According to a recent report published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), climate litigation has doubled worldwide in recent years and has become an important and increasingly popular tool for tackling the climate crisis.

Furthermore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted in its sixth report that there is now "a growing academic consensus suggesting that climate litigation has become a powerful force in climate governance".

Climate litigation is indeed an integral part of the activists' toolkit for promoting climate action. And it is children, youth, indigenous peoples, civil society organizations, women and local communities who have taken the lead in bringing these legal actions.

Climate litigation is, at its core, strategic litigation, which means it seeks far-reaching changes in society that go beyond a specific case. Typically, this is achieved by promoting the protection of rights or changes in public policy.

Such litigations hold governments, public authorities, companies and other non-state actors accountable in court for the climate crisis and oblige them, among other things, to adopt, implement and gradually increase concrete measures to reduce their emissions and mitigate the impacts of the climate crisis.

Over a year ago, AIDA launched the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean, a reference website that collects cases of climate litigation in the region. The goal is to promote the exchange of diverse experiences in order to strengthen cases in favor of necessary structural changes.

The Platform contains systematized and updated information on litigations filed before any jurisdictional authority (judicial, administrative, international or autonomous). It contains the arguments supporting the cases, related to the legal obligations of States and other actors in the face of the climate crisis.

It also contains cases that, while not directly related to the climate crisis, contribute to the pursuit of climate justice on the continent.

And this is where confusion and questions arise: what makes a litigation a climate litigation?

The truth is that there is no accepted definition to determine which litigation is climate and which is not. It is a relatively new niche in the field of environmental law and -as with many things in life, it has blurred edges. The fact is that our planet is suffering from multiple crises, all of which are interconnected and closely linked to environmental degradation. In this sense, it is almost always possible to link environmental litigations, in some way or another, to the changing climate.

In any case, and with the aim of stimulating a discussion on this subject, we venture here to reflect on possible definitions that shed light and allow us to delimit this concept that is gaining so much relevance.

 

An approach to climate litigation and its elements

One way to approach the question of what makes a litigation a climate litigation is to say that a climate litigation is any litigation that contains arguments related to the climate crisis in its claim or in the sentence that resolves it.

Another approach concerns the purpose of the litigation, whereby to say that climate litigation is any litigation relating to climate action. It implies a high complexity and a wide variety of cases, many of which are intertwined. Under this definition, for example, there would be cases that:

• Seek to mitigate emissions of pollutants that cause global warming.
• Demand the states to comply (or increase) their international climate commitments.
• Promote measures to adapt to the unavoidable effects of climate crisis.
• Demand reparations for damages caused by the climate crisis.
• Aim to ensure that companies are held accountable for their contribution to the problem.
• Pursue policies or regulatory changes in favor of climate action.
• Demand transparency or accountability of government or corporate actions related to the climate crisis.
• Request that financial institutions raise their standards to take climate and the environment into account in their decision-making.
• Seek to stop any project that could harm the climate.
• Aim to protect ecosystems, especially those that act as natural carbon sinks.
• In some cases, they seek to raise public awareness of issues related to the climate crisis.

 

Climate litigation: A living and ever-growing tool

As can be seen, the variety of cases that can be labeled as climate litigation is enormous and almost as great as the creativity of the people who are implementing this tool.

What is interesting is that- despite being a fairly new concept - climate litigation builds on itself. The longer we use it, the more the courts will be involved in examining the obligations of companies and states towards climate action, and the more we will generate more useful jurisprudence, capacities and experiences to move forward.

National and international law is strengthened by the use of climate litigation and it is important to keep it alive and growing -and to link it to the responsibility of States and corporations to address the climate crisis- on the basis of the universal human right to a healthy environment.

It is important to clarify that strategic litigation -whether climate or environmental- is challenging, complex and expensive. It requires time, resources, skills and commitment. The decision to initiate a climate litigation is not one to be taken lightly. It is often not the best option to achieve a goal.

