On 2 May 2026, several newspapers reported on plans to vet human rights defenders in Indonesia :
The government’s plan to screen and determine who qualifies as a human rights activist to decide who receives legal safeguards has met with backlash from civil society groups, who warn the move risks state interference in rights protections.
The plan came as the Human Rights Ministry is seeking to introduce changes to the 1999 Human Rights Law and issue a new ministerial regulation to strengthen legal protections for human rights activists, citing concerns over criminalisation against those involved in advocacy works.
To ensure legal safeguards can be provided for activists, Human Rights Minister Natalius Pigai said his ministry would form an assessor team to evaluate whether detained individuals meet the criteria as human rights defenders.
The assessment will be based on strict criteria focusing on the individual’s actions at the time of the incident rather than self-declared status or public recognition. The team will review each case individually to ensure decisions are made based on the context of ongoing legal cases.
Legal protection, the minister stressed, would only be extended to those defending public interests, particularly vulnerable or marginalised groups. Those who are proven to have acted with personal or financial motives would be excluded.
“It’s possible that someone widely known as a human rights activist, at a certain moment, may be found by the assessor team to be acting for (financial gain). In such cases, they can’t be considered a human rights activist,” Mr Pigai said on April 29, as quoted by Antara.
He added those meeting the criteria would be shielded from prosecution from the earliest stages of legal proceedings.
On 14 November 2025 Kate Kroeger and Kellea Miller wrote for the Alliance blog how philanthropy can show up in solidarity with movements defending democracy
There is a nearly six-fold increase in the chance of protecting societies from democratic backsliding when strong civil resistance campaigns are involved.
This striking finding from the University of Texas at Dallas and Johns Hopkins University—that social movements and resistance campaigns can increase the likelihood of protecting democracy to 51.7 percent from 7.5 percent—should compel funders to action, especially in this moment of rising authoritarianism around the world.
The philanthropic sector faces both an unprecedented opportunity and a moral imperative: to invest in the proven strategies that can safeguard democracy and our future, including the future of our planet. Yet, progressive movements leading civil resistance to authoritarianism, particularly grassroots organisations, remain chronically underfunded and the organisers, activists, and movements at the forefronts of this work during an era of overlapping crises are working with minimal resources while confronting burnout, reprisals, and trauma.
In order to be part of the solution, we must first clarify who and what we’re investing in. New research from Human Rights Funders Network projects that human rights-focused ODA will decline by up to $1.9 billion or 31 percent annually by 2026. By investing in grassroots organisations—including unregistered efforts—that focus on structurally excluded populations, philanthropy can stave off the worst outcomes of the funding crisis. The frontline movements and communities bearing the brunt of and addressing authoritarianism and climate change are not merely beneficiaries or recipients of aid. They are the leaders and strategists philanthropy can support and learn from. We cannot forget that it’s Indigenous communities who protect the majority of our planet’s biodiversity and lead the resistance to fossil fuel expansion thereby being one of the largest forces to combat climate chaos. Grassroots communities also grow the majority of the world’s food grown with agroecological methods. It’s relationship-building by movements that is key to shifting pillar loyalty to defend democracy. These are rooted, place-based, local innovations and solutions that have deep breadth and experience and can drive the systemic change our world desperately needs.
To address the breadth of crises we’re facing, philanthropy must act as an ecosystem and fund ecosystems. Now is the time to fund movements within communities, in networks and ecosystems with one another. It’s not about one issue or one community, but about ensuring that democratic resistance is funded at every level. In order to do so, philanthropy must demonstrate collective action instead of operating in siloed strategies. There are powerful examples of philanthropy coming together to address crises in recent memory, including during the peak of the Covid pandemic and in response to the invasion of Ukraine, that can be replicated. For example, in response to the pandemic, philanthropy was not only able to invest more than $20 billion dollars in communities around the world, but also effectively act as a convener for information sharing and to foster collaboration across governmental and private sector stakeholders. Funding social movement ecosystems is also a risk mitigation strategy, ensuring that risk is spread across groups both for funders and movements.
