Planning to care for the planet and its people: enabling thriving societies and protecting the right to a healthy environment

A healthy environment is essential to life, dignity and health, enabling people to study, play, work, develop and thrive. It encompasses the protection of nature, including healthy biodiversity and ecosystems, a safe climate, safe and sufficient water, clean air, healthy and sustainably produced food, and environments free from toxics.

Protecting the environment promotes thriving societies and economies. Reducing air pollution and establishing early warning systems for extreme weather decreases mortality and morbidity. Improving water quality enhances health and quality of life. Strengthening food security through traditional agroecology models and ecosystem restoration improves soil, water and air while benefiting rural communities. Lowering climate emissions – through increasing renewable energy, walking, biking and sustainable public transportation, increasing green and sustainable buildings, and protecting and expanding natural spaces and adaptation measures in cities – benefits people, societies and economies alike. Protecting ecosystems and biodiversity and advancing restoration measures significantly improve the environment and communities directly depending on them. Adequate planning, centred on the public interest, prioritizing people and the planet, is the common thread across these advances.

Planning to care for the planet and people refers to the State’s long-term, forward-looking process for determining how national territories and resources – on land and offshore – will be used and protected for the public interest. This report illustrates how such planning supports the urgent action needed for progress and how it is a priority endeavour needed to confront the growing threats to human and planetary health. It describes foundational principles of equity, responsibility and accountability, States’ obligations, the main types of planning, and key challenges to advancing the transformational change required. Focusing on urban, land and ocean planning, the report further presents beneficial practices showing that planning must be a circular process – grounded in a long-term vision, respectful of planetary boundaries and built on thorough review and participatory mechanisms – aimed at effectively protecting ecosystems and biodiversity and the climate system, while mainstreaming the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

Mainstreaming the right to a healthy environment in planning enhances understanding of the interconnection and interdependence between humans and the environment, enabling States to balance the needs and human rights of present and future generations with those of nature. It also advances access to information, public participation and access to justice as essential components of that right – tools that are also fundamental to democracy and critical to overcoming fragmented, duplicative efforts in favour of integrated, coherent approaches that prioritize the public interest.

Scientific evidence and current experience demonstrate that unlimited economic growth ignoring planetary boundaries and human rights impacts is causing great harm. The lack of planning, or planning that prioritizes unlimited economic growth while disregarding environmental and climate risks, drives and worsens these harms, affecting humanity, societies and economies and threatening peace. Ever-increasing resource overconsumption lies at the heart of the problem, deepening inequality between the drivers of harm and those who are impacted. Science recommends prioritizing ending overconsumption by reducing emissions and demand for energy and other resources and goods, particularly in high-income countries, while international law mandates that States protect the environment, preventing severe harm. This requires whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches¹ that advance accountability and move towards the equitable distribution and use of natural resources aligned with planetary boundaries. Grounded in equity and non-discrimination, a human rights approach to planning can help dismantle inequalities, prevent “sacrifice zones” and restructure the systems in which marginalized people and groups disproportionally bear the harm.

1. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Global Environment Outlook 7: A Future We Choose – Why Investing in Earth Now Can Lead to a Trillion-Dollar Benefit for All (Nairobi, 2025), pp. 598 and 599. ↩

Planning is nevertheless often confused in practice with environmental impact assessments² – narrower, project-level evaluations of specific activities proposed by public or private developers. Such project-level assessments are sometimes treated as a substitute for the long-term planning described herein. Planning and assessment of projects are complementary yet different, as planning establishes the general framework with a broader and long-term scope, while environmental, social and human rights impact assessments evaluate individual projects. In distinguishing these two, this report complements the environmental, social and human rights impact assessment (A/80/187) presented to the General Assembly in 2025.

2. See A/80/187. ↩

The Special Rapporteur extends her gratitude to the Governments of Armenia, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, El Salvador, Guatemala, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Peru, Spain, Uzbekistan, the State of Palestine and the Council of Europe for their contributions to inform this report. She also thanks the 55 civil society organizations, academics, students, representatives of Indigenous Peoples, individuals and other stakeholders for their inputs, and the more than 90 participants that took part in the four consultations held.³

3. Submissions available at www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2026/call-input-planning-and-right-clean-healthy-and-sustainable-environment. ↩

The existential triple planetary crisis of our time is neither inevitable nor unsolvable. It is caused by unsustainable human activities, and resolving it is within human reach. Governments must halt unsustainable and harmful resource extraction while protecting and restoring critical ecosystems, choosing long-term planetary balance and human well-being over short-term economic gain. They must also deploy ambitious solutions at scale without delay. Many potential solutions already exist and need to be replicated and amplified.

A significant, though rapidly closing, window remains for transformational action. As scientists and communities have insisted, States must urgently address the drivers of the triple planetary crisis of biodiversity loss, climate change and toxic pollution mainly linked to fossil fuel extraction and use, land-use change, habitat and ecosystems destruction, uncontrolled urbanization and industrialization, and systemic historical exclusion and discrimination. Long-term, integrated planning is among the most important yet most underused measures available to drive transformation.

Effective planning is vital to reverse current trends of these crises, particularly given that seven of nine planetary boundaries had already been crossed by 2025.⁴ Continued deterioration is bringing the Earth dangerously close to multiple tipping points, despite existing obligations to prevent further harm to the environment and climate system, including the capacity of systems such as the Amazon rainforest or low-latitude coral reefs to help regulate the planet.

4. Planetary Boundaries Science, Planetary Health Check: A Scientific Assessment of the State of the Planet (Potsdam, Germany, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 2025), p. 11. ↩

All States have an obligation to plan for caring people and the planet, and all will benefit from doing so. For developing States, proper planning is an opportunity to embed sustainability and human rights into healthy societies for present and future generations, while learning from and avoiding the mistakes of developed countries that bear greater responsibility for the crises. For countries and regions with substantial remaining biodiversity and critical ecosystem services, thorough planning enables the protection of these benefits and avoids further irreparable harm. All nations benefit from planning that aligns long-term goals with international obligations, strengthens international cooperation and uses the best available science complementing existent science with Indigenous science and ancestral knowledge to advance effective solutions.

As this report describes, long-term urban, land and coastal planning enhances well-being and economic growth. Cities that reduce dependence on private cars in favour of active, sustainable and efficient public transportation, protect and restore natural areas and expand renewable energy while reducing fossil fuel use see improved quality of life. Protecting and restoring fragile ecosystems helps reduce risks while providing essential ecosystem services. Plans to avoid and mitigate risks can also reduce human and economic losses, as small island States are demonstrating.⁵

5. See resolution 77/276. ↩

The consequences of failing to plan, and of prioritizing private profit over halting the drivers of environmental degradation, are already being felt. Impacts include extreme weather events such as heatwaves, droughts, catastrophic storms, wildfires, rising sea levels, acute food and water insecurity, air pollution, ocean acidification, and collapsing or near-collapsing fisheries.⁶ These, in turn, are driving rising human mortality and morbidity, the forced displacement of millions, and the loss of essential ancestral knowledge.