But we can say -with certainty- that it is a key tool in climate action, that has allowed the voices of highly vulnerable and often invisible people and groups to be heard in the forums where decisions are made, where justice is done. It is also the last instance of play in the institutional and legal sphere.

Visit the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean

 

The final session of the 2023 GCF Watch Webinar Series was focused on key topics around the GCF identified by civil society organizations, such as engaging with the GCF at the country level and the GCF's Gender and Indigenous Peoples policies. The session also included a presentation from the GCF's Independent Redress Mechanism (IRM), covering how to access the mechanism and their experience so far.

 

panelists

• Tara Daniel, WEDO: How to connect with the GCF at the country level.
• Helen Magata, Tebtebba: Indigenous Peoples Policy at the GCF.
• Natalia Daza, WEDO: Gender at the GCF.
• Sonja Derkum, IRM: The GCF's Independent Redress Mechanism.

Moderator: Daan Robben, Both Ends.

 

RECORDING

 

After an update on the latest decisions of the GCF Board, the session centered around the monitoring of the implementation of GCF approved projects, carried out by different civil society organizations throughout the world. Discussions took place around the presentation of case studies in Africa, Asia and Latin America. 

 

panelists

1. Claire Miranda, Asian People’s Movement for Debt and Development (APMDD): An update on the last Board Meeting and what follows for the next one.
2. Bertha Argueta, Germanwatch: Intro on the monitoring of the implementation of GCF approved projects.

3. Case studies of the experience in monitoring implementation in:

   • Africa: Toini Amutenya, Namibia Nature Foundation.
   • Latin America: Maite Smett, Red Internacional de Forestería Análoga (RIFA), and Rosalía Soley, Unidad Ecológica Salvadoreña (UNES).

    

Moderator: Bertha Argueta, Germanwatch.

 

Recording

 

In this first session, we will provide a brief introduction to the GCF, the Updated Strategic Plan for 2024-2027, and the second replenishment process, which is currently underway; we will talk about the GCF Watch Platform and the opportunities it provides; and we will have a conversation with two of our active observers before the GCF, to better understand the work they do, in alliance with the civil society observer network which follows on the GCF. 

 

panelists

1. Florencia Ortúzar, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): Introduction to the webinar series and moderation.
2. Jei Edora, Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD): Intro on the GCF, the new Updated Strategic Plan and the second replenishment process (GCF-2).
3. Ira Guerrero, Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC): The GCF Watch Platform.
4. Erika Lennon, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and Liane Schalatek, Heinrich Boell Foundation.A conversation with active observers of the GCF, on the way we work and why we do it.
5. Camila Bartelega, AIDA: Interactive session to learn from our audience.

​

Recording

 

Next sessions

• October 11th - Session 2: CSO led monitoring of the implementation of GCF-approved projects.
• November 8th - Session 3: Important topics around the GCF.

 

The climate crisis knows no borders. It impacts people, ecosystems and species around the world.

Addressing this global crisis requires profound and innovative transformations in all facets of human life: the production of energy, food and other goods; the design and construction of infrastructure; the use and management of terrestrial, marine and freshwater habitats; the transport of people and products; and more.

These systemic changes demand financial resources and sound investments. This is why we hear time and again that addressing the climate crisis is costly and requires financing.

Climate finance is a complicated topic, and so we offer you a glimpse of the basics.

 

What do we mean by climate finance?

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) describes climate finance as the type of local, national or transnational finance used to support and implement climate change mitigation and adaptation actions with financial resources from public, private and alternative sources. These resources are defined as "new and additional" and cannot include those previously committed, for example, for official development assistance.

To better understand this definition, we can point out that climate finance is captured and used to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and enhance carbon sinks, or seeks to reduce vulnerability, as well as to maintain and increase the resilience of human and ecological systems to the negative effects of the climate crisis.

 

Why is climate finance important?

