Search Climate Insights Directory

The document asserts that current exponential growth in plastic production is incompatible with global climate goals, as plastics already account for 3% to 8% of global GHG emissions and could consume over 10% of the remaining carbon budget by 2050. It argues that emissions cannot be decoupled from production through electrification or bio-based feedstocks alone. To address this, the brief recommends that the plastics treaty establish a global production baseline, a freeze on production levels, and a phasedown schedule to reduce production by 46% to 70% from 2019 levels by 2050. It further calls for a ban on new production infrastructure, the elimination of public subsidies, and the implementation of trade restrictions to prevent carbon leakage.

The document examines the role of fiscal incentives in driving plastic production and proposes that the future plastics treaty adopt the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) definition of subsidies to ensure legal coherence and workability. It distinguishes between direct subsidies (e.g., grants for plants) and indirect subsidies (e.g., cheap fossil fuel feedstocks), recommending a form-based prohibition for the former and an effects-based prohibition for the latter. The brief emphasizes the need for transparency, binding elimination targets, and special and differential treatment for developing countries to facilitate a just transition.

The document presents a compilation of quotes from various stakeholder groups—including Development Finance Institutions (DFIs), IFC clients, Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs), and civil society—who collectively argue that the IFC/MIGA's proposed Approach to Remedial Action and Responsible Exit Principles fails to provide new commitments or sufficient clarity. Stakeholders emphasize that the IFC/MIGA should take a more active role in remediating harm, align with international human rights standards, and establish a dedicated remedy fund. There is a strong consensus that the current approach ignores 'legacy' cases and fails to adequately address the risks to project-affected people and the environment, particularly during the process of 'responsible exit'.

This briefing from the Center for International Environmental Law clarifies the distinctions and complementarities between national implementation plans (NIPs), national action plans (NAPs), and nationally determined contributions (NDCs) within the context of multilateral environmental agreements, specifically providing recommendations for a future plastics treaty.

The Center for International Environmental Law argues that industrial food production is deeply linked to the fossil fuel industry through the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, which release greenhouse gases and may impair soil carbon sequestration. The statement warns that geoengineering technologies, such as solar radiation modification and large-scale carbon removal, pose risks to weather patterns, ecosystems, and food security. It calls for a rapid end to fossil fuel reliance and a transition to regenerative agricultural models that protect the rights of land and environmental defenders, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

The Center for International Environmental Law highlights the symbiotic relationship between the fossil fuel industry and industrial agriculture, noting that agriculture accounts for approximately one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions. It emphasizes that reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides creates vulnerability to fossil fuel price shocks, which increases food costs and insecurity. The statement calls for states to transition toward resilient and regenerative agricultural models to ensure food and energy sovereignty.

The report examines Australia's exposure to illegally harvested timber, focusing on high-risk supply chains from East Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America. It highlights the role of China and Vietnam as processing hubs that obscure the origin of timber from high-risk regions like the Congo Basin. The authors argue that current enforcement of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act (ILPA) is limited and recommend increased transparency, scientific species testing, and a shift toward tracing timber back to the country of harvest rather than the country of export.

A group of civil society organizations has written to World Bank President Ajay Banga, warning that scaling up lending to address global crises must not come at the expense of human rights, social, and environmental standards. The authors argue that the World Bank Group's current accountability mechanisms are "woefully unequipped" to provide remedy for harms caused by projects. They specifically criticize a March 2023 draft framework on remedial action and responsible exit from the IFC and MIGA for failing to acknowledge human rights obligations or provide a comprehensive plan for delivering remedy. The coalition calls for a framework that includes financial contributions to remedy, prevents premature project exits during accountability processes, and addresses both past and ongoing harms.

CIEL supports the draft declaration on the human right of international solidarity, noting its inclusion of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. The organization emphasizes the obligation of developed states to provide resources for climate-related loss and damage and the duty of all states to counter corporate influence and misinformation in environmental policymaking while protecting civic space for civil society and Indigenous Peoples.

