossil fuel industry.

The document argues that climate change is a human rights crisis driven by a small number of 'Carbon Majors' in the fossil fuel and agroindustrial sectors. It asserts that States have a duty under the American Convention on Human Rights to regulate these entities, halt fossil fuel expansion, and ensure reparations for affected communities. It further argues that business enterprises have an independent obligation to respect human rights, which includes conducting due diligence across their entire value chain and ceasing deceptive 'climate-washing' practices.

The document outlines how every phase of the offshore oil and gas lifecycle—exploration, production, transport, and decommissioning—adversely impacts small-scale fisheries. It highlights specific threats such as seismic noise reducing fish catches, well blowouts causing oil spills, and the creation of exclusion zones. Additionally, it links offshore fossil fuel activity to broader climate impacts like ocean acidification and sea level rise, which further jeopardize food production. The signatories urge the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food to recommend that States conduct thorough impact assessments and suspend projects that deprive fisherfolk of their fundamental human rights.

The briefing asserts that current fossil fuel production is incompatible with temperature limits and calls for a full phase-out of fossil fuels at COP28. It argues that carbon capture and storage (CCS) cannot achieve the necessary declines by 2030 and urges delegates to reject qualifiers like "unabated" or a focus on "fossil fuel emissions" in the final agreement.

CIEL condemns the use of force against peaceful protesters in Panama who are opposing metallic mining and a copper mine concession. The organization calls for the protection of human rights and the full implementation of the Escazú Agreement's guarantees for environmental information, participation, and justice. Additionally, CIEL recommends postponing public forums for the Fourth Electric Transmission Line project due to ongoing public disorder.

A briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) arguing against lifting the CITES trade suspension for Pterocarpus erinaceus (rosewood) in West and Central Africa, citing ongoing illegal trafficking and the risk of setting a dangerous precedent through 'special authorizations' and inadequate Non-Detriment Findings.

The Center for International Environmental Law advocates for a human rights-based approach to the Loss and Damage Fund being finalized at COP28. The author argues that hosting the fund under the World Bank would undermine its autonomy, restrict direct access for affected communities, and impose inadequate safeguards. The statement calls for a Governing Instrument that explicitly recognizes human rights obligations, ensures the representation of Indigenous Peoples and marginalized groups on the Board, and establishes an independent grievance redress mechanism.

This policy brief by the Center for International Environmental Law discusses the role of implementation and compliance mechanisms in Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) to provide recommendations for the negotiation of a plastics treaty.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) analyzes the Zero Draft of the plastics treaty, arguing for legally binding obligations ('shall' instead of 'should') and a full life cycle approach. CIEL identifies critical gaps in the draft, including the absence of human rights protections, a lack of clear tasks for the governing body, and the need for a production capacity freeze to prevent the lock-in of plastic production. The analysis advocates for global reduction targets for primary plastic polymers, the elimination of chemicals of concern, and the establishment of a global plastic pollution fee to fund implementation, particularly for developing countries, SIDS, and least developed countries.

The document examines the risks and inefficiencies of direct air capture (DAC), focusing on Oxy's Stratos project in Texas. It argues that DAC is used as a 'smokescreen' to prolong fossil fuel extraction through enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and to capture public subsidies. The briefing highlights that DAC's projected global capacity is insignificant compared to total emissions and that its resource requirements—including water and toxic chemicals—pose environmental risks. It further critiques the influence of oil executives on COP28 leadership and the use of flawed carbon credits to justify continued pollution.

The document argues that a plastics treaty must include a clear mandate for implementation and compliance mechanisms, including the early creation of an Implementation and Compliance Committee. It recommends a combined approach that is primarily facilitative but allows for punitive non-compliance response measures. To ensure effectiveness, the brief proposes a dual reporting system: frequent reports on legal obligations and less frequent reports on broader implementation, impacts, and challenges.

CIEL argues that the Escazú Agreement is compatible with the Colombian Constitution, specifically regarding sustainable development and the right to a healthy environment. The document asserts that the Agreement provides legal certainty for sustainable investments, protects vulnerable groups and environmental defenders, and offers essential procedural tools to address the 'triple planetary crisis' of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss in Latin America and the Caribbean.

This policy brief by the Center for International Environmental Law argues that the future plastics treaty must address fiscal incentives and subsidies for primary plastic production, including indirect subsidies to fossil fuels, to effectively tackle the plastic pollution crisis.

The report by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) and the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) examines the status of Pterocarpus erinaceus (rosewood) trade in West Africa following a March 2022 CITES trade suspension. While international trafficking has slowed, the authors find that illegal logging persists in countries like Mali, Ghana, the Gambia, and Nigeria, often facilitated by corrupt officials. The report specifically criticizes Sierra Leone's request to export 160,000 cubic meters of stockpiled timber without a sustainable export quota and Mali's approved Non-Detriment Finding (NDF), which the authors claim is based on outdated or biased data and ignores critical environmental pressures. The document concludes that lifting the suspension for any country would undermine regional conservation efforts and risk a return to unsustainable 'boom and bust' logging cycles.

The Center for International Environmental Law asserts that geoengineering technologies, including solar radiation modification and carbon dioxide removal, are unproven, unfeasible at scale, and violate human rights obligations. The organization warns that these technologies are being used as excuses to avoid phasing out fossil fuels and notes that unregulated experiments often occur on Indigenous Peoples' territories without consent. It advocates for a rapid, fair fossil fuel phase-out and the adoption of a global binding instrument via the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative to limit global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

This briefing from the Center for International Environmental Law argues that current and projected growth in plastic production is incompatible with global climate goals, specifically the 1.5°C warming limit. It asserts that a global plastics treaty must include ambitious obligations to reduce production, as the Paris Agreement and Nationally Determined Contributions are insufficient to address the climate impacts of plastics.

The statement argues that climate-altering engineering technologies, such as carbon capture and storage and solar radiation modification, are unproven at scale and pose significant risks to human rights and the environment. It further contends that decarbonization proposals often fail to address the toxic impacts of industrial agriculture and that the only viable pathway to avoid catastrophic climate change is the immediate phase-out of fossil fuels combined with a human-rights-respecting transition to renewable energy.

A coalition of civil society organizations urges the World Bank Group Executive Directors to reject any IFC remedial framework that fails to commit to financial contributions for remedy, obligations for clients to remediate harm, and protections against exiting projects with ongoing CAO cases without community consent.

The document synthesizes expert warnings that geoengineering technologies, including carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation modification (SRM), pose unprecedented risks to human rights and may act as a 'moral hazard' by delaying the necessary phase-out of fossil fuels. It highlights that these technologies are largely unproven and unfeasible at scale, with potential for disproportionate harm to Indigenous Peoples, rural communities, and future generations. The brief advocates for a rights-based approach to climate action that prioritizes immediate emissions reductions and the application of the precautionary principle, suggesting that some high-risk activities, such as stratospheric aerosol injection, may warrant a complete ban.