6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report – Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Geneva, 2023), pp. 5 and 6. ↩

These harms are global. Droughts and wildfires have increased in the Americas and Africa since 2023, with severe human rights impacts.⁷ In Somalia, over 135,000 people were displaced by severe drought in 2025 alone, driving acute malnutrition across the region.⁸ More than 700,000 people have been displaced in the first half of 2026, half a million of them displaced by drought alone, a situation that might get worse as a consequence of El Niño impacts in 2026/27.⁹

7. See https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/5377/2025/essd-17-5377-2025.pdf. ↩
8. See https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/5251406, p. 19. ↩
9. Norwegian Refugee Council, “Between drought and flood: Somalia’s hunger crisis and the next shock”, July 2026, pp. 1, 2 and 5. ↩

Storms are intensifying in frequency and severity. In the first half of 2026 alone, the Philippines was struck by eight tropical storms, including a typhoon and a super typhoon.¹⁰ The 2025 western North Pacific typhoon season saw 27 such events, which caused more than 700 deaths and nearly $10 billion (€8.74 billion) in damages.¹¹ Hurricane Otis, the costliest hurricane in Mexican history, left at least 1 million people without food or water in 2023, driven by the 2023/24 El Niño.¹² Scientists project that another exceptionally strong El Niño is likely to exacerbate drought, rainfall and heatwaves in 2026, with forecasts pointing to yet another year of above-normal global temperatures.¹³

10. See https://pubfiles.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/pagasaweb/files/tamss/weather/tcprelimsummary/PAGASA_Prelim_2026_DOMENG.pdf and www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1277824. ↩
11. See https://wmo.int/media/news/typhoon-committee-cooperation-and-innovation-save-lives. ↩
12. See https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fwea.4555, p. 184. ↩
13. See https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/wmo-prepare-el-nino. ↩

Europe is warming faster than other regions, with extreme heatwaves repeatedly breaking temperature records. In June 2026, major cities in Czechia, France and Germany recorded temperatures above 40°C, while 381 million people across the continent experienced temperatures above 30°C. At least 1,300 people died from extreme heat in a single week, adding to 200,000 heat-related deaths recorded in Europe over the past four years. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), most of these deaths could have been prevented by appropriate heat-health action planning.‍¹⁴ Extreme heat also disrupted power generation, damaged roads, infrastructure and healthcare systems and forced school closures. In Italy, low flow in the Po River caused a saltwater intrusion that threatened agriculture and wetlands, while air pollution intensified, and two nuclear reactors in France closed due to lack of cooling water. Forest fires burned across France and Germany.¹⁵ Europe was built for a climate that no longer exists, and action plans to heatproof the continent are urgently needed.

14. WHO, “Statement: Europe lost 200,000 people to heat in 4 years yet nearly all of them were preventable”, 11 June 2026. ↩
15. See www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jun/27/decades-climate-warnings-why-europe-so-unprepared-rising-heat. ↩

While solutions exist, implementation is often too slow and harmful practices continue, raising risks and costs, locking in unsustainable infrastructure and undermining the success of these very solutions. For example, fossil fuel infrastructure investment continues increasing, which is incompatible with international obligations, and locks in greenhouse gas emissions that the planet cannot afford while creating future stranded assets,¹⁶ and ineffective measures such as carbon markets and maladaptation delay the necessary results more. Overfishing, illegal, unregulated and uncontrolled fishing, the lack of support for small-scale fishers, urbanization and inadequate planning for infrastructure and tourism, and marine and land pollution are severely impacting marine ecosystems. Similar situations are faced in land and forest ecosystems.

16. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2023 (longer report), p. 95; and A/HRC/58/59, paras. 56–58. ↩

Investment that disregards equity and non-discrimination, combined with the absence of comprehensive planning, has produced “sacrifice zones”‍¹⁷ where marginalized groups suffer disproportionate harm from industrial facilities operating without adequate control. Planning that prioritizes justice and human rights can prevent such unequal harms while fostering economic activity that benefits all of society.

17. See A/HRC/49/53. ↩

Transformational adaptation and flexible, multisectoral, inclusive planning for genuine long-term solutions, grounded in equity and justice, must replace short-term risk reduction and poorly planned maladaptation. Current global financial flows mostly increase environmental degradation, while resources for mitigation, adaptation and remediation remain insufficient and constrain implementation, especially in low- and middle-income countries where the potential for faster, lower-cost impact is greatest.¹⁸ The implementation gap must close, with States and international authorities prioritizing solutions accelerating implementation timelines and securing the funding needed to overcome economic barriers to action.

18. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report, p. 8. ↩

Under international human rights law, States have an obligation to plan effectively, considering the current state of the environment and the climate system and recognizing that humanity depends on a healthy environment, both individually and collectively. Legally, this is reflected in the recognition of the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. That right is now widely recognized by the United Nations, in the constitutions and laws of 166 States, across regional human rights systems and in court decisions worldwide, that is, considered part of customary international law.¹⁹

19. A/HRC/58/59, para. 10. ↩

The International Court of Justice, in its recent advisory opinion on climate change, recognized humanity’s interdependence with a healthy environment, concluding that the right to a healthy environment is essential to, and a precondition for, the enjoyment of all other human rights.²⁰ The African and the inter-American human rights systems have recognized a healthy environment as a human right.²¹ The Arab Charter on Human Rights included this right, and the recently adopted Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Declaration on the Right to a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment reiterates and strengthens its recognition.²²

20. Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion of 23 July 2025, I.C.J. Reports (“International Court of Justice advisory opinion”), paras. 373 and 393. ↩
21. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Climate Emergency and Human Rights, advisory opinion AO-32/25, 29 May 2025, paras. 291, 303 and 377; Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador), art. 11; and African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, art. 24. ↩
22. Arab Charter on Human Rights, art. 38, and A/79/270, para. 23; and see ASEAN Declaration on the Right to a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment (2025). ↩

Under customary international law, States have erga omnes obligations to protect the environment and the climate system, and to prevent harm to them, particularly transboundary harm.²³ All States, without exception, must therefore act with stringent due diligence to protect the environment, given the scale of risk that further harm poses. As the International Court of Justice clarified, States’ action on the climate must contribute to the global goal of limiting the temperature rise to a maximum of 1.5℃. States must therefore use all means at their disposal to prevent activities within their jurisdiction or control from causing significant harm to any part of the environment. The Court further highlighted that failing to implement adequate measures, or continuing fossil fuel production, use, licensing and subsidies, “may constitute an international wrongful act”.²⁴

23. International Court of Justice advisory opinion, para. 440. ↩
24. Ibid., paras. 135 and 427; see also Inter-American Court of Human Rights advisory opinion AO32/25, paras. 238–243; and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Climate Change and International Law, Case No. 31, advisory opinion, 21 May 2024, paras. 198, 201, 234, 235, 398 and 399. ↩

States must act in accordance with the international legal principles of prevention, precaution and polluter pays, while using the best available science and complying with their obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, effectively regulating to prevent, control and reduce harm, including related to fragile land and ocean ecosystems; monitoring and enforcing legal frameworks; and effectively cooperating internationally.²⁵ These principles and actions must also apply to planning.

