Posts Tagged ‘sustainability’

Environmental Defenders threatened inspite of their positive but undervalued role in climate defence

April 27, 2026

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.

Village on the Congo Basin rainforest in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

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.

How environmental defenders are represented in climate literature.

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.

Climate outcomes to which frontline defenders contribute, by category

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. 

A guide walks through an old-growth forest in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
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. 

https://www.wri.org/insights/defenders-in-climate-policy

CESCR General Comment: States should protect environmental and Indigenous HRDs

October 17, 2025

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) recently published its General Comment on the environmental dimension of sustainable development. In addition to recognising human rights defenders, the Comment clarifies State obligations towards marginalized communities and notes the importance of transitioning away from fossil fuels. It also outlines States’ extraterritorial obligations.

ISHR provided two written inputs to the draft of this General Comment earlier this year – a standalone submission regarding the recognition and protection of environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs) based on the Declaration+25, a supplement to the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, and a joint submission in partnership with the Center for International Environmental Law, Earthjustice, FIAN International, the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam.

States parties should respect, protect, and promote the work of environmental and indigenous human rights defenders, as well as other civil society actors who support people in marginalized and disadvantaged situations in realizing their Covenant rights.’ States parties should take all necessary measures to ensure that environmental human rights defenders and journalists can carry out their work, without fear of harassment, intimidation or violence, including by protecting them from harm by third parties.

ISHR welcomes that priorities from the joint NGO submission to the CESCR are reflected in the General Comment, in particular Indigenous Peoples’ right to ‘free, prior and informed consent’ and the need to transition away from fossil fuels (including by reducing ineffective subsidies).

However, we regret that the Comment does not more explicitly acknowledge the critical role of EHRDs in promoting sustainable development or strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) as an obstacle to their engagement. The CESCR has previously noted the risks faced by HRDs and provided guidance on their recognition and protection in the context of land issues in General Comment No. 26 and it should have extended this analysis to EHRDs in the context of sustainable development. The use of SLAPPs to silence HRDs has been acknowledged by other UN bodies, including in the most recent report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, Ms. Mary Lawlor, to the Third Committee of the General Assembly.  

 Some additional highlights from the General Comment are set out below. 

  • The Committee found that ‘[t]he full realization of Covenant rights demands a just transition towards a sustainable economy that centres human rights and the well-being of the planet’. 
  • States should supervise commercial activity, establish a legal obligation for businesses in respect of environment and human rights due diligence, and ensure that victims of human rights violations stemming from businesses have redress. 
  • States have obligations to conduct human rights and environmental impact assessments, which are to be undertaken with ‘meaningful public participation’.
  • States have an extraterritorial obligation to ensure that any activities within the State or in areas under its control do not substantially adversely affect the environment in another country. This also extends to preventing businesses in the State from causing such harm in another jurisdiction. Even though the CESCR does not expressly mention it in the Comment, this should also apply to cases of attacks against EHRDs. 
  • The CESCR also clarifies States’ obligations towards marginalized communities, spotlighting the concept of intersectionality. It also explicitly notes that equal exercise of economic, social and cultural rights by women and men is a prerequisite for sustainable development, encouraging States to redistribute the unpaid domestic work undertaken by women and girls.
  • Environment-related obligations have also been set out for States in the context of specific Covenant rights, for example, the right to self-determination , right to freely utilize natural resources , right to work , right to an adequate standard of living, right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, right to education and other economic, social and cultural rights.
  • The General Comment recognises that certain communities are particularly vulnerable to the effects of environmental degradation – it calls on States to identify and protect those at risk. The CESCR focuses particularly on children (specifically calling for child rights defenders to be recognised and protected and for their participation in climate action to be facilitated), Indigenous Peoples, peasants, pastoralists, fishers and others in rural areas, and displaced persons.

‘Environmental degradation, including climate change, intensifies the vulnerabilities of individuals and groups who have historically experienced and/or experience marginalization. These vulnerabilities are shaped by intersecting factors such as socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, gender, disability, age, migratory status, sexual orientation, and gender identity.’

https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/cescr-general-comment-states-should-protect-environmental-and-indigenous-hrds-work-in-the-context-of-sustainable-development

Only 9% of companies assessed by Forrest 500 committed to not tolerate attacks on defenders

September 15, 2025

On 8 September 2025, a report “Defending forests shouldn’t cost lives: Forest 500 assesses corporate zero tolerance policies,” links world’s top banks to social & environmental harms from mining

… Global Canopy’s annual Forest 500 assessment looks at six human rights criteria closely associated with preventing deforestation. Three indicators are interconnected with deforestation as violations of these rights frequently happen around the point of forest loss. They are: Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC); zero tolerance for threats and violence against forest, land and human rights defenders; and customary rights to land, resources and territory.

Among them, zero tolerance is least likely to be addressed by companies: only 9% of the 500 companies assessed have a public commitment in place for at least one forest risk commodity. By comparison, 37% of companies have committed to FPIC, and 24% have commitments to respect the customary rights of IPLCs to land, resources and territory.

… Only 47 Forest 500 companies have commitments for zero tolerance. Companies in the palm oil (18%) and cocoa (14%) supply chains are more likely to have commitments. Commitments are scarce in the beef (10%), soy (11%) and timber (6%) sectors, although these industries are linked to abuses in Latin America. According to BHRRC, 40% of attacks against human rights defenders over the last decade took place in Latin America, with Brazil recording the highest number of killings worldwide.