Realistic risk assessment and mitigation strategies allow philanthropy to act with courage. Philanthropic institutions must clearly identify the real risks facing them and prepare to address them in order to step up in this moment. While there are risks facing private foundations, including but not limited to being questioned by governmental entities about their grantmaking, many of these risks are short term and administrative and can be mitigated through, among other strategies, working in tandem with other funders. For movements, however, the risks are existential. Movements for climate and environmental justice are among the most targeted in the world, because they take on corporate interests, agribusiness, extractive industries, and organised crime. In 2024 alone, more than 320 human rights defenders were killed. Fully 85 percent of targeted killings of activists in Latin America are those of environmental and climate justice defenders. It is true that funders need to move cautiously to preserve their ability to fund these very movements and activists on the frontlines, but they must not confuse caution with abandoning those risking their lives to protect our planet and fight for human rights for all.
How philanthropy supports those defending democracy at the ground level is as important as the dollar amounts. If funders were waiting for an emergency moment to throw away their playbook and fund with trust and abundance, we have arrived at that moment. Long, arduous, and bureaucratic systems and processes for grantmaking are not designed to meet the moment of poly crisis we’re in. Funders can use this moment to redesign their processes to meet not only the needs of movements but the complexity and pace of current crises. It’s essential that donors normalise long-term, unrestricted funding, resource movement infrastructure, and support collective care for activists on the frontlines. Legal defense, digital security, crisis communications, media trainings, and spaces for defenders to build intersectional and shared strategies require resources in order for movements to survive and succeed. Defenders are operating under extremely risky conditions with bare bones support, while fighting burnout and reprisals. Investing in collective care, such as wellbeing spaces, health insurance, retirement, and transition funds, is as important for the survival of movements as infrastructure support.
Over the past few months, there have been numerous convenings and conversations on what philanthropy should do in the current political and funding landscape. The answer is clear. Philanthropy should invest in strategies that succeed in protecting democracy and our planet and time and time again, we’ve seen that those are led by grassroots and frontline activists and movements. These movements will continue to exist whether funders step up or not. The question, in the words of activist and former Co-Executive Director of Highlander Center Ash-Lee Woodard Henderson, is whether they’ll be resourced to win.
Kate Kroeger is the executive director of Urgent Action Fund for Feminist Activism. Kellea Miller is the executive director of Human Rights Funders Network. Samir Doshi is director of Just Transitions at CS Fund.
On 12 December 2025, the government of Guatemala formally acknowledged responsibility for the 1989 enforced disappearance of human rights defenders Agapito Pérez Lucas, Nicolás Mateo, Macario Pú Chivalán, and Luis Ruiz Luis, whose whereabouts remain unknown to this day. President Bernardo Arévalo will join the victims’ families, representatives from the Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center (Kennedy Human Rights) and Consejo de Comunidades Étnicas Runujel Junam (CERJ), state officials, and special guests for a public Act of Recognition of Responsibility ceremony at the Palacio de la Cultura in Guatemala City.
Pérez Lucas, Mateo, Pú Chivalán, and Ruiz Luis were active members of CERJ during the armed conflict in Guatemala, helping protect rural Guatemalans from unlawful conscription into the army. Targeted for their human rights work, the four defenders were subjected to threats and persecution, which ultimately culminated in their arbitrary detention and forced disappearance by members of the Guatemalan Army. Despite repeated pleas from their families, the Guatemalan government failed to conduct an effective investigation or provide information about their whereabouts.
“For decades, the families of the disappeared lived with silence, fear, and impunity,” said Kerry Kennedy, president of Kennedy Human Rights. “The State’s failure to investigate and respond not only deepened the pain of those who lost loved ones, but it denied entire communities the right to truth, justice, and memory. This public recognition of responsibility is therefore not simply a symbolic act. It is the State’s formal acknowledgment, before its people and before the world, of the grave human rights violations committed against these communities.”