25. A/HRC/58/59, paras. 68–80; A/80/187, paras. 27–69; A/HRC/61/47, paras. 37–48; and International Court of Justice advisory opinion, paras. 140 and 141. ↩

The duty to plan is already incorporated in multilateral international environmental agreements, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as the three Rio conventions and the Paris Agreement.²⁶ States shall plan, for example, to prepare for climate change by developing integrated management systems of coastal zones, water resources and agriculture;²⁷ to protect against, avoid, rehabilitate and mitigate the effects of drought, desertification and floods;²⁸ and to prevent, reduce, control and avoid pollution, including from mercury²⁹ and other chemical releases³⁰ and marine pollution.³¹ States must also plan to conserve, sustainably use, and restore natural resources and biodiversity.³² This includes the wise use of wetlands,³³ protection of migratory species³⁴ and habitats of special concern,³⁵ prevention of transboundary harm to watercourses,³⁶ promotion of the sustainable use of genetic resources for food and agriculture,³⁷ prevention of land degradation, including related hydrological systems and processes,³⁸ and reduction of disaster risks.³⁹

26. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, art. 4 (2) (e); Paris Agreement, art. 7 (9) (b); Convention to Combat Desertification, arts. 5 (a), 5 (b) and 9 (1); and Convention on Biological Diversity, arts. 6 (a) and 8 (f). ↩
27. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, art. 4 (2) (e); Paris Agreement, art. 7 (9) (b); United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, art. 61 (2); Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, arts. 5(a), 5 (f) and 6 (c); and Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management of the Western Indian Ocean, arts. 1 and 5–9 and annex II. ↩
28. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, art. 4 (2) (e); and Convention to Combat Desertification, arts. 5 (a), 5 (b) and 9 (1). ↩
29. Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, art. 3; and Minamata Convention on Mercury, arts. 8 and 9. ↩
30. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, art. 5 (a). ↩
31. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, part XII, art. 194 (1); Protocol for the Protection of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Western Indian Ocean from Land-based Sources and Activities to the Nairobi Convention, arts. 4 (1) and 4 (2) (c). ↩
32. Convention on Biological Diversity, arts. 6 (a) and 8 (f); Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, target 14; and ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, art. 2 (1). ↩
33. Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, art. 3. ↩
34. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, arts. V (1) and V (5) (b). ↩
35. Agreement for the implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, art. 6 (3) (d). ↩
36. Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, art. 3 (1); and Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses, arts. 23, 24 (1) and 24 (2) (a). ↩
37. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, arts. 6.1 and 6.2 (a). ↩
38. African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, art. VI (1). ↩
39. Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, art. 8 (1). ↩

To be effective, planning must be regulated, with clear administrative procedures for control, monitoring and enforcement‍⁴⁰ along well-coordinated mechanisms for review, given the complexity and multiple sectors that planning necessarily cuts across. Effective planning should use the best available science to assess the current state and needs, identify suitable goals and gather potential solutions. It must include the participation of women and girls, Indigenous Peoples, children and youth, persons with disabilities, local and rural communities, LGBT communities, civil society, academia and the private sector to fully understand challenges, opportunities and viable solutions. Effective planning also depends on transparency, access to information, public participation, and access to justice. Plans, policies and programmes should be finalized only after authorities have received and responded to public input, in fulfilment of States’ obligation on access to information and public participation, and to demonstrate good faith in considering that input. Public participation significantly strengthens processes: in Denmark, for example, the Citizen Assembly (Borgertinget) recommended a carbon tax that is now regarded as the country’s single most consequential measure for meeting its 70% greenhouse gas reduction target.⁴¹

40. See A/80/187; Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 14, para. 197; and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea advisory opinion, para. 235. ↩
41. Submission from Just Access e.V. ↩

Implementation plans also require clear timelines, deadlines and lines of responsibility to ensure timely progress. Implementing authorities must diligently monitor progress and address obstacles or unintended consequences as they arise, adjusting or redesigning plans where necessary. In Puerto Rico, the Yunque National Forest’s strategic planning process started in 2019 and culminated with a 10-year plan in 2025. The process incorporated multilevel governance, and in the next phase will identify preliminary indicators of success and explore meaningful and feasible monitoring approaches.⁴²

42. Submission from Carol E. Ramos-Gerena and others. ↩

In formulating and implementing plans, States shall guarantee equity and non-discrimination and prioritize special protection for marginalized people and groups⁴³ most affected by the triple planetary crisis, including Indigenous Peoples, coastal communities and small-scale fishers, girls and women, older persons, people living in highly polluted areas, people in poverty situations, persons with disabilities, LGBT, those at risk of displacement due to environmental harms, and environmental human rights defenders.

43. A/80/187, paras. 80–84. ↩

With regard to Indigenous Peoples, States must respect their rights and ensure their meaningful participation in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and programmes that may affect them. Plans are far more successful when they incorporate Indigenous knowledge and participation from the outset and when they promote community-based, sustainable initiatives that reduce pressure on ecosystems.⁴⁴ In such cases, the role of external actors is not to define solutions but to provide tools that enable communities to structure their own knowledge, co-design projects and engage more effectively with external support.⁴⁵

44. Submission from Antun Gustavo Tunki Timias. ↩
45. Submission from Meli Bees Network gUG. ↩

Several United Nations treaty bodies have recognized the importance of a healthy environment as a precondition for all other human rights,⁴⁶ especially the rights to life and health,⁴⁷ particularly regarding children and youth, women and girls, and persons with disabilities, due to their situations of vulnerability.⁴⁸ Crucial objectives that State and non-State actors must achieve to guarantee human rights include adequate urban and rural planning to address climate risks, enhanced disaster preparedness, reduced pollution and improved access to water, waste management, safe, affordable and accessible public transport, healthcare, social services and income-generating opportunities.⁴⁹

46. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 27 (2025) on economic, social and cultural rights and the environmental dimension of sustainable development, para. 1. ↩
47. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36 (2018) on the right to life, para. 62; and Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 14 (2000) on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, paras. 4, 11, 15 and 27. ↩
48. Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 26 (2023) on children’s rights and the environment, with a special focus on climate change, paras. 1 and 21; Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 37 (2018) on the gender-related dimensions of disaster risk reduction in the context of climate change, paras. 42 and 61; and Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, general comment No. 5 (2017) on living independently and being included in the community, paras. 68 and 78. ↩
49. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 27 (2025), para. 66; Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 37 (2018), paras. 25 and 26; Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, general comment No. 5 (2017), para. 78; and Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 26 (2023), paras. 33, 61 and 71. ↩

Comprehensive planning has proved to be one of the most effective measures available to States to meet their obligations. Thorough, science-based, adequately funded and coordinated planning helps States and subnational governments balance existing needs with common short- and long-term goals for sustainable economic and social progress. This requires long-term national goals to be matched by investment, consumption and economic activity levels that respect planetary boundaries, and by coordinated measures to protect and, where needed, restore ecosystems, with due regard to public health and other rights.

