Climate Defenders’ Right to Participate in Climate Action | Geneva Rights and Climate Talks & Roadmap 40/11

About this Event

Environmental Human Rights Defenders are “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”.  They remain highly vulnerable and under attack across the globe and bear the brunt of environmental harm.

Climate defenders – focused on climate-related issues – face alarming experiences, with the shrinking civic space, attacks, and violence against young defenders, women defenders, and indigenous defenders. There seems to be a lack of understanding about the growing and severe nature of this phenomenon within climate change decision-making spaces. It is a paradox to see some states punishing and targeting the very individuals and groups who are risking their lives to promote a human rights-based approach to climate change. Changing the narrative is crucial in preventing violence against defenders, which often stems from stigmatization and misinformation about their roles and importance.

This event provided an opportunity for the UN Special Rapporteurs on climate change and the UN Special Rapporteur of the Aarhus Convention on Environmental Defenders to exchange experiences and perspectives.

Speakers

By order of intervention. 

Elisa MORGERA

UN Special Rapporteur on climate change

Michel FORST

UN Special Rapporteur of the Aarhus Convention on Environmental Defenders

Ann HARRISON

Climate Policy Adviser, Climate Justice Team, Amnesty International International Secretariat

Martin SKALSKY

Citizens Support Centre, Arnika

Yves LADOR

Representative of Earthjustice to the United Nations in Geneva

Highlights

Video

Summary

Presentations

Elisa MORGERA | UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and climate change

• The incredible work of environmental and climate human rights defenders is essential, not only providing insights that shape the report’s findings but also demanding recognition and enhanced protection. This emphasizes that supporting these defenders is a priority as part of implementing climate justice recommendations globally.
• Climate defenders have long served as watchdogs highlighting the lack of ambition, action, and prioritization in phasing out fossil fuels as the main cause of climate change, while defending the right to access information, exposing how ignoring fossil fuels hinders meaningful climate mitigation and human rights protection, and revealing the systematic suppression of public understanding about how ending fossil fuel reliance is the most impactful climate and human health action to prevent toxic pollution, protect biodiversity, and safeguard human resilience against climate change.
• In preparing the upcoming report for the UN General Assembly, it is clear that environmental and climate defenders are at the forefront of exposing unsustainable mitigation actions within renewable energy and critical minerals sectors, clarifying that while they may be perceived as opposing climate mitigation, they are revealing the need for mitigation measures aligned with biodiversity protection, water preservation, and pollution prevention, to ensure climate actions are truly effective and do not lead to further human rights violations, especially for already impacted communities such as Indigenous peoples, peasants, small-scale farmers, and persons of African descent.
• Recognizing the insights and knowledge of climate defenders is vital for addressing the root causes of climate change and for developing systemic thinking about human rights violations that reveal flaws in climate action strategies, emphasizing the recent Inter-American Court advisory opinion, which underscores that climate action is ineffective if it does not protect life-supporting systems, warning against a ‘carbon tunnel vision’ that masks deeper systemic failures within current climate responses.
• Collaboration across UN Special Rapporteurs and working groups is central to addressing the complex realities faced by defenders, using communications to collectively understand and publicly clarify that defenders risk their lives to protect the human right to a healthy environment while being frequently misunderstood as opposing climate action, with a call to review recent communications and upcoming reports that document their struggles, threats, and harms.
• The threats faced by defenders require more effective, coherent, and responsive protection aligned with their evolving needs, while centering their lived experiences and knowledge as crucial evidence for improving climate action decision-making, ensuring early recognition of systemic misalignments and prioritizing the defenders’ insights to guide more effective, inclusive, and rights-based climate decisions across all levels of climate governance.

Michel FORST | UN Special Rapporteur of the Aarhus Convention on Environmental Defenders