The brief submitted by CIEL and Greenpeace International asserts that anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions constitute marine pollution under UNCLOS. It argues that States have a legal duty to prevent, reduce, and control these emissions to protect and preserve the marine environment, specifically by limiting warming to 1.5°C. The authors contend that this duty requires an immediate halt to new fossil fuel projects, a transition to non-fossil fuel power by mid-century, and the implementation of adaptation measures. The brief emphasizes that ITLOS should interpret UNCLOS harmoniously with international human rights law and the best available science, applying principles such as the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDRRC-NC).

The Center for International Environmental Law asserts that current legal frameworks are insufficient to protect people moving due to climate change, though States remain bound by existing human rights obligations, including non-refoulement. Citing the IPCC, the statement argues that involuntary migration can be reduced through international cooperation and calls for increased climate finance from developed States, specifically for loss and damage.

The report serves as a glossary for negotiators of the future 'plastics treaty' mandated by UNEA Resolution 5/14. It aggregates definitions across twelve categories, including generic pollution, plastic-specific terms, waste management, and the full life cycle of plastics, drawing from sources such as the Basel Convention, OECD, ISO, and EU directives.

The Center for International Environmental Law has produced a compilation of over 100 terms potentially relevant to the negotiation and implementation of a treaty to end plastic pollution, drawing definitions from existing Multilateral Environmental Agreements and international bodies.

The authors call on Council of Europe nations to address a gap in the European human rights framework by formally recognizing the right to a healthy environment. They argue that while the UN General Assembly affirmed this right in July 2022, the Council of Europe remains the only regional human rights system whose political institutions have not yet done so. The authors suggest that a protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights would catalyze climate action, provide legal certainty for corporate actors, and protect environmental activists.

This policy brief, produced by CIEL and IUCN, examines the compatibility of a proposed international treaty to end plastic pollution with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. It highlights how the international trade of plastic feedstocks, polymers, and waste accelerates the plastic crisis and serves as a mechanism for spreading micro- and nanoplastic pollution.

The report analyzes how UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies (HRTBs) are increasingly integrating climate change into their oversight of State obligations. In 2022, HRTBs made 95 references to climate change in their pronouncements, reflecting a trend toward treating the climate crisis as an urgent human rights issue. Key focus areas include the obligation of developed states to mitigate emissions, the need to phase out fossil fuels, and the protection of vulnerable groups such as children, women, persons with disabilities, and Indigenous Peoples. A landmark decision by the Human Rights Committee in Billy et al. v. Australia established a State's duty to protect individuals under its jurisdiction from climate impacts and provide effective remedies. The report emphasizes the growing role of HRTBs in defining extraterritorial obligations and the duty to regulate private corporate actors contributing to environmental degradation.

The report analyzes the increasing engagement of UN human rights treaty bodies (HRTBs) with climate change, noting that in 2022, 52 percent of outputs to States included climate-related recommendations. It highlights a shift toward more specific demands regarding mitigation, the phasing out of fossil fuels, and the protection of vulnerable groups, including children, women, and Indigenous Peoples. A landmark decision by the Human Rights Committee in Billy et al. v. Australia established a State's duty to protect individuals from climate impacts and provide effective remedy. The document argues for further HRTB guidance on extraterritorial obligations and the regulation of private business actors to prevent climate-induced human rights violations.

A coalition of civil society organizations (CSOs) has condemned the proposed Approach to Remedial Action by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). The CSOs argue that the proposal fails to implement recommendations from a 2020 External Review, ignores existing harms by applying only to new projects, and lacks concrete mechanisms to guarantee financial remedy for affected communities.

The document argues that IFC and MIGA proposals fail to address the need for effective remediation of environmental and social damages and lack a human rights-based approach to responsible exit from projects.

The document argues that the Loss and Damage Fund must be grounded in human rights to effectively protect marginalized communities and provide substantive redress. It recommends a governance structure with representative board membership, the use of rights-based needs assessments, and the implementation of strict social and environmental safeguards. To ensure adequacy and equity, the authors advocate for public, grants-based funding derived from historic polluters and innovative sources like a Climate Damages Tax, rather than loans that increase debt in the Global South.