To echo UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell's message at the Sustainable Investment Forum, "We cannot achieve our climate goals without finance. Whether we are talking about transitioning to renewable energy, improving energy efficiency or protecting vulnerable communities from the effects of climate change, all of these efforts require significant investment."

Climate finance impacts everything from national policies to changes occurring at the local level that make a concrete difference in people's lives. "Climate finance is ultimately about what we as societies value: the world we want to live in and the lives and hardships we can save by channeling our money into building resilience to the ravages of climate change," Stiell said in his speech.

 

Financing by and for whom?

The impacts of the climate crisis are inversely proportional to the weight of responsibility, in that the countries historically responsible for the highest levels of GHG emissions are often the least affected. This is why the UNFCCC advocates that developed countries, those with the most economic resources, should financially assist the least developed and most vulnerable countries. This is what the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities" established in the Convention is all about.

On the other hand, the Paris Agreement—a legally binding international treaty in force since November 2016—reaffirms the obligation of developed countries in addition to promoting, for the first time, voluntary contributions from other States. It further provides that developed countries should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, taking into account the important role of public funds, as well as the needs and priorities of developing countries. It’s key to note that this mobilization of finance should represent a progression from previous efforts.

 

What climate finance mechanisms exist?

Under the UNFCCC, there are three main mechanisms for climate finance to reach nations, created for different purposes and with different scopes:

• Global Environment Facility (GEF): Grants financial resources to developing countries or countries with economies in transition to meet the objectives of international environmental conventions and agreements. It also manages the Special Climate Change Fund and the Least Developed Countries Fund.
• Adaptation Fund: Created as a financial instrument for adaptation and resilience in those countries that are part of the Kyoto Protocol.
• Green Climate Fund (GCF): Created with the objective of financing mitigation and adaptation programs and projects aimed at low-emission and climate-resilient development. It is the main multilateral climate finance entity worldwide.

 

How much financing do we need?

In the framework of the UN climate negotiations in 2009, developed countries committed to transfer $100 billion per year to developing countries by 2020 (target extended to 2025 in the Paris Agreement). But this amount has not been achieved. For example, in 2016 they only reached $58.5 billion and, although the amount increased significantly for 2019, they only reached $79.6 billion.

In that sense, to meet the goal of net zero emissions by 2050, the Climate Policy Initiative organization estimates that global financing of $4.35 trillion is needed by 2030 (when the 2020 estimate was only $632 billion dollars).

 

What are the main challenges of climate finance today?

The main challenge, as we have seen, is the need for a substantial increase in the flow of finance. Another key challenge is to measure and track this type of finance, which is not subject to a common universal definition. Along the same lines, given that developed countries’ commitment to the UN does not include official guidelines on what activities count as climate finance, it’s difficult to ensure that money is not double-counted or that it goes to efforts that will actually help reduce global warming and its impacts.

There is also the need to balance the allocation of funds more equitably between mitigation and adaptation activities, as well as those related to loss and damage already suffered by communities around the world. In 2020, 90 percent of global funding went to mitigation, while only 7 percent to adaptation projects and 3 percent to dual activities.

On the other hand, it’s important that the financing channeled does not result in human or environmental impacts, as often happens when there are large investments in which adequate consultation and participation processes are not implemented. An energy project, however renewable and clean it may be, can accentuate inequalities and vulnerabilities if it is poorly planned or if it is designed without the participation of local communities.

Finally, it should be considered that, although a lot of money is allocated to address the climate crisis, at the same time, businesses that promote dependence on fossil fuels, and that keep us in a predatory and unjust economic system that perpetuates extractivism as a mode of development, continue to increase around the world. This, of course, counteracts the progress we can make in favor of the environment and communities. What is clear is that a specific annual amount of climate finance is not enough; what we really need at this point is that all the money mobilized contributes to the regeneration of the planet and to resolving the environmental and climate crisis, not exacerbating it. 