In September 2024, after years of litigation by CERJ and Kennedy Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) concluded that the Guatemalan government was responsible for forcibly disappearing the four defenders in direct retaliation for their human rights work, failing to search for the defenders’ whereabouts, and failing to investigate the facts. As part of its verdict, the Court ordered Guatemala to uphold several reparation measures in favor of the victims, including a thorough investigation of the disappearances. The Court also ordered the Guatemalan government to implement a series of non-repetition measures, including declassifying archives related to the internal armed conflict and creating a national mechanism to search for forcibly disappeared individuals. It also ordered the State to adopt a public policy to protect human rights defenders. In response to this Court order, the Government recently announced the adoption of such a policy for the period 2025-2035.
On 25 April 2026 ANI reported on a project aimed at strengthening human rights advocacy across Pakistan. Titled ‘Human Rights Documentation, Fact-Finding, and Advocacy for the Marginalised-II,’ the initiative seeks to advance human rights, democratic values, and the rule of law, according to an official statement. The event brought together members of the Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) Network, including civil society representatives, community leaders, and activists. Participants discussed the project’s goals, strategies, and anticipated impact.
The session focused on planning key activities under the project, defining roles and responsibilities, and identifying practical interventions to ensure effective outcomes. Attendees also shared field experiences, highlighted challenges, and explored ways to address them during implementation.
HRFP, in collaboration with TFD and the HRDs Network, plans to hold monthly meetings to review progress, share case updates, and tackle emerging challenges. These regular engagements will also facilitate legal assistance, address urgent needs, and strengthen advocacy efforts to ensure justice for affected individuals and communities.
Cases requiring in-depth inquiry will be examined through dedicated fact-finding missions conducted by trained teams of volunteers, staff, and network members. The project will also include capacity-building initiatives and awareness sessions to enhance advocacy skills and knowledge….
Naveed Walter reiterated that the project is designed to uphold fundamental rights, protect vulnerable populations, and advocate for freedoms such as expression, religion, and equal access to opportunities, education, and a healthy environment. He also stressed the importance of accountability and the fulfilment of basic human needs.
Members of the HRDs Network, including Naseem Haroon, Nusrat Samuel, John Victor, Ejaz Ghauri, James Lal, Lawrance Thomas, and Sohail Emmanuel, expressed their commitment to collaborative action. They emphasised the need to strengthen democratic practices and condemned human rights violations and undemocratic tendencies that undermine the rule of law.
In 2025, REAT Helpline recorded above 1200 and in 2024, 1198 complaints related to human rights violations, with a particular focus on issues concerning religion, belief, and democratic freedoms.
Applications are now open for the 2027 Marianne Initiative for Human Rights Defenders. Each year, a group of about fifteen human rights defenders, distinguished by their exemplary work in the fight for fundamental rights in their countries of origin, are welcomed to France. The laureates are selected from among several hundred candidates by a committee of independent experts.
The personalized program includes networking with key actors involved in the field of human rights (State, local authorities, non-governmental organizations, independent judicial and administrative authorities, representatives of international organizations), as well as support for the development of their activist project, aimed at strengthening the effectiveness of their action.
Benefits
The program offers a unique platform for international exposure and professional growth.
Participants gain access to a broad network of human rights professionals and European institutions, fostering connections that last long after the program ends.
The core benefit of the initiative lies in the specialized skill-building workshops provided during the stay in France.
This immersive experience aims to expand the operational capacity and strategic networks of frontline defenders.
Eligibility
To be eligible, candidates must demonstrate a proven and distinguished commitment to promoting fundamental rights within their local communities.
The initiative specifically looks for individuals who have already distinguished themselves through concrete actions on the ground.
Prospective applicants should be motivated to expand their professional skills and be willing to collaborate with international peers.
The program serves as a vital bridge between local grassroots activism and global human rights standards.
Benefits
The winners follow a comprehensive program consisting of:
Training courses to strengthen cross-cutting skills to implement their projects: negotiation, leadership, advocacy, project engineering, association management, etc.;
Training to improve working conditions in the country of origin: security, mechanisms for the protection of human rights defenders, etc.;
Courses to consolidate their theoretical knowledge: transitional justice, international law, etc.;
Meetings and networking with individuals and partner organizations committed to human rights and development issues;
Conferences and cultural activities;
Individual interviews to support the activist project;
Visits to international institutions and organizations;
Exchanges with the Marianne Alumni network of the program, within the framework of the mentoring program between laureates of the different cohorts.
