Key findings
Legal protections are not effectively implemented
Many countries require environmental impact assessments, transparency, and public participation. In practice, these laws and safeguards are applied inconsistently or treated as procedural steps rather than as meaningful protections.
Examples:
- In Indonesia, documents relevant to environmental assessments are often released only after decisions are made or not translated into local languages.
- In Sri Lanka, environmental impact assessments for major coal projects have been withheld or classified as confidential on grounds of “national interests”.
- In Laos, impact assessments are frequently overlooked, and accountability frameworks for corporate harm remain weak.
Communities are excluded from decision-making
Communities are often excluded from early planning stages, where development priorities and land use are defined. Consultations, when they occur, are typically tokenistic and happen after decisions are made, with limited or inaccessible information.
Examples:
- In West Papua (Indonesia), land was allocated for plantations without prior consultation with the affected communities, and environmental assessments were disclosed only after approval.
- In Sri Lanka’s Central Highlands, consultations took place after project approval, in inaccessible locations and without translation.
- In Uganda, oil palm projects in Kalangala and Buvuma moved forward with more than 80% of landowners lacking Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.
Access to justice is limited
Legal avenues exist but are often out of reach due to cost, delays, and procedural complexity. Courts frequently defer to development priorities, especially for projects deemed “strategic.”
Examples:
- Communities across the studied countries report that legal costs and delays discourage cases even where violations are clear.
- In South Africa, a High Court found consultation processes for offshore oil exploration were fundamentally flawed, with communities denied essential information.
Development models drive environmental and social harm
Large-scale infrastructure, extractive, and energy projects continue to be prioritized despite documented risks, with limited assessment of cumulative and long-term impacts.
Examples:
- In Laos, rare-earth mining exposed communities to toxic contamination, including arsenic and cyanide, without public disclosure of information, particularly to the affected communities.
- In India, a proposed mega port threatens marine ecosystems and the livelihoods of more than 20,000 fishers, with impacts insufficiently assessed.
- In Mongolia, expanded mining licenses have contributed to pollution, desertification, and declining livestock quality.
Gaps in recognition and protection persist
The right to a healthy environment is not consistently recognized or enforced. Indigenous Peoples are not formally recognized in some legal systems, and gender impacts remain under-addressed.
Examples:
- In Namibia, the constitution does not explicitly recognize the right to a healthy environment.
- In many countries, the lack of formal recognition of Indigenous Peoples weakens protections for land and self-determination.
- Across contexts, women—particularly in fisheries and agriculture—are disproportionately affected while remaining excluded from decision-making.
Key recommendations
- Ensure policy coherence grounded in human rights and ecological justice
- Replace extractive and militarized development models with rights-based approaches
- Adopt binding corporate accountability frameworks, including extraterritorial obligations
- Guarantee early, informed, and meaningful participation of communities
- Establish accessible and effective grievance and redress mechanisms
- Center intergenerational equity and recognize Nature as a subject of rights
Conclusion
The submission finds that existing legal frameworks are not sufficient on their own. Realizing the right to a healthy environment requires centering communities to drive systemic change including in decision-making, implementation, and participation to ensure accountability that align with human rights obligations.
Co-contributors: Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APWLD); Franciscans International; Manushya Foundation; National Fisheries Solidarity Movement (NAFSO). Facilitated by the Environment and ESCR Working Group coordinator and further reviewed, endorsed, and complemented with additional inputs by members of the Working Group.