 

At AIDA we monitor the climate finance coming to the region because we understand how important it is to increase the possibilities of building a future where we can live well and in harmony with the environment. We also understand that the problems often caused by poorly designed financing are due to a lack of connection between the territories that suffer the impacts of the climate crisis, and the decision-making spaces where projects are proposed to overcome them.

In this sense, AIDA seeks to build a bridge between these two worlds, motivating organizations in the region to be active, to follow up on projects and to participate in decisions. Only in this way can we ensure that scarce climate funds not only exist, but also reach their full potential towards the paradigm shift we all need.

Join the "Observatory of the Green Climate Fund for Latin America and the Caribbean", a joint effort to better monitor the world's largest climate fund.

 

Humanity has an urgent task ahead: to transform energy systems without continuing to fill the atmosphere with warming gasses and pollutants. This is a fact proven by science. Failure to do so means that our planet will no longer be a safe haven for the the many species that call it home. 

The problem is that the necessary transition is far from simple. In addition to the difficulty of cutting dependence on the fossil fuels that have dominated for centuries, it turns out that not just any transition will do.

It’s not just a matter of stopping to burn these fuels, we must also consider other ways to leave behind the development model that has for centuries been separating humanity into winners and losers, while violating human rights.

 

What is a JUST transition?  

There is currently no single concept of what it means for the energy transition to be just. At AIDA, we believe that to be just, the transition must be equitable and inclusive, recognizing that the impacts of climate change and the necessary transition are not evenly distributed. Thus, certain groups—such as those working in traditional energy sectors and/or marginalized communities—may be disproportionately affected.

To get a glimpse of the problem, it’s worth understanding that humanity today is suffering from a myriad of crises that affect the lives and well being of people, especially those in the most vulnerable conditions. These crises include the climate emergency, pollution, biodiversity loss, global pandemics and democratic crises. And at the heart of it all is social inequality, that widening gap between rich and poor that generates disparities in all aspects of life, including access to health, education and economic opportunities.

These crises are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. Responses to one can help solve others, but they can also aggravate them.

For example, when transitioning to clean energy sources not only helps combat climate change, but also reduces air pollution and improves public health, we are solving two problems in one. An example in the opposite direction occurs when a rapid and unchecked transition to electric mobility results in the aggressive extraction of rare minerals such as lithium, which comes from fragile ecosystems on which local communities depend.

 

Where do we start?

To ensure a just transition, we must be guided by the principles of justice, equity and inclusion, and ensure that the most vulnerable populations are not disproportionately affected.

As Naomi Klein said in her book This Changes Everything, to address the climate crisis we must understand that climate change is not only an environmental, but also a human rights issue.

A just energy transition requires not only ending the burning of fossil fuels, but also addressing economic inequality, including a gender perspective, strengthening social safety nets, protecting workers' rights, respecting the rights of indigenous peoples, empowering communities to participate in decisions that affect their lives, and making reparations to those who have been affected by the current economic and energy model.

 

What role can litigation play?

Litigation is already moving in step with the dilemmas of the energy transition. We have seen an increase in lawsuits that appear to go against the energy transition, such as those challenging renewable energy generation projects, or pro-transition regulations, or otherwise hindering the transition. But can it be said that these are always "regressive" lawsuits?

A lawsuit to challenge the environmental permitting of a wind generation venture might be blocking the transition, but it is not necessarily regressive. If it is a mega-project, for example, owned by a transnational company that will export all the energy generated without benefiting local communities, and if it intends to be located on indigenous lands without local participation, then it is a project aimed at an "unjust transition" that does not serve us because it reinforces the same model, the one that has us so badly on track.

The report Litigation for a Just Transition in Latin America, published in January 2023 by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, and translated into Spanish by AIDA, refers to this type of case.

The report questions the purpose of just transition litigation, asking whether it promotes or obstructs an energy and climate-resilient transition. In this regard, the authors conclude that just transition litigation cannot be fully characterized as regressive or non-regressive in relation to the transition. As such, they consider that just transition litigation should be seen and understood as a new category of climate litigation, with its own diverse rationale.