Indigenous environmental human rights defenders (IEHRDs) across Latin America face disproportionate levels of violence for protecting land, water, and territory. Of the 146 environmental defenders killed or disappeared in 2024, approximately one-third were Indigenous. This overrepresentation reveals the structural risks faced by Indigenous Peoples at the forefront of environmental defense.
A study by Nefeli Poulopati, Ezihe Chikwere and Paulina Macías Ortega for Kennedy Human Rights Centre published on 30 April 2026 explores who IEHRDs are, the legal protections available to them, the challenges they face, and cases that reflect their ongoing resistance and struggle across Latin America.
The study looks at Legal Frameworks, Violence against IEHRDs, Impacts of Extractivism, and looks Ahead: A Differentiated Approach…
States must adopt an intersectional approach in all measures taken to protect the rights of IEHRDs. A differentiated, preventive, and collective approach to protecting IEHRDs requires applying a gender, ethno-racial, and cultural perspective when determining the level of risk faced by an IEHRD. The ethnic reality of the territory and the traditional ways of Indigenous peoples need to be taken into account when designing protection schemes, to ensure they align with these communities’ practices. The special relationship of Indigenous Peoples to the land reinforces States’ obligation to protect IEDHRs.
One way to fulfill this obligation is to decide on protective measures for IEHRDs in consultation with Indigenous communities, a practice that is often not followed by States. It is particularly important for governments to consider the heightened risk that IEHRDs face when they oppose development megaprojects. States should adopt the necessary measures to establish or strengthen systems to monitor and control these practices in a manner consistent with their legal obligations.
However, as the cases above illustrate, formal recognition does not equal protection. Instead, it is the first step to rethink the colonial origins of the extractivist system that perpetuates power imbalances, thereby weakening safeguards at the regional and local levels.
To learn more about this work, visit the Civic Space Case Tracker, which maps leading ongoing judicial cases litigated by local organizations and lawyers in Asia, Africa, and the Americas.
On April 22, 2026 United Nations special rapporteurs raised serious concerns about Turkey’s use of counterterrorism laws to judicially harass and criminalize human rights defenders and lawyers, including what they described as the misuse of the terrorism financing law, the Stockholm Center for Freedom reported.
In a letter sent to the Turkish government on February 23, 2026, but published only recently, the rapporteurs said authorities were pursuing charges including membership in a terrorist organization and terrorism financing against rights defenders and lawyers, singling out the Human Rights Association (İHD) as a particular target.
The rapporteurs pointed to the case of İHD member Hatice Onaran, who was convicted in 2024 of “violating the law on financing terrorism” after sending small amounts of money to poor and sick prisoners. They also cited the cases of four other members —Osman Süzen, Suna Bilgin, Tuğba Kahraman and Mehmet Acettin — who were charged with membership in a terrorist organization. Süzen was subsequently acquitted at a January 2026 hearing.
A fifth İHD member, İsmail Boyraz, was investigated on accusations of participating in an unlawful assembly after taking part in a teachers’ union protest. The rapporteurs also cited the case of lawyer Sabri Güngen, who was allegedly assaulted by police while meeting with a client.
The rapporteurs expressed concern over what they described as Turkey’s “apparent misuse” of terrorism financing laws in Onaran’s case, noting that providing small sums of money to support the basic needs of ill and financially disadvantaged prisoners, in line with prison regulations and under prison administration supervision does not constitute terrorism financing under international law. Onaran, who is undergoing cancer treatment, was released in February 2025 after his sentence was suspended for six months on health grounds.
They also warned that physical assault and intimidation reportedly faced by lawyers Bilgin, Süzen and Güngen while carrying out their professional duties may have been acts of retaliation for their human rights work.
The rapporteurs raised the same concern in a following statement on March 31, which warned that Turkey’s counterterrorism legislation is being used to criminalize legitimate rights advocacy and restrict fundamental freedoms.