Effective planning that mainstreams the right to a healthy environment can, in this way, increase public well-being while reducing conflicts and litigation, by contributing to the implementation of States’ legal obligations. Obligations must be implemented with an integrated perspective of international law, as clarified by the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights related to climate change. States must also respect the rights of present and future generations, a duty in which planning has a vital role, setting long-term goals balancing the needs and rights of present and future generations.

This section describes high-level planning tools and processes States can use to advance environmental protection and the full enjoyment of the human right to a healthy environment. That said, protracted planning must not be allowed to become a substitute or excuse for delaying action. Planning is not the end goal but rather a tool to help States make strategic decisions and take effective action, through an organized and clear vision showing the path for the transformational change needed.

Cities are central drivers and also critical to solving the triple planetary crisis, as the urban share of the global population is projected to rise from roughly half today to 70% by 2050.⁵⁰ Transformations already under way in some cities worldwide show that long-term planning, backed by diligent implementation, has tremendous potential for reducing environmental degradation and improving quality of life.

50. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2025 (United Nations publication, 2025), p. 30. ↩

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and the United Nations Environment Programme⁵¹ affirm that integrated urban planning provides key opportunities for deep cuts in climate pollution and for the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of nature, boosts residents’ well-being and creates economic opportunities. Urban planning and design with an environmental perspective is highly effective for improving resilience, expanding renewable energy and promoting cleaner, more efficient transport and construction.⁵² More compact urban forms, electrification combined with low-emission power generation, high-efficiency buildings, and urban forestry, greening and river restoration for enhanced carbon uptake are among many high-impact strategies. Some cities already offer abundant examples of biodiversity protection and restoration, reduction of toxic contamination and climate mitigation and adaptation action – models that now need to be replicated at scale globally.

51. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2023 (longer report), p. 105; IPBES-10/1, annex II; and UNEP, Global Environment Outlook 7, p. 918. ↩
52. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), World Cities Report 2024: Cities and Climate Action (Nairobi, 2024), p. xx. ↩

One successful strategy is the “15-minute city”, an urban planning model that seeks to provide residents with most daily needs within a short walk, bicycle ride or public transportation trip, saving time otherwise spent in traffic and improving quality of life. The concept stems from proximity-based planning aimed at reducing car dependence. In the Randstad, Kingdom of the Netherlands, car use has decreased from 38% to 30% in recent years,⁵³ and the Amsterdam 2050 plan promotes self-sufficient, accessible districts with basic services reachable within a 5-to-10-minute walk or bicycle ride.⁵⁴ In Barcelona, Spain, 76% of city blocks are within a 15-minute walk of more than 20 day-to-day destinations.⁵⁵ Paris and Copenhagen have achieved comparable access to education and healthcare, with Paris shifting to a small-street network that encourages walking.⁵⁶ Stockholm has extended the approach further with its “one-minute city” model, replacing street parking with public seating, play areas, bicycle stands, charging stations and small gardens.⁵⁷

53. Ate Poorthuis and Matthew Zook, “Moving the 15-minute city beyond the urban core: the role of accessibility and public transport in the Netherlands”, Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 110, June 2023, pp. 2 and 4. ↩
54. Fulvia Pinto and Mina Akhavan, “Reimagining proximity: operationalising the x-minute city and urban regeneration in Amsterdam and Milan”, Land, vol. 15, No. 1 (January 2026), p. 7. ↩
55. Carles Ferrer-Ortiz and others, “Barcelona under the 15-minute city lens: mapping the accessibility and proximity potential based on pedestrian travel times, Smart Cities, vol. 5, No. 1 (March 2022), pp. 156 and 157. ↩
56. Hui Wang, Ka Ho Tsoi and Becky P.Y. Loo, “An assessment framework for 15-minute cities: progress worldwide and the impact of urban form”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 199, September 2025, pp. 9 and 12. ↩
57. Fulvia Pinto and Mina Akhavan, “Scenarios for a post-pandemic city: urban planning strategies and challenges of making ‘Milan 15-minutes city’”, Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 60, 2022, p. 373. ↩

In Australia, Plan Melbourne 2017–2050 aims to transform the city into a sustainable, resilient space and counter the urban heat island effect by greening buildings and transport corridors and expanding open spaces for planting.⁵⁸ The plan calls for new regional parks and conservation reserves across the metropolitan area, more than tripling the current number, and for landscaping incorporating green roofs and walls to expand permeable surfaces.⁵⁹ This is expected to lower temperatures and improve water retention.

58. See www.planning.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/strategies-and-initiatives/plan-melbourne. ↩
59. See www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/628250/plan-melbourne-2019-implementation-actions.pdf, pp. 5–11. ↩

Singapore’s Green Plan 2030 aims to enhance food security, ensure sustainable water management, expand clean energy deployment, promote sustainable economic growth, green infrastructure and industries, and become resource-efficient and climate-resilient.⁶⁰ Its “blue-green” network planning aims to protect the hydrological and ecological values of Singapore’s landscapes.⁶¹ The city State has also improved public transit and regulated private car ownership, tackling climate change and air pollution together.⁶²

60. A/HRC/61/47/Add.1, para. 23. ↩
61. Peter G. Rowe and Limin Hee, A City in Blue and Green The Singapore Story (Singapore, Springer, 2019), p. 3. ↩
62. A/HRC/61/47/Add.1, para. 38. ↩

Through its urban improvement plan, Medellín, Colombia, created 30 green corridors targeting highly polluted streets, established a bicycle lane network and deployed 69 electric buses, with striking results. Within the first year, a single corridor absorbed about 160,787 kg of CO2. Over time, over 100 residents from disadvantaged backgrounds were trained for full-time jobs in city gardening, while air pollution decreased and the urban heat island effect fell by 2°C, reducing risks and increasing well-being.⁶³

63. See https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Cities100-Medellin-s-interconnected-green-corridors?language=en_US. ↩

As cities plan for a warming world, they must consider the unique value of natural ecosystems, prioritizing biodiversity and native plants over manicured parks and water features designed for human recreation or aesthetics only. While both can help counter the heat island effect, only natural ecosystems deliver considerable biodiversity and environmental value. Urban planning should therefore centre native plants and habitats, rather than gardens and large green spaces, weaving biodiversity and ecosystem protection into the built environment.