… Only six of the Forest 500 companies publish evidence of due diligence and progress reporting on eradicating violence and threats f

The report focuses on financing for companies mining critical minerals used in the global energy transition, including lithium, nickel, graphite and cobalt. Nearly 70% of these transition mineral mines overlap with Indigenous lands and roughly an equal amount is in regions of high biodiversity.

“Our findings shed light on the central role that financial institutions play in enabling this new wave of destruction as companies rush to expand mining operations as rapidly as possible,” Steph Dowlen, forests and finance campaigner for the Rainforest Action Network, told Mongabay by email. “While this extraction for raw minerals falls under a ‘green’, ‘clean’ or ‘renewable’ banner, it’s still extraction and the mining sector remains high-risk, dominated by companies with egregious track records on rights, the environment and corporate accountability.”

The report assessed environmental, social and governance policy scores of 30 major financial institutions and found an average score of only 22%. Vanguard and CITIC scored the lowest, each with just 3%. The assessment found that many financial institutions lacked policies to prevent financing issues, including pollution, Indigenous rights abuses or deforestation.

Of all institutions assessed, 80% lacked policies on human rights defenders and none had safeguards for Indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation. Many institutions (60%) lacked grievance mechanisms, which allow communities that have been negatively impacted by mining activities to seek justice. Also, 60% of institutions had no policies on tax transparency, which is key to preventing companies from shifting profits abroad and ensuring that mining revenues remain in the resource-rich countries.

“Due to the significant overlap with transition minerals and Indigenous Territories, and high-biodiversity areas, there is an immediate need for governments, financial institutions and mining companies to stop and listen,” Dowlen said. “Indigenous Peoples and local communities have been raising the alarm for a long time but continue to face disproportionate harm as well as violence and intimidation for defending their rights and their lands.”

BlackRock and JPMorgan Chase declined to comment on the report. None of the other institutions mentioned in this piece responded to Mongabay’s emails.

https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/forest-500-report-finds-only-9-of-companies-assessed-have-a-public-commitment-to-not-tolerate-attacks-on-defenders/

Open Global Rights on creating pathways for environmental defenders in the trickiest places

October 26, 2024

Grassroots environmental defenders are building a variety of strategic, community-based approaches to environmental justice. Global actors can do more to support their work write Rebecca Iwerks & Ye Yinth & Otto Saki on 14 October 2024 in Open Global Rights.

Fighting for land, environmental, and climate justice is risky. Global Witness annually reminds us of the staggering number of people who are killed for defending their land—over 2,100 since 2012. And lethality is only the tip of the iceberg, one of a multitude of violent tactics that people face when they speak up for their community. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2024/09/18/global-witness-2023-2024-annual-report-violent-erasure-of-land-and-environmental-defenders/]

The last few years have seen encouraging steps to respond through global and regional policy. National governments have started to make specific commitments to protect environmental rights defenders, deeming it necessary to address the climate crisis. The Escazu agreement in Latin America has explicit requirements for the state protection of environmental rights defenders. [NOTE: On 16 October 2024 civil society in the Americas has issued an urgent call to accelerate the implementation of the Plan of Action on Human Rights Defenders, of the Escazú Agreement, adopted five months ago].Just this month, the UNFCCC Supervisory Body for Article 6.4 and the UN Secretary General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals showed how global bodies can incorporate the protection of environmental rights defenders directly into climate policy. More broadly, hundreds of organizations have pooled their efforts to end retaliation against environmental defenders through the ALLIED network.

What do we do while we wait for momentum to build and for policy to translate into practice? We can draw hope from thoughtful, strategic examples of grassroots legal empowerment. Throughout the world, legal empowerment advocates—people helping individuals and groups know, use, and shape the law with the support of community paralegals—are assisting communities in registering their land, stopping corporate pollution of their water, and negotiating fair land use deals even in the most difficult places. 

Last year, we examined the experiences of environmental defenders who were able to continue their work in repressed environments, using tenets of legal empowerment to find pathways to justice in ways that reduce their risk. Here’s what we saw:

  1. Building community power.
  2. Changing paths to remedy.
  3. Building relationships with allies. …..
  4. Knowing, using, and shaping the law to respond to security concerns.

How do we super-charge support for this subtle, effective protection alternative? 

While grassroots justice advocates are continuing to seek remedies in tricky places, global actors can do more to support them. The primary shift that can support this type of innovative risk response is to provide flexible, unrestricted funding directly to grassroots justice advocates, whether through philanthropy or from pooled private sector funds that facilitate independent legal and technical support. Flexible funding allows the practitioners to shift their plans as pathways become riskier; it also allows them to invest in security equipment that may not clearly fit into a project-driven budget. Openness to different types of reporting can allow grassroots justice advocates to make decisions about what information is safest for them to reveal without concerns about financial security.

Secondly, those who influence global frameworks, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), can do more to incorporate the security of environmental rights defenders into these frameworks. For example, the security of environmental rights defenders is integral to the access to justice encompassed by Sustainable Development Goal 16, and progress on that issue should be included in all SDG 16 reporting. Within the UNFCCC, the language protecting defenders from Article 6.4 Supervisory Body and the Secretary General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals should be mirrored throughout climate policy frameworks and resourced during their implementation. 

While the actions against environmental defenders are shocking, there are significant steps the rights community can take now to support grassroots actors moving forward.

https://www.openglobalrights.org/creating-pathways-to-land-and-environmental-justice-in-the-trickiest-places/