The letter was signed by Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders; Gina Romero, the special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Tlaleng Mofokeng, the special rapporteur on physical and mental health; Margaret Satterthwaite, the special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; and Ben Saul, the special rapporteur on protection of rights and freedoms while countering terrorism.
In a letter οf 27 April 2026, addressed to leaders of the European Parliament, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) within the framework of the Observatory, as part of the Human Rights and Democracy Network (HRDN), call for the establishment of a European Union (EU) directive aiming at protecting human rights defenders within the EU.
The Human Rights and Democracy Network welcomes the European Commission’s renewed commitment, as part of the EU Civil Society Strategy, to scale up its support to ensure an enabling environment for civil society and human rights defenders across the world. In this context, HRDN urges the European Commission to take a decisive step toward establishing a Directive on the Protection and Mobility of Human Rights Defenders (HRDs), creating a coherent and predictable framework for their protection within the European Union.
Across the world, human rights defenders, including journalists, lawyers, environmental activists, women’s rights leaders, and LGBTIQ+ advocates, face increasing risks as a direct consequence of their work. They expose abuses, challenge corruption, and defend communities. Their courage upholds human rights, democracy and the rule of law both within and outside Europe’s borders.
While the EU and its Member States have established valuable relocation and protection mechanisms, these remain fragmented, short-term, unavailable to those most at risk and inconsistent as reports and studies have shown HRDs at risk are currently left with only two main pathways: temporary relocation programmes, often led by civil society or a few Member States, or the asylum system, which is designed for those unable to return home. Between these two options lies a wide and growing gap. Many defenders require temporary protection and mobility to continue their work, but face bureaucratic barriers, inflexible visa systems with indirect discriminatory impacts, and a lack of harmonised procedures.
A Directive on the Protection and Mobility of Human Rights Defenders (providing equal measures to a Temporary Protection Directive, as recommended in the study requested by the DROI Subcommittee of the European Parliament and called for by civil society) would bridge this gap by creating an EU-wide framework for safe entry, residence, and participation. It would introduce fast and flexible visa procedures, temporary but renewable residence permits, and the right to work, study, and continue advocacy while in safety. Such a Directive would also ensure fair responsibility sharing among Member States and foster cooperation with civil society organisations that host and support defenders.
This initiative aligns closely with the objectives of the EU Civil Society Strategy and the European Democracy Action Plan, translating policy commitments into a tangible protection mechanism. It would also complement the Human Rights Defenders Mechanism (ProtectDefenders.eu) by ensuring that the EU provides not only emergency support but also structured mobility pathways that allow defenders to rebuild, reconnect, and continue their work in safety inside the EU.
Every day, human rights defenders risk their lives to safeguard the freedoms we often take for granted. They face threats, violence, and relentless pressure simply because they choose to stand on the side of justice. Every year, different NGOs monitor the situation for human rights defenders globally and publish evidence of the attacks they are facing. Yet behind the headlines and statistics are real people – exhausted, targeted, and often left without adequate protection. For many, a safe space to take a break is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. It is the difference between burnout and resilience, between silencing and survival.
Human rights defenders work under constant pressure, facing political hostility, economic hardship, and systemic threats. The risks are severe and growing. Globally, Front Line Defenders reported at least 324 killings across 32 countries in 2024. These are not merely numbers; they reveal great risks and ongoing rights violations. Such realities underscore the urgent need for temporary relocation programs to offer defenders safety and space to continue their work.
Beyond the physical risks, defenders also face severe burnout and psychological strain. The emotional toll of their work is immense: constant exposure to threats and stories of violence can lead to secondary trauma, chronic exhaustion, and deep isolation, especially for those working without strong support systems. Temporary relocation programs help address these often‑invisible harms by offering a protected space for rest, reflection, and psychological support. As one participant from the Oslo as a Breathing Space City (Oslo Breathing Space City) program explained,
“The learnings related to well-being, stress management, and sustainable engagement have influenced how I interact with colleagues and community members. I have helped normalise conversations around mental health and burnout within my professional circles”Naghma Iqtidar, Pakistani human rights defender and Oslo Breathing Space City guest during Spring 2023.