Unlike environmental, social and human rights impact assessments,⁶⁴ which assess specific projects, strategic environmental assessments (known as SEAs) evaluate the environmental effects of policies, plans and programmes at a higher strategic level – well before project-specific concessions or work begins. The two are complementary: strategic environmental assessments provide a first filter to inform decisions and guide the environmental, social and human rights impact assessments that follow at the project level. While distinct in scope, both follow similar approaches and steps⁶⁵ and require robust regulatory frameworks and procedural rights, along with effective implementation mechanisms.⁶⁶

64. See A/80/187. ↩
65. UNEP, Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards an Integrated Approach (2004), pp. 4 and 86. ↩
66. A/80/187, para. 32. ↩

Strategic environmental assessments are required whenever policies, plans or programmes are likely to have significant environmental, climate or health effects, including relating to natural resource use and management, energy, waste management land use, or exclusive economic zones. Their purpose is to bring long-term, strategic, comprehensive considerations to the forefront, preventing outcomes with significant negative environmental impacts while enhancing positives ones. States should ensure that such assessments are conducted diligently, by independent and expert parties, so they do not become a mechanism for greenlighting unsustainable development.⁶⁷

67. Ibid. ↩

Strategic environmental assessments are required by several multilateral and regional treaties, including the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (art. 39), the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (art. 4), the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (target 14), the Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management of the Western Indian Ocean (annex II) and European Union Directive 2001/42/EC. International financial institutions such as the World Bank also require such assessments for policies, plans and programmes, to guarantee that environmental and social impacts are considered and mitigated at the earliest possible stage.⁶⁸ Some States, including Armenia, Mauritius, Spain and the State of Palestine, have adopted such assessments within their legal frameworks,⁶⁹ but many have yet to do so.

68. See https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/197551468340871432/pdf/Strategic-environmental-assessment-in-policy-and-sector-reform-conceptual-model-and-operational-guidance.pdf. ↩
69. Submissions from Armenia, Mauritius, Spain and State of Palestine. ↩

The planning for the Sundarbans world heritage site in Bangladesh illustrates a serious misapplication of the strategic environmental assessment instrument and a missed opportunity to reduce climate emissions. The 2021 south-western Bangladesh strategic environmental assessment ignored basic principles of cumulative impact assessment, data transparency, public participation and alternatives assessment, including the option of not constructing multiple fossil fuel-based power plants. Based on flawed science, a failure to assess all sources, and alleged interference with public participation, the assessment served as retroactive approval for projects that had already been permitted and begun.⁷⁰

70. Submission to World Heritage Centre from National Committee for Saving the Sundarbans (2023); and see https://world-heritage-watch.org/content/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022-Report-WHW-final.pdf, p. 66. ↩

Effective planning must also consider strategies for mobilizing the funding needed for implementation. Green budgeting is beneficial for bringing climate and environmental considerations into financing discussions as States carefully monitor expenditures and direct financial flows towards greenhouse gas emissions reductions and natural resource conservation, aligning budgetary and fiscal policies with sustainability objectives and international commitments. Green budgeting and procurement practices can amplify public benefits by boosting spending on climate and environmental priorities and identifying high-carbon-cost activities. On the revenue side, financial incentives such as taxes, subsidies and permit fees can be shifted to implement environmental obligations.⁷¹

71. See https://ieefa.org/resources/what-green-budgeting. ↩

Key mechanisms include programme budgeting, carbon emission reviews of proposed policies and budgets, and incorporating the cost of environmental externalities into alternatives assessments. While Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are leaders in adopting these practices, many countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have created some mechanisms for integrating climate and environmental considerations into the Government’s budgetary and fiscal frameworks, policies and practices.⁷² Tax and subsidy reforms create additional revenue streams that can alter behaviours and incentivize greener operations. Lithuania has advanced green procurement processes at public agencies,⁷³ and many countries are undertaking fuel subsidy reforms accompanied by programmes to shield people in poverty.⁷⁴

72. OECD, Green Budgeting in OECD Countries 2024 (Paris, 2024), p. 12. ↩
73. See www.open-contracting.org/2023/12/06/how-lithuania-fast-tracked-green-procurement/. ↩
74. World Bank, “Indonesia’s fuel subsidies reforms”, 2024, pp. 13–16. ↩

While assessing impact and redirecting funding towards implementing environmental obligations may be more feasible in high-income nations, increased international financing is urgent for the global South, which has less secure funding for critical implementation and greater impacts and vulnerability. The Philippines illustrates the scale of the gap: it has less than 1% of the €63 billion required to implement its nationally determined contributions.⁷⁵ Because marginal climate abatement costs are substantially lower in many developing countries, improving access to finance there would accelerate climate action.

75. Submission from Aksyon Klima Pilipinas. ↩

The recent World Bank decision to reduce climate co-benefits by 45%⁷⁶ demonstrates a worrisome tendency of cutting already insufficient resources for addressing impacts of the triple planetary crisis, when States and the international community should be increasing these funds.

76. World Bank, “Update on the World Bank Group Climate Change Action Plan”, 29 June 2026. ↩

Land and marine spatial planning shapes human activities across geographical space to harmonize development, conservation and community needs. One principal tool is environmental zoning, also referred to as territorial planning, used to manage coastal resources, forests, critical habitats and human communities. Zoning involves assessing specific geographical areas and either designating them for allowed activities or imposing use restrictions to protect or restore fragile ecological and other special areas. Territorial planning or zoning commonly yields detailed maps delineating use restrictions, along with legal or regulatory enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance.

Governments use zoning for varied purposes: for protecting important agricultural land from urban sprawl, preventing the emergence of sacrifice zones upon the intermingling of contaminating activities with residential areas, and safeguarding ecologically fragile areas. Buffer zones can be multipurpose, protecting human health while also shielding conservation areas. Diverse types of zoning must be created and implemented while respecting Indigenous Peoples and coastal and rural communities’ rights, including effective participation, with an intersectional approach. In 2015, Palau set an example by announcing marine conservation zoning to end mining, drilling and commercial fishing across 80% of its exclusive economic zone by 2020, creating the Palau National Marine Sanctuary – one of the world’s largest marine conservation areas. The remaining 20% was zoned for locally based fleets, ensuring national food security. Specific management plans and research programmes now monitor impacts and refine this plan.⁷⁷

77. See https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cI33Zv45J8jqKkKnz1iegthWAMiTcPMy/view, pp. 2, 9 and 22–27. ↩

Zoning has also been applied to forest conservation: following an extensive planning process, the United States Forest Service issued the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, a landmark policy still in place that protects untouched forests and critical habitat for endangered species by prohibiting road construction and reconstruction and commercial logging on approximately 50 million acres of national forests. Keeping these forests road-free has minimized harm from extractive and harmful activities.⁷⁸

78. See https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568170.ch3, pp. 17 and 22. ↩

In Europe, 27% of Spanish territory – marine and land – forms part of the Natura 2000⁷⁹ network, zoned to ensure the sustainable use and protection of spaces and ecosystems. Management plans for Spain’s network are prepared largely by the autonomous regions with local expertise.⁸⁰

79. See www.miteco.gob.es/en/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-protegidos/red-natura-2000.html. ↩
80. Submission from Clínica Jurídica de la Universitat Pompeu Fabra. ↩

Beyond conservation, governments often zone areas for varying degrees of resource exploitation or industrial activity. In these situations, it is critical to consult and obtain the consent of affected populations, especially Indigenous Peoples, and to carefully assess the ecological services at risk from the proposed activities. In Sri Lanka, for example, fishing communities bear the brunt of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing by foreign vessels, particularly in the Gulf of Mannar. Women play a central role in post-harvest fishing activities but remain disproportionately affected and excluded from planning and decision-making processes.⁸¹ Carelessly enacted plans and zoning frameworks for resource exploration and exploitation can ignite severe land-use disputes, social upheaval, and human rights violations.