• The focus of the Special Rapporteur is on two topics: findings on climate activists observed during travels to various countries, and the international fora where activists are present and sometimes face difficult, even frightening, situations, such as the case in Baku.
• The Special Rapporteur’s mandate is people-oriented, aimed at protecting and defending individuals at risk, and includes a rapid response mechanism to take immediate action upon receiving complaints from defenders. From the start of the mandate, a decision was made to travel to as many countries as possible to meet climate activists and defenders, listen to their voices, collect testimonies, and receive input on how to better strategize and make the mandate more effective.
• A total of 26 missions were carried out in EU countries and beyond, sometimes with repeated visits. Similar efforts were made in Africa, Latin America, and Asia to engage with climate activists in those regions.
• Unexpected and alarming testimonies were received, particularly from activists involved in new forms of mobilization, such as civil disobedience. These individuals were subjected to harsh public statements by government officials, ministers and members of parliament, who labeled them “eco-terrorists” and “Taliban.” Such rhetoric has a direct impact on how these activists feel in their daily lives, contributing to an atmosphere of fear and hostility created by public officials in their own countries.
• Media coverage not only reports on climate actions but often contributes to the stigmatization of activists by spreading negative narratives, with some outlets labeling them as terrorists in various countries. In addition to this media-driven pressure, activists have reported threats from police forces when organizing demonstrations, blocking streets, or calling for the implementation of the Paris Agreement.
• Disturbing accounts have emerged, including incidents at police stations, even within EU countries, where activists were mistreated. Many were later brought to court, facing criminal charges under new legal frameworks that introduced terms like “sabotage.” Several countries have used such new terminology and charges to target climate activism, leading to harsh sentences. For instance, Daniel and four others received five-year prison sentences, while Dr. B.T. was sentenced to one year and lost his medical license.
• These developments led to the publication of a first report in the form of a position paper, presenting key findings on the situation of climate activists and outlining a strategic framework to urge states to act more responsibly. The report issued five calls for action to governments, aimed at addressing the needs of individuals, especially youth, engaging in civil disobedience for climate justice. However, the movement includes a broad demographic: grandmothers in Sweden, mothers in rebellion, and others supporting their children, showing it is not limited to young people alone.
• In addition to the position paper, a set of UN guidelines on the right to protest, specifically applied to climate activists, was prepared for presentation at a major convention in November. There is a call for other special rapporteurs and regional actors, such as the Council of Europe and the African Commission, to endorse the guidelines and contribute to a unified appeal. The aim is to push states to revise not just legislation, but also law enforcement practices, to better handle cases involving peaceful protest.
• Concerns were also raised about security during major climate conferences, including COP. In Baku, following the COP in Dubai, there were serious incidents of surveillance and intimidation. Attendees were followed, photographed, and recorded by plainclothes officers, even during informal meetings in cafeterias or with ambassadors outside official rooms. These tactics were described as deliberate efforts to scare participants, affecting their sense of safety.
• Such situations led to anxiety, with some participants fearing abduction or retaliation, especially when returning to their accommodations late at night. Despite the risks, productive meetings were held with NGOs, including Amnesty International, and discussions began on developing security guidance to better protect those attending climate conferences.
• A positive example was cited from Cali, Colombia, where authorities took significant steps to ensure security for participants, proving that states can do better. Looking ahead to the upcoming COP in Brazil, the hope is for concrete commitments and improved protection mechanisms. One proposal under discussion involves the inclusion of a few independent experts, though not part of the UN, within the post-agreement monitoring group to help ensure all provisions are implemented. This would provide an external voice capable of intervening with governments if commitments are not being fulfilled.

Ann HARRISON | Climate Policy Adviser, Climate Justice Team, Amnesty International International Secretariat

• The Bonn Climate Conference, serving as preparation for COP30 in Brazil, faced ongoing issues with the participation of defenders and activists, including restricted badge availability due to increased observer demand and larger party delegations filled with fossil fuel lobbyists, delayed badge quotas that hindered travel planning, and persistent visa issues, especially for activists from Africa and the Global South, despite having badges and funding, with these barriers prompting discussions about moving future preparatory meetings to more accessible locations, while the high costs of travel and accommodation alongside funding cuts further limit activists’ ability to attend.
• Expansion of conference agendas and negotiations has made it increasingly difficult for observers who manage to attend to actually access negotiations due to inadequate room sizes and the precedence given to parties, impacting civil society’s capacity to monitor and hold governments accountable, while UN budget constraints affecting UNFCCC operations have limited online access, live streaming, and archiving of official events, restricting remote participation despite the last-minute provision of a virtual platform this year, highlighting the need for consistent, timely, and accessible online engagement channels for those unable to attend physically.
• The safety of delegates, particularly observers lacking diplomatic immunity, remains a critical concern as COP30 approaches in Brazil, with Brazil being the second most dangerous country for environmental defenders and specific concerns in the Pará state around police violence, issues that the incoming COP presidency was reluctant to address at Bonn, underscoring the need for strong human rights protections in host countries to ensure the safety of all attendees, especially given the challenging environments observed in previous COPs like Baku.
• Efforts to increase transparency and protections within host country agreements have faced challenges as these agreements are often inaccessible to civil society and only come into force shortly before COPs, limiting meaningful assessment and advocacy, with a slight gain achieved this year in draft conclusions mandating the secretariat to publish host country agreements online, though this remains weak due to delayed enforcement, and the draft conclusions themselves were not finalized in Bonn, leaving open the risk that commitments for transparency and protection may still be diluted before COP30.
• The shrinking space for activism inside the UN-controlled Blue Zones has become more critical due to external restrictions, with increasing limitations on advocacy actions, such as Amnesty’s inability to display names of imprisoned defenders on protest materials at COP28 and new requirements at COP29 to justify the environmental relevance of each defender, challenges that continue to drain resources and attention from other essential work while defenders assert the indivisibility of human rights and climate justice, as illustrated by successful arguments linking access to information and the right to health with climate justice during recent advocacy efforts.
• Restrictions on Palestinian solidarity actions inside the Blue Zone escalated when the slogan “end the siege” was prohibited, leading to a decision not to hold further solidarity actions at Bonn, reflecting broader difficulties faced by human rights defenders and climate activists in utilizing multilateral spaces for advocacy, while outside the Blue Zone in Germany the slogan could still be used, showing inconsistencies in restrictions across different spaces that shape how activists navigate climate justice advocacy linked with broader human rights issues.
• Within the negotiations themselves, there is persistent resistance from some states to include human rights language and references to defenders in negotiation streams, yet positive developments emerged in the gender action plan discussions where current draft texts moving forward to Belem include references to environmental human rights defenders, specifically women, alongside options for further language on their protection, capacity-building support, and recognition of their leadership, providing a critical opportunity for civil society to push for strong commitments connecting the protection of defenders with advancing meaningful outcomes in climate negotiations at COP30.