This is precisely where temporary relocation initiatives play a crucial role. Similar to other rest and respite temporary relocation programmes, Oslo Breathing Space City offer defenders a three‑month stay in Oslo tailored to their individual needs. These initiatives provide psychosocial support, opportunities to connect with other organisations, and a safer environment in which defenders can continue their activism. Importantly, they take a holistic approach to protection, addressing not only immediate security needs but also the emotional, psychological, and relational dimensions of a defender’s wellbeing in the long term. Because of this broader focus, they can create different forms of impact, which are complementary to more traditional protection tools. They not only offer safety but also create the conditions for sustainable, long‑term resilience...
Finally, the impacts of supporting individual human rights defenders with a holistic and long-term approach can have great benefits for their organisations, movements and communities at home, as the learnings and networks on an individual level can lead to concrete initiatives that are positive for many people or be passed on to colleagues and ultimately impact the organisational or community resilience. Some examples have been shared by previous participants of Breathing Space City:
Why are temporary relocation programs for human rights defenders essential?
They serve as an essential fallback when other protections fall short, giving defenders the space to step away from immediate danger, regain perspective, and gather the clarity and energy they need to continue their work more effectively once they return home.
They help prevent burnout and psychological harm, allowing them to sustain their activism with greater resilience over the long term.
They strengthen global networks and solidarity, creating long-term impact beyond the relocation period.
They contribute to stable and resilient human rights communities in regions where defenders face systemic violence and persecution.
Expanding relocation support as a lifeline for human rights defenders
Supporting them through relocation programs is not just an act of solidarity; it is a lifeline that enables them to continue their vital work with even more impact, resilience and sustainability.
There are currently numerous temporary relocation programmes worldwide, each with its own focus and reach. They need continuous funding and political support to be able to keep hosting human rights defenders. While programmes in safe countries of the Global South should be expanded, so that defenders facing stricter visa barriers can also access temporary protection, there is also a strong need to sustain programmes in the Global North. These locations often offer unique added value to guests, including access to international networks, advocacy spaces, and specialised resources. In addition, locations like Oslo support rest by providing security, easy access to nature, and a welcoming environment.
According to the latest report from ProtectDefenders.eu, about 30% of protection investment now goes to temporary relocation programs, showing that donors see relocation as a key mechanism within human rights defender protection efforts. While overall public funding for defenders remains very low relative to need, around 0.10% of total Official Development Assistance, the portion dedicated to protection, including relocation, has grown noticeably. This suggests donors recognise the urgency of investing in safety as a priority, even as broader funding remains constrained. Nonetheless, as the need is growing, more funding efforts are necessary to maintain and develop existing and new programmes. The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights recommends broadening relocation programs, increasing awareness about defenders’ work and risks, providing more adequate support during stays, and revising legal instruments to address their specific needs.
On 23 April 2026 Anamaría Martinez and Elizabeth Moses for WRI explain how environmental defenders help prevent deforestation and protect ecosystems critical to climate stability. Yet many face severe and sometimes lethal threats while remaining underrecognized in climate policies that often depend on their work but fail to protect them.
Image by VaLife/Shutterstock
Benitha Bompendju grew up in Tshuapa province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, surrounded by the dense rainforests of the Congo Basin. The world’s second-largest tropical forest, it plays a critical role in regulating the global climate, conserving biodiversity and sustaining local communities like Benitha’s. Yet when she was growing up, industrial logging was constant.
Concessionaires licensed by the government to harvest timber promised to bring benefits like schools and health centers. But these projects often did not materialize, and local authorities rarely got involved. Instead, companies stripped trees from the land and left local communities — who have long stewarded and relied on the rainforest — with little in return.
“As children, we watched the concessionaires leave with the wood and our parents received nothing,” Benitha recalls. “That was injustice.” This experience shaped Benitha’s future work. In 2016, she began monitoring forest-use contracts and documenting violations, working with partner organizations and government agencies to hold violators accountable. Since then, these joint efforts have helped curb illegal logging, enforce environmental regulations and deliver promised investments to communities.