81. Submission from ESCR-Net and others. ↩

Once areas have been zoned for special conservation protections or sustainable use, environmental management plans must be developed to ensure that management objectives are met. In Colombia, “ethno-development plans” can complement spatial planning and environmental planning,⁸² so that community visions are incorporated from the outset and plans are underpinned by free, prior and informed consent, protecting the collective heritage and promoting equitable benefits distribution.

82. Submission from ILEX Acción Jurídica. ↩

Watershed protection demands integral planning, as multiple direct and diffuse sources affect water quality and quantity. Rivers, for example, impacted by inadequate energy development such as dams, are contaminated over long distances by effluents and wastes from human settlements, agricultural waste, fertilizer run-off, and sediments from land clearing and development. Protecting rivers, watersheds and water quality downstream therefore requires effective planning and environmental management upstream.

The Wadden Sea world heritage site, jointly managed by Denmark, Germany and Netherlands (Kingdom of the), demonstrates the benefits of this approach. Trilateral cooperation produced the Single Integrated Management Plan for One Wadden Sea World Heritage,⁸³ which protects ecological integrity and manages human impacts on habitats and biodiversity from tourism, shipping, energy and climate change. Zoning is used to balance conservation with human activities, while the Trilateral Climate Change Adaptation Strategy strengthens policies and measures that reduce vulnerability and increase the resilience of the Wadden Sea.⁸⁴

83. See www.waddensea-worldheritage.org/sites/default/files/2023_SIMP_EN.pdf. ↩
84. See www.waddensea-worldheritage.org/sites/default/files/2025_Trilateral%20Climate%20Change%20Adaptation%20Strategy.pdf. ↩

States’ shared obligations for environmental protection and climate action are operationalized through the assessment and reporting mechanisms established by multilateral environmental agreements, alongside global targets such as the Sustainable Development Goals. The implementation of these duties should be done in an integrated way, avoiding fragmentation. On the contrary, and reflecting the interdependency and indivisibility of human rights, as well as the interdependency of humans and the environment, many actions through adequate planning can help advance compliance with multiple multilateral environmental agreements, especially if local knowledge is strengthened, avoiding top-down approaches.⁸⁵

85. Laura Mai, “Measuring it, managing it, fixing it? Data and rights in transnational and local climate change governance”, Transnational Environmental Law, vol. 13, No. 1 (March 2024), p. 127. ↩

Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to address the climate crisis, the Paris Agreement requires States Parties to undertake rapid reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, States must prepare, communicate and maintain successive and progressively more ambitious nationally determined contributions, encompassing direct emissions reductions and the co-benefits of adaptation and sustainable development actions.⁸⁶ Formulating nationally determined contributions requires planning to identify national emissions reduction opportunities alongside mitigation and adaptation measures and to assess their impact, viability and cost. States must regularly revise their nationally determined contributions via the periodic review process to set more effective targets.⁸⁷ This process connects climate action, environmental protection and human rights and is yielding advances in many nations.

86. See https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs. ↩
87. Paris Agreement, art. 4 (2). ↩

However, the latest synthesis report on nationally determined contributions shows that such contributions representing 69% of global greenhouse gas emissions project a reduction of only 12% compared to 2019 levels.⁸⁸ Clearly, States are not on track to achieve the significant emission reduction needed to limit global warming to maximum 1.5℃, or the 43% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 established in the 2022 Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan.⁸⁹ The lack of compliance is generating litigation, for example in France, where a case was brought to court when the Government exceeded the initial 2015–2018 carbon budget. In 2021, the Council of State issued a decision ordering the Government to strengthen its climate measures,⁹⁰ which were reviewed in 2023 and declared sufficient by 2025.

88. See https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/message_to_parties_and_observers_ndc_synthesis_report_update.pdf. ↩
89. See https://unfccc.int/documents/624444. ↩
90. See www.conseil-etat.fr/en/news/greenhouse-gas-emissions-the-government-must-take-new-measures-and-submit-an-initial-report-by-the-end-of-the-year. ↩

As of 2024, 71% of Iceland’s energy supply was sourced from renewables, especially geothermal energy. Nationally, carbon dioxide emissions fell by 28% between 2000 and 2023.⁹¹ This is largely due to the Icelandic Master Plan for Nature Protection and Energy Utilization, in operation with strict regulation and constant revision and renewal since 1999.⁹² Icelandic energy projects must be included in the Master Plan and are selected only after recommendation by a technical committee.

91. See www.iea.org/countries/iceland/energy-mix. ↩
92. See www.ramma.is/english. ↩

In 2023, Indonesia undertook an exercise to future-proof its national long-term development plan (2025–2045), highlighting the critical role that nature-based solutions can play in ensuring cost-effective environmental resilience to worst-case climate scenarios.⁹³

93. OECD, Strategic Foresight Toolkit for Resilient Public Policy: A Comprehensive Foresight Methodology to Support Sustainable and Future-Ready Public Policy (Paris, 2025), p. 22. ↩

Beyond the nationally determined contributions, national adaptation plans outline how countries will adapt to climate change in the medium and long term. These plans must be tailored to each State’s specific challenges and climate risks, reducing vulnerabilities and better preparing for climate change impacts.⁹⁴ Many countries also conduct disaster risk reduction planning to protect against catastrophic climate change impacts. Nagaland is among India’s most climate-vulnerable states, with a more than 200% rise in water- and climate-related incidents between 2018 and 2021, including floods, landslides and extreme rain. Nagaland launched the Disaster Risk Transfer Parametric Insurance Solution in 2024 to address gaps in disaster risk financing and to provide a state-wide, multi-year insurance solution for weather-related disasters. This programme is part of Nagaland’s broader disaster management and climate adaptation planning.⁹⁵

94. See https://climatepromise.undp.org/news-and-stories/what-are-national-adaptation-plans-and-why-do-they-matter. ↩
95. Submission from World Youth for Climate Justice-India. ↩

The kinds of adaptation initiatives resulting from resilience planning vary greatly. The “new-style Delta Plan” of the Kingdom of the Netherlands lowers floodplains and widens rivers, creates infrastructure to more efficiently store and distribute water and adjusts agricultural practices and urban growth to accommodate rising water levels and protect freshwater.⁹⁶ Carefully monitored and revised annually, the plan incorporates changing conditions to ensure that objectives are met. Meanwhile, the climate adaptation framework for Europe’s Natura 2000 recommends wildfire management planning as an integral part of forest planning,⁹⁷ while Norway implements fire-adapted ecosystems to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire.⁹⁸

