When the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was launched at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, it was alongside the Convention on Biological Diversity (‘CBD’) and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. Since then the three agreements have progressed in silos with climate taking centre stage and biodiversity a poor relation. The CBD has its own conference which is biennial as opposed to the annual climate COP. On the sidelines of COP30 the five Rio Convention Presidencies took a step to reunite these, issuing a joint call for cooperation across the Action Agendas for climate, biodiversity and land. Their statement questioned the siloed approach, recognising that issues like forests can't be properly addressed when climate and biodiversity are treated separately
The role of forests in relation to climate mitigation is well-known, ‘potentially accounting for up to 30% of the available mitigation efforts over the next decade.’[1] Globally, forests have been found to absorb more carbon annually than the United States emits,[2] as the Global North is responsible for 92% of excess global carbon emissions.[3]
Recognising the role of the Global North, not least the UK in contributing to climate change, both historically and in contemporary activities by London-based corporations, the King’s Human Rights and Environmental Law Clinic has developed partnerships in the Global South with Legal Clinics, NGOs, lawyers and academics, seeking transnational approaches to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss. We aspire to decolonial approaches, learning from local indigenous and rural communities and exchanging knowledge about strategies to tackle issues like deforestation.
An example of this effort can be illustrated by the Clinic’s intervention or ‘amicus curiae’ in a claim in the Ugandan High Court brought by local NGO Greenwatch to tackle deforestation. Working with academics in the Geography departments of King’s and Makere university the Clinic filed expert evidence showing a direct and statistically significant correlation between forest loss and the rising frequency of climate-induced disasters in Uganda including floods, landslides and drought. Uganda’s forest cover has drastically declined from approximately 54% in 1962 to less than 13% in 2025, representing a net loss of over 3 million hectares of vegetation cover, with annual deforestation rates reaching up to 4% in some years. [4]
One of Uganda’s oldest indigenous communities the Batwa community have provided evidence in the case about how their displacement from the forest has been linked to illegal logging and degradation, which in turn has impacted climate change. They graphically describe the loss of tree species which sheltered wildlife and species previously used for medical purposes.
The Legal Clinic is aiming to demonstrate the climate and biodiversity link through the Uganda experience in an application to the African Court representing Greenwatch and the Batwa Community filing observations on 3 December 2025 in the matter of a request by the Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU) for an Advisory Opinion on the obligations of States with respect to the climate change crisis.[5]
In its recent Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency, the Inter-American Court found that indigenous peoples' knowledge and forest stewardship are central to climate solutions.[6] They recognised the heightened risk to indigenous rights that climate change poses. The International Court of Justice in its subsequent Advisory Opinion found that obligations under the CBD established relevant, complementary obligations that interact with climate change obligations.[7] The Legal Clinic’s submissions to the African Court aims to take this a step further, asking the court to rule on the direct connection between biodiversity loss, in particular deforestation and climate change, and to call on African states to act to protect forests. There may be a route to this via the recent recognition of the connection between human and environmental rights by both the ICJ and the Inter-American Court[8][9] considering the African Convention was one of the first treaties to provide for this as a norm in international law.
Returning to COP30, indigenous peoples frustrated by the slow progress took to the streets to protest. Meanwhile, the Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities’ Land and Forest Tenure Pledge was signed.[10] The Tropical Forest Forever Facility fund launched by the Brazilian President to incentivise conservation of tropical forest attracted significant contributions from Global North states.[11] But although by the end of the COP over 90 countries had been persuaded to back a roadmap for ending deforestation by 2030, this was watered down to a voluntary process outside the formal UN structure.
COP30 began with hope that negotiators would act on the opportunity that forests offer as one of our most powerful tools for mitigating the climate emergency. Yet it ended with another voluntary pledge on forests. The courts have moved faster than the negotiators, with both the ICJ and Inter-American Court confirming that biodiversity obligations interact with climate duties. The African Court's forthcoming advisory opinion now offers a crucial opportunity to establish what COP30 failed to deliver: explicit recognition that states' climate obligations require binding action on forest protection.
[1] https://www.unep.org/topics/forests/why-do-forests-matter
[2] https://www.wri.org/insights/forests-absorb-twice-much-carbon-they-emit-each-year
[3] https://eos.org/articles/global-north-is-responsible-for-92-of-excess-emissions
[4] Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025 Uganda - Report
[5] African Court Cases | Advisory pending
[6] Climate Emergency and Human Rights, Advisory Opinion AO-32/25, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (29 May 2025), International Court of Justice [596-598] https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_32_en.pdf
[7] Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change (Advisory Opinion) (23 July 2025) https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf [270] [288]
[8] Climate Emergency and Human Rights, Advisory Opinion AO-32/25, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (29 May 2025) https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_32_en.pdf
[9] Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change (Advisory Opinion) (23 July 2025), International Court of Justice https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf
[10] https://cop30.br/en/news-about-cop30/cop30-evening-summary-november-17
[11] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/10/cop30-what-are-the-main-issues-and-why-do-they-matter