The issue allows us to reflect on the complexity of the longed-for transition. Faced with this type of dilemma, in AIDA we generally choose to analyze each case, without marrying a dogmatic position. But a constant and, in this sense, valuable starting point is that everything that is carried out in favor of the energy transition—whether projects, policies or actions—must have a strong and decisive focus on the environment, human rights and gender. Without that there is no justice; and without justice there is no remedy or solution.

So we believe that litigation does have a role to play, not only in making the transition happen, but also in making it just.

 

This session focused on key issues identified by CSOs during the series initial webinar. It addressed key aspects of the proposals that are presented by accredited entities to the GCF to become approved projects, including tips on how to review them. We also talked and reflected upon the critical aspects of gender and indigenous peoples at the GCF.

 

panelists

1. Florencia Ortúzar, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): Reviewing funding proposals.
2. Liane Schalatek, Heinrich Böll Stiftung (HBS): GCF project types, approaches & relationship to false solutions.
3. Helen Magata, Tebtebba (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education): Indigenous Peoples at the GCF.
4. Natalia Daza, GCF Gender Monitor for Latin America: Gender at the GCF.

Moderator: Bertha Argueta, Germanwatch.

 

recording

 

Presentations

1. Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA:

 

2. Liane Schalatek, Heinrich Böll Stiftung (HBS):

 

3. Helen Magata, Tebtebba (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education):

 

4. Natalia Daza, GCF Gender Monitor for Latin America:

 

This session focused on key issues identified by CSOs during the series initial webinar. It addressed important aspects of the GCF and CSOs' engagement, including the outcomes of the latest Board meeting, the replenishment process and access to GCF finance, as well as engagement with National Designated Authorities (NDA). 

 

 

2. Andrea Rodríguez, Fundación Avina:

 

As civil society organizations that follow on the GCF we have put a lot of attention in the review of funding proposals presented to the Board. During this session we looked further on, into the basic aspects of the implementation of the projects and programs that are approved by the Board. 

 

Panelists

• Bertha Argueta, Germanwatch: The role of different actors in the implementation of projects approved by the GCF.
• Peter Carlson, Communications Associate of the IRM: The role of the Independent Redress Mechanism (IRM).
• Said Chakri, Association of Teachers of Life Sciences and Earth of Morocco (AESVT): Monitoring implementation of projects in Africa.
• Titi Soentoro, Aksi! for Gender, Social and Ecological Justice: Monitoring implementation of projects in Asia.
• Tara Daniel, Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO): The implementation of Gender Action Plans.

Moderator: Claire Miranda, Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD).

 

RECORDING

 

Presentations

1. Bertha Argueta, Germanwatch:

 

3. Titi Soentoro, Aksi! for Gender, Social and Ecological Justice:

 

4. Tara Daniel, Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO):

The role civil society plays in monitoring the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is crucial to make the best use of much-needed climate resources, while also avoiding the worse impacts brought up by false solutions.

The GCF Watch is a civil society initiative, led from the Global South, created to improve access to information on GCF matters and enable better public follow-up and supervision of the GCF.

In this second version of the GCF Watch International Webinar Series, experts from across the globe will come together in three webinars to discuss the GCF, the work being done, and ways in which you can contribute to this important effort. 

Each session will include expert presentations followed by an open space for conversation among attendees and panelists.

In this first session, we talked about the GCF Watch Platform and the opportunities it provides, we looked into the last two board meetings that have happened during 2022, and we discussed some of the key topics that are keeping CSO busy around the GCF.

 

Panelists

• Florencia Ortúzar, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): Introduction to the webinar series.
• Kairos de la Cruz, Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC): The GCF Watch Platform.
• Erika Lennon, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL): Takeaways from the last board meetings and key topics for CSOs.

 

RECORDING