96. See https://english.deltaprogramma.nl/documents/2025/09/11/dp2026-outlines, pp. 5–10. ↩
97. See https://environment.ec.europa.eu/document/download/208a9b47-653e-45da-9b22-2bffcbcc38a8_en?filename=C_2026_2031_1_EN_annexe_acte_autonome_cp_part1_v4.pdf, pp. 23, 29, 30, 46, 53 and 99. ↩
98. See https://nordicforestresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/PB-2024-Eng-1.pdf. ↩

National biodiversity strategies and action plans are tools for States to counter the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. These plans define national priorities and actions reflecting the State’s intentions to fulfil the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Considering national circumstances, the action plans delineate processes to meet these goals.⁹⁹ For example, China’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan prioritizes marine protection. A marine reserve system was established along with projects to protect rare and endangered species such as the Chinese white dolphin, the spotted seal and coral reefs.¹⁰⁰ In February 2026, Sweden adopted its national biodiversity strategy and action plan, which was developed in consultation with the Sami Parliament and includes a chapter on traditional knowledge.¹⁰¹

99. See CBD/COP/DEC/15/6 and CBD/COP/DEC/16/1. ↩
100. Submission from China. ↩
101. Submission from Swedish Institute for Human Rights. ↩

Adequate planning and the right to a healthy environment face similar implementation challenges, including unsustainable development, weak rule of law, and economic, financial and governance systems that support global resource overconsumption – all of which intensify strains on land, ocean and climate systems.¹⁰² Below are some fundamental challenges that States and institutions must address to achieve effective planning.

102. A/79/270, paras. 71–77; and UNEP, Global Environment Outlook 7, pp. 54–70. ↩

Inappropriately prioritizing investment or economic interests over the public interest and environmental protection. Planning decisions are often shaped by political priorities, outdated assessments, economic pressures, or undue or disproportionate influence of well-resourced private actors. This can be aggravated by weak rule of law or corruption in decision-making processes, impacting the adequacy and independence of decisions. These impacts are compounded by lack of access to justice.¹⁰³

103. Submission from Franciscans International and others. ↩

Many regulations and policies still increase fossil fuel dependency; others cause fragmented governance that targets specific sectors and activities without appropriately integrating environmental and human rights obligations and perspectives. Biodiversity conservation, climate mitigation, land-use planning, and infrastructure development are often governed by distinct legal and institutional frameworks, resulting in inconsistent policies or environmental assessments conducted in isolation from broader development planning. In Morocco, for example, planning and policy assessments remain fragmented across sectors and institutions. Limited assessment of public policies from a human rights perspective, particularly their differentiated impacts on vulnerable populations, restricts the integration of social, environmental and economic considerations.¹⁰⁴

104. Submission from Morocco. ↩

Current international trade law prioritizes investments and economic activities without thorough consideration of the risks that such activities pose for the environment or human rights, failing to appropriately consider or address the triple planetary crisis. Numerous States have faced multimillion-dollar arbitration claims for environmentally coherent decisions, including denying permits as a result of planning.¹⁰⁵ An example of this is the Próspera and others vs. Honduras case, an almost €10 billion dispute over a charter city in an economic exclusive zone, implemented without adequate environmental impact assessments, among other permits. States have lost such arbitrations even when their decisions were aligned with international and national environmental and climate obligations; if their decisions impact foreign investment, States may have to pay. Narrow exceptions in international trade are rarely, if ever, made for human rights or environmental protections. This is creating a regulatory “chilling effect”.¹⁰⁶ Climate ministers in Denmark and New Zealand acknowledge that the threat of investor-State dispute settlements has prevented more ambitious climate commitments.¹⁰⁷

105. A/80/187, annex III (available at www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a80187-report-special-rapporteur-human-right-clean-healthy-and). ↩
106. See A/78/168 and A/79/270. ↩
107. Submission from Global Justice Now to the Environmental Audit Committee call for inquiries. ↩

Inadequate coordination across planning processes, institutions and levels of government can compromise governance effectiveness. This results in contradictory objectives, effort duplication, regulatory gaps, and policies that undermine one another while deepening siloed approaches. Regarding environmental agreements, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, weak coordination and fragmentation can prevent States from advancing coherent solutions to the interconnected climate change, biodiversity loss and toxic pollution crises, along with land degradation. Solutions can also be constrained by the absence of appropriate and well-funded mechanisms for cross-sector collaboration, or excessive and uncoordinated reporting requirements across climate action, biodiversity conservation and land management. To progress, States must avoid “workshop fatigue” – dwelling on process and capacity-building rather than focusing on implementing integrated planning and policies.

Another obstacle is the tendency to substitute goal-oriented planning with environmental impact assessments and approve projects that impede lasting environmental protection. These tools are distinct and complementary, with planning intended to be State-led for setting long-term, integral goals, not linked with specific projects or private interests. In Pakistan, for example, the national climate change policy and the national action plan identify risks, priorities and adaptation plans yet lack enforceable criteria and play no role in project approval processes. Environmental assessments and permits proceed without demonstrating alignment with national adaptation needs.¹⁰⁸ As a result, policy development and planning run in parallel, impeding efficiency and impact.

108. Submission from National Commission for Human Rights of Pakistan. ↩

Lack of proper public participation in planning processes. Many authorities, legal frameworks, and institutions minimize the role of communities and citizens in planning. Some regulations fail to mandate public participation or access to information during planning processes, despite these being recognized as human rights. Others create “listen-only” participation mechanisms where attendees cannot propose inputs, risking reducing the processes to mere formalities.¹⁰⁹ People may not always know how to participate and, when they do engage, may experience frustration and uncertainty if their contributions are ignored or they lack information regarding how input is considered.

109. Submission from AIDA. ↩

An independent evaluation of Costa Rica’s revision of its national biodiversity strategy found that participants did not receive a clear explanation of how their contributions would be transformed into policy, and showed signs of participation fatigue when dense technical information was delivered on compressed feedback schedules, limiting opportunities to clarify, understand and reflect.¹¹⁰ In the European Union, concerns arose regarding consultation requirements under the Better Regulation framework having been bypassed for the first omnibus legislative package,¹¹¹ with the European Ombudsman finding that consultation obligations had not been properly fulfilled and that stakeholder engagement had not been satisfactorily conducted.¹¹²

110. Submission from Ronit Amit Rojas. ↩
111. Submission from Environmental Justice Network Ireland. ↩
112. See www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/03/european-commission-measures-simplify-business-environment-must-align-un. ↩

Prioritizing investment over Indigenous Peoples’ and communities’ rights and knowledge regarding land and marine use and planning. This threatens and sometimes violates human rights and prevents adequate planning. The stigmatization of environmental human rights defenders as opponents of development or investment can intensify conflict and endangers these defenders – often Indigenous Peoples, people of African descent, peasants, and members of rural and coastal communities.¹¹³