Yet this critical work can be dangerous — lethally so. Benitha and other environmental defenders like her are often caught in the crosshairs of commercial interests and corruption. Many face threats, intimidation, physical assault, kidnapping and deadly violence. Global Witness documented 146 defenders killed or missing in 2024. The total number killed or missing from 2012 to 2024 is over 2,200 — and because many cases go unreported, the true toll is likely higher.
Research consistently shows that forests managed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities have lower deforestation rates and greater carbon sequestration than those managed under other regimes, making their contribution a measurable climate outcome. But without necessary protections — from access to climate justice to the systems and law enforcement needed to prevent threats and tragic loss of life — environmental defenders can’t safeguard vital ecosystems. And such protections can’t materialize or become institutionalized if environmental defenders aren’t accurately recognized and reflected in climate and nature policies.
The UN defines environmental human rights defenders as “individuals and groups who, in their personal or professional capacity and in a peaceful manner, strive to protect and promote human rights relating to the environment, including water, air, land, flora and fauna.” This includes those who defend the collective right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as well as traditional lands and livelihoods, through actions ranging from community organizing and legal advocacy to protesting, public campaigning and journalism. Many come from Indigenous and tribal groups with deep ancestral ties to the land.
Our research focuses specifically on frontline environmental defenders — those who live in, and defend, resource-rich areas experiencing what the UN Environment Programme describes as “abuse of environmental rights which affects a growing number of people in many parts of the world.”
To understand how defenders are represented in the gray (unpublished) and peer-reviewed literature on climate change under the UNFCCC, we examined 170 peer-reviewed documents from 2015 to 2025, including journal articles, books and reports, to map how defenders’ actions and contributions are reflected. The literature we surveyed both reflects trends in policymaking and serves as a source decision-makers might draw on to develop global and national climate and nature policies. Download
We found that groups such as Indigenous Peoples, women, local communities and youth are increasingly acknowledged as “agents of change” with decision-making capacity, rather than portrayed as victims or passive recipients of project benefits.
However, only 5% of the literature explicitly identifies members of these groups as “defenders” working to protect ecosystems and resources. This represents a crucial gap. Climate literature (and wider climate governance frameworks) tends to recognize who these people are — such as Indigenous Peoples, women-led organizations and youth activists — but without recognizing what they do, such as monitor deforestation and challenge extractive industries, or the risks they face as a result.
This difference may seem subtle, but is crucial. Recognizing someone’s identity alone doesn’t necessarily translate into protection or funding for the stewardship and advocacy these groups engage in. Not all identity groups (for example, Indigenous Peoples) are environmental defenders, and not all defenders belong to these groups, even if there is often an overlap. Recognizing defenders’ on the ground contributions, on the other hand, is important because it highlights their role in delivering concrete climate actions — and the need for institutional support and protection, not just their inclusion as stakeholders.
Protection can include early-warning and rapid-response systems that trigger protective action when defenders report threats or surveillance. It also means access to legal aid and judicial remedies, such as fast-track investigations, special counsel and public defenders trained in environmental and land-rights cases.
Meanwhile, governments are missing out on more effective and equitable climate solutions. Defenders bring unique perspectives, knowledge and lived experience — from agroforestry practices rooted in local traditions to stronger data collection and monitoring for more accurate NDC reporting — and help ensure policies are carried out more effectively. Yet threats to defenders weaken both national and global climate action by deterring those who risk their lives to safeguard ecosystems and enforce laws and policies.
What Would It Take to Support Environmental Defenders?
Frameworks like the Paris Agreement and the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP) under the UNFCCC already aim to integrate rights-based climate action into national and global goals. But they lack clear definitions and guidance on how defenders should be recognized and supported. To truly support environmental defenders, they must be incorporated into climate policy, reporting and finance.
Here are three ways this can happen:
1) Defining ‘Defenders’
The first step is defining what defenders are — not by identities, but by the concrete actions they take for climate protection and community resilience. Many don’t self-identify as “defenders.” They are individuals and communities that contribute to climate action and environmental protection. This would capture these de facto roles.