Discussion

Comments by Elisa on Ann’s intervention

Elisa MORGERA | UN Special Rapporteur on climate change

• The oppressive environment experienced at COP 29 should not be repeated, and it may be useful to collect and share lessons learned about behaviors and situations that should be avoided in the future through the advisory group. Reflecting on the detailed challenges shared regarding participation and engagement in international climate spaces, these barriers not only place excessive and unreasonable burdens on human rights defenders and supporting organizations but also contribute to maintaining an institutional and individual culture within climate expert circles that fails to recognize the value of contributions from climate defenders. This culture limits meaningful understanding of how human rights are indivisible from and affected by climate change, and prevents the lived experiences and insights of human rights defenders from being acknowledged and integrated as a central source of knowledge within decision-making processes in climate spaces.

Question 1: ​​Is the advisory body for helping and facilitating the work of COP host countries something that has already been established, is in the process of being established, or is it still just an idea being proposed? 

Benjamin SCHACHTER | Coordinator, Environment and Climate Change Team, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

• Within the UN system, there is currently an internal, informal discussion group that includes the UNFCCC Secretariat, DSS, UNEP, and other UN organizations focusing on issues around civic space in climate negotiations. Whether a more formal advisory body could or should be established depends on the availability of resources and the political will to move forward with such a structure. There is significant room to improve participation modalities and ensure the safety and security of participants in environmental negotiations, which remains a key priority actively being worked on by OHCHR in collaboration with a range of stakeholders, member states, and UN partners.

Michel FORST | UN Special Rapporteur of the Aarhus Convention on Environmental Defenders

• Comment to Benjamin’s answer → The discussions around civic space and participant safety during climate negotiations should not be left only within the UN system, where UNFCCC, OHCHR, UNEP, and the same group of people work together internally. It is important to ensure there are external observers, such as UN Special Rapporteurs with clear mandates, who can monitor what is happening from the outside. If it becomes clear that things are not in line with what has been agreed with the host country, there needs to be the possibility to speak out, share concerns, and make these concerns public. The hope is that this approach will become a reality, allowing these external voices to intervene and ensure accountability when commitments are not respected.

In a right of reply to criticism, the Republic of Azerbaijan formulated the following statement:

• The Republic of Azerbaijan proudly announces the successful conclusion of COP29, hosted in Baku. This milestone event brought together world leaders, negotiators, scientists, civil society organizations, youth, and Indigenous representatives in a shared commitment to accelerate climate action and secure a sustainable future.
• Azerbaijan’s COP29 Presidency stands as international recognition of our country’s determined efforts toward a green transition and environmental stewardship. We are particularly proud that COP29 was characterized by an open and inclusive atmosphere, where non-governmental organizations, climate activists, and community representatives were able to participate freely, express their views, and contribute meaningfully to the discussions and outcomes.
• Our government ensured a safe and constructive space for civil society engagement throughout the summit, and we firmly reject any claims suggesting that participants in Baku were subjected to intimidation, surveillance, or restrictions on their ability to attend and engage in COP29 events. These allegations do not reflect the reality on the ground or the spirit of openness that defined the conference.
• Azerbaijan remains dedicated to fostering cooperation, promoting environmental sustainability, and working with all stakeholders to implement the agreements reached at COP29.