113. Submission from Justice Chambers. ↩

Environmentally harmful subsidies and misallocated financial incentives. These can undermine effective planning by diverting financial resources, labour, science and institutional capacity towards activities that worsen the triple planetary crisis, while crowding out the funding and institutional attention that proper planning requires. In Europe, approximately 82% of agricultural subsidies are directed towards animal-based production systems or largely linked to the fossil fuel industry,¹¹⁴ contributing disproportionately to environmental degradation.¹¹⁵ Ireland, for example, subsidized the fossil fuel industry by up to €4.9 billion in 2023 through preferential tax treatment and direct subsidies.¹¹⁶ Globally, fossil fuel subsidies reached $7.4 trillion (€6.47 trillion) in 2024, equivalent to 6.4% of global gross domestic product.¹¹⁷ Subsidies of this scale reinforce dependence on sectors from which planning must instead drive a just transition. They also illustrate how weak governance, poor accountability and deficiencies in the rule of law can undermine plans and obligations by allowing public resources to support activities that are incompatible with States’ environmental and human rights obligations.

114. Submission from ProVeg International. ↩
115. A/HRC/62/44, paras. 34, 35 and 53. ↩
116. Submission from National Women’s Council of Ireland. ↩
117. Simon Black and others, “Underpriced and overused: fossil fuel subsidies data 2025 update”, International Monetary Fund Working Paper, No. WP/25/270 (Washington, D.C., 2025), p. 16. ↩

Effective, comprehensive planning that is grounded in the best available science and is human rights- and ecosystem-based has been shown to improve the well-being of people and societies. Yet the current global situation demonstrates a persistent gap: planning efforts and their implementation must improve, recognizing and incorporating the interconnection and interdependence of humans and nature and aligning plans and their implementation with planetary boundaries and with the public interest and a healthy environment.

Although the scientific evidence is clear, the legal framework well established, and the urgency undeniable, adequate planning to care for the planet and people remains the exception rather than the norm. Planning is often fragmented, with limited coordination across institutions and levels of government. In parallel, private interests and fossil fuels continue to be prioritized over the transformational change needed, while the environment, including the climate system, ecosystems and biodiversity, remains treated as an isolated concern rather than a cross-cutting objective and priority.

Planning should be at the core of governmental decisions and aligned with human rights law and international law. Mainstreaming the human right to a healthy environment provides useful tools for governments.

Transformational change is neither simple nor immediate. States must therefore urgently implement planning systems capable of addressing the triple planetary crisis, beginning with long-term visions and translating these into concrete actions that deliver measurable improvements for people and the environment, including reduced air pollution and accelerated transitions away from fossil fuels, protecting ecosystems and biodiversity. This requires stronger coordination across sectors and levels of government through integrated planning and governance frameworks that promote policy coherence, avoid contradictory measures and overcome institutional fragmentation.

In compliance with their obligations under international law to respect, protect and fulfil the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, for the benefit of present and future generations, States must:
(a) Mainstream the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment throughout all planning processes;
(b) Ensure that planning recognizes the urgency of addressing and preventing further harm to the environment and the climate system and is aligned with the necessary solutions, undertaken with a long-term perspective, informed by the best available science and consistent with international human rights law and international environmental law, while following pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C, respect planetary boundaries, advance a just transition away from fossil fuels, prevent transboundary harm and protect and restore ecosystem integrity, including of land, soils, forests, biodiversity and the ocean;
(c) Ensure that planning frameworks incorporate human rights and international law principles, including prevention, precaution, intergenerational equity and non-discrimination, and cooperation;
(d) Recognize the interdependence of human and environmental health by adopting integrated, ecosystem-based and rights-based planning, reflecting the interconnectedness of ecosystems and human systems and protecting present and future generations’ rights;
(e) Review, update or replace planning frameworks, policies and decisions that are inconsistent with the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment or other international law obligations, including ones that promote unsustainable patterns of production and consumption or increase dependence on fossil fuels;
(f) Require and enhance inter-agency and multilevel government collaboration, to move from siloed and fragmented governance structures to coherent action where all sectors integrate climate, environment and human rights considerations into goals and operations, thus addressing climate, water, biodiversity, food, air and health concerns more effectively;
(g) Ensure that planning processes include implementation mechanisms, are regularly updated to reflect evolving knowledge and risks, and remain responsive to present and future environmental and climate scenarios;
(h) Guarantee that planning processes incorporate gender-responsive and intersectional approaches and fully respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples, including to lands, territories, coastal areas, participation, access to information and free, prior and informed consent, and recognize and incorporate Indigenous knowledge;
(i) Review and reform international trade and investment law, including investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms, to guarantee consistency with international, environmental and human rights obligations, as clarified by the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on State obligations on climate change, including the prevention of environmental and transboundary harm;
(j) Require strategic environmental assessments and other appropriate comprehensive assessments for plans, programmes, megaprojects and other development initiatives that may significantly affect the environment, the climate system or human rights, ensuring that identified risks are prevented, minimized or avoided;
(k) Establish and effectively enforce legal, administrative and judicial consequences for the authorization or implementation of plans, projects or activities that are inconsistent with planning objectives or violate environmental, climate or human rights obligations, while guaranteeing effective access to justice and effective remedies;
(l) Conduct integrated urban planning to protect biodiversity and ecosystems, and public health, and achieve climate change mitigation, adaptation and resilience;
(m) Prioritize planning for the protection of remaining ecosystems and biodiversity, especially fragile ones, including forests, rivers, wetlands and marine environments;
(n) Advance plans for a just transition that expands renewable energy, discontinues the development of and reliance on fossil fuels, scales sustainable, efficient public transport, greens buildings, protects biodiversity and ecosystems, including prioritizing native species, and reduces overconsumption, among others.

International financial institutions and United Nations entities must:
(a) Promote coherence and better coordination among international frameworks, processes and institutions, including the Rio conventions, the Sustainable Development Goals, the universal periodic review and development and poverty eradication strategies, to prevent policies and investments that increase biodiversity loss, toxic contamination, and fossil fuel extraction, use or dependency;
(b) Strengthen institutional coordination and cooperation to support integrated planning and implementation, identifying opportunities for shared data collection while strengthening local knowledge, planning and reporting to build efficiency and focus scarce resources on the implementation of solutions;
(c) Prevent fragmented or inconsistent guidance and policy frameworks and duplicative or time-consuming reporting requirements;
(d) Review and update planning methodologies, guidelines, toolkits and technical assistance to ensure that these are grounded in human rights- and ecosystem-based approaches, the right to a healthy environment, and the best available science and consistent with international law, including advisory opinions of international courts and tribunals;
(e) Align policies, financing, safeguards, recommendations and technical assistance with States’ obligations under international human rights law and international environmental law, supporting implementation while refraining from promoting measures that weaken environmental protections, climate action, human rights or the rule of law.