Adopting a practice-based definition in national and multilateral policymaking, alongside indicators that track defenders’ contributions to climate action, would allow policymakers to systematically recognize the people protecting ecosystems on the ground. Indicators could include community monitoring results, forest protection metrics or the number of co-designed adaptation plans.
This formalization would have three practical implications: First, recognizing defenders as a group would allow implementation of protection measures by identifying and addressing the risks they take. Second, it could enable governments to allocate budget to support defender-led initiatives. Third, it could strengthen their participation in decision-making at national and international levels by giving them space to share their knowledge on climate action and local ecosystems.
2) Protecting Defenders
Without safety guarantees, defenders cannot participate or contribute effectively. Protection requires two key elements: physical safety and legal resources.
Physical safety includes strengthening safeguards to reduce social and environmental risks and exploitation, for example, when concessionaires undertake projects in resource-rich areas. One way this can be supported is by creating early warning systems that allow defenders to report threats to the authorities and receive support, ensuring formal grievance mechanisms exist to ensure defender safety (with international backing, if needed). Another is by integrating defender protection requirements into climate funding, including zero-tolerance policies for violent reprisals.
Legal protection includes access to resources and courts. However, many defenders lack access due to prohibitive costs, limited connections and a poor understanding of the system. Where corruption is entrenched and governance weak, domestic legal systems can be used against defenders, leading to their criminalization as a way to silence them and stop their work. International accountability mechanisms — including UN human rights bodies, transnational legal networks and climate finance conditions tied to defender safety — can create external pressure where national systems fail. But they can only function if defenders are formally recognized. Without this, accountability is nearly impossible to demand.
Some progress has been made in different parts of the world. The Aarhus Convention, adopted in 1998, requires parties to “ensure that individuals exercising their rights to environmental information, participation and justice are not penalized, persecuted or harassed.” And Article 9 of the Escazú Agreement, adopted in 2018, calls for “a safe and enabling environment for persons, groups and organizations that promote and defend human rights in environmental matters.”
At the national level, climate justice laws and policies in Colombia, Mexico, Indonesia and the Philippines enshrine protection mechanisms that cover defenders and their work, while aiming to provide access to legal support.
Environmental defenders can include anyone that protects human rights related to the environment, including rights to a safe, clean and sustainable environment. They often face threats to their well-being and lack access to legal systems that could help support them. Photo by Eric Isselee/Shutterstock
However, significant implementation gaps remain.
Colombia’s law has stalled due to limited accessibility, the absence of a clear definition of who constitutes a human rights defender and a reshuffling of funds during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Mexico, a backlog caused in part by insufficient staffing prevents cases from being addressed in a timely manner, and protection measures are not always adequately implemented.
Indonesia recognizes defenders explicitly, but in practice, continued criminalization and intimidation prevent them from accessing the legal protection the mechanism provides. In the Philippines, financial and cultural barriers to filing cases, limited legal knowledge among defenders and slow processing times hinder the widespread implementation of legal framework protecting them.
Yet when defenders can access justice, legal action can drive accountability and tangible outcomes. In 2018, 25 Colombian youth aged seven to 26 years old filed a lawsuit against the government, alleging that climate change and failure to reduce deforestation threatened their fundamental rights. While a lower court initially ruled against them, Colombia’s Supreme Court overturned the decision and ordered the government to devise and implement action plans to address deforestation in the Amazon.
Defenders need legal support and safe, inclusive access to the processes behind these laws and regulations. Rights-based climate cases and stronger rule of law systems provide essential recourse when other accountability channels fail.
3) Integrating Defenders into Climate Plans
Protecting Defenders Is Essential for Climate Action
Protecting environmental defenders is a question of safeguarding human rights and life, ensuring climate justice and strengthening climate action.
People like Benitha, who put their lives on the line to defend the forests and other ecosystems that sustain them and the world, should not face these high-stake risks alone. Governments, multilateral institutions and finance bodies share the responsibility of formally recognizing and protecting environmental defenders within climate, nature and other policies.
Doing so is a matter of equity — and a climate imperative. When defenders are safe and supported, forests stay standing, emissions stay out of the atmosphere and frontline communities can continue building resilience for their own futures and the world’s.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 