Martin SKALSKY | Citizens Support Centre, Arnika

• Georgia, although not widely recognized as a country with significant oppression of environmental defenders, is undergoing rapid changes. While the focus is not solely on climate activism, and the country has often been viewed as relatively free in comparison to others, the current situation marks a significant shift.
• In recent years, Georgia was known for its active civil society and well-established NGOs, many of which had been operating for a long time. However, this changed dramatically within the past two years. The government introduced a law on foreign agents, requiring all NGOs receiving more than 20% of their funding from foreign sources to register as foreign agents.
• This move triggered a major conflict, as NGOs strongly reject being labeled as working in foreign interests. They view themselves as part of the national civil fabric, not foreign representatives, and therefore refuse to register under this designation. As a result, many organizations are now operating in legal uncertainty and are under serious threat of government sanctions.
• Penalties for non-compliance with the regulations can reach up to $10,000 per month. Additionally, the law allows the government to target not only the organizations themselves but also their individual representatives, increasing the pressure on civil society actors.
• In addition to financial sanctions, Georgia’s new legislation poses the threat of imprisonment, up to six years, for NGOs that fail to register as foreign agents or refuse to comply with government requests for information. Under this legal framework, NGOs are legally obliged to respond to authorities’ demands for data.
• A new entity, the Bureau for Fighting Corruption, has been established and granted authority to request any documentation related to NGO projects and financing. This includes sensitive personal information, such as participant ID numbers and residential addresses. These demands go far beyond basic transparency measures and encroach deeply into the internal operations of civil society organizations.
• The legislation affects the entire NGO sector, as approximately 90% of its funding comes from abroad. However, environmental defenders are particularly vulnerable because they often engage in controversial campaigns. Georgia is facing several areas of environmental conflict, such as hydropower development, mining operations, and oil transit infrastructure, as well as zones of industrial pollution.
• These issues have already led to tensions between the government and environmental groups. There is growing concern that, following the targeting of election-monitoring and anti-corruption organizations, environmental defenders will be next to face intensified government control.
• This concern is being validated by recent developments. Just a few weeks ago, the government initiated enforcement of the law, sending formal demands for information to seven NGOs, including Transparency International. These requests include extremely detailed data, such as the names of participants in activities, and demands that are often unrealistic to fulfill. As a result, local communities that previously relied on professional NGO support, especially legal aid and independent media, are now losing access to assistance. This is already affecting communities involved in environmental issues, as NGOs face increasing difficulty in offering services and protection under the current conditions.
• The situation in Georgia is closely connected to broader international concerns discussed in the context of COP conferences, including the upcoming COP30, highlighting how domestic repression intersects with global environmental and civic space issues.

Closing Remarks

Elisa MORGERA | UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and climate change

• Legislative developments aimed at controlling civil society organizations, their funding, activities, and participants, are becoming a global and deeply concerning trend that significantly affects defenders and civil society beyond just climate-related work, creating an environment of intimidation and new risks for communities already facing long-standing threats, harassment, and undue judicial pressure.
• It is crucial to listen carefully to defenders and civil society groups to fully understand the complex challenges they face, including measures that may appear neutral but effectively undermine their work and increase risks in an already difficult operating environment.
• The cumulative impact of these threats and misuse of public powers, which should instead support and recognize defenders’ work, harms not only the individuals and organizations directly involved but also distorts public narratives and opinion regarding their legitimate and essential role in protecting human rights and the environment.
• Special rapporteurs on freedom of expression and association have provided important recommendations urging states to assess the compatibility of restrictive legislative measures and their implementation with international human rights standards, emphasizing practical collaboration between public authorities, defenders, and media to foster fair public narratives and recognize the fundamental conditions needed for defenders to operate effectively.
• Recent communications and annexes issued summarize relevant international human rights obligations, offering a valuable resource for advocacy, capacity building, and raising awareness among public authorities less familiar with the threats faced by environmental and climate defenders, thereby strengthening protective frameworks and responses.
• The entire UN system is expected to uphold these communications, with responsibilities spanning central, regional, and national offices to follow up, contribute to shaping positive narratives, and support NGOs and defenders on the ground, ensuring adherence to the UN Charter and human rights provisions.
• There is potential for increased dialogue on the roles of different UN offices in advancing these efforts, using special rapporteurs’ reports and communications to clarify minimum protection standards and to identify when initiatives under various labels may actually undermine or violate human rights protections.

Photo Gallery

Links

• Geneva Rights and Climate Talks
• Environment @ 59th Session of the UN Human Rights Council