Search Climate Insights Directory

ClientEarth alleges that the European Commission is systematically delaying the adoption of authorisations and restrictions for hazardous chemicals under the REACH regulation, which increases public and environmental exposure to risks. The organization claims that 96% of authorisations and 89% of restrictions were decided in an 'unreasonable time', often exceeding a year after scientific opinions were issued. ClientEarth further asserts a lack of transparency regarding how the Commission prioritises these files, suggesting that cases impacting business interests are processed faster than those impacting human health. The document calls for the Commission to publish prospective timelines, clarify prioritisation criteria, and accelerate decision-making to avoid a formal complaint for maladministration to the European Ombudsman.

ClientEarth asserts that the EU is in violation of international law following a 2017 finding by the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) that the EU fails to provide the public with adequate access to EU courts. The document argues that the current Aarhus Regulation is unduly restrictive, noting that only 7 out of 35 internal review requests were declared admissible. ClientEarth contends that amending the Aarhus Regulation is the only viable legal mechanism to remedy these shortcomings and bring the EU into compliance with the Aarhus Convention and the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) argues that the Thabametsi and Khanyisa coal-fired power stations are unnecessary, economically damaging, and environmentally harmful. CER highlights that Thabametsi's climate impact assessment rated its GHG emissions as "Very Large" and that both plants would be located in air quality priority areas. The document asserts that these projects contradict South Africa's international climate commitments and that renewable energy offers a cheaper, cleaner alternative.

The paper argues that while South Africa possesses the necessary legal tools—primarily through the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) and the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA)—to achieve the targets of SDG 12, practical implementation is hindered by systemic failures. These include a lack of political will, administrative inefficiency within the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR), and poor inter-departmental coordination. The authors highlight a specific governance risk where the DMR acts as both the awarding authority for environmental authorisations and the body responsible for their implementation, which weakens oversight.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected ExxonMobil's attempt to block Attorney General Maura Healey from obtaining records to investigate if the company concealed knowledge about fossil fuels and climate change. The court ruled that Exxon's franchise agreements do not shield it from such investigations and affirmed the Attorney General's authority to use consumer protection statutes to investigate climate denial, potentially setting a precedent for similar litigation in other states with comparable laws.

This document is a cover letter accompanying a Joint Summary of Amicus Curiae Briefs submitted to the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines. The submission supports petitioners Greenpeace Southeast Asia et al. in a national inquiry into the impact of climate change on the human rights of the Filipino people, specifically focusing on the responsibility of 'Carbon Majors' companies for human rights violations.

ClientEarth argues that ECHA's current interpretation of Article 66 of REACH is too restrictive, failing to require essential data from downstream users and overestimating the need for confidentiality. The document asserts that ECHA has the power and obligation to make the notification of exposure data, SVHC functions, and substitution activities compulsory to meet REACH objectives. Furthermore, it contends that under EU law and the Aarhus Regulation, information regarding emissions into the environment—including site addresses, tonnage, and use descriptions—must be systematically disclosed to the public, regardless of commercial interest claims.

The briefing examines the application of penalties under the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), concluding that current enforcement practices often fail to meet the EU legal standard of being 'effective, proportionate and dissuasive'. It highlights a prevalence of 'soft' enforcement approaches and a lack of transparency regarding sanctions, which creates an uneven playing field for companies. The document recommends the adoption of credible enforcement policies, increased public access to enforcement data, and the development of harmonised guidance on determining penalty levels.

The document outlines the legal outcomes of a Supreme Court decision on the Brazilian Forest Code, detailing the special regimes for landowners who deforested before July 2008, the role of the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA), and specific rules for Legal Forest Reserves and Permanent Preservation Areas (APP).

The authors argue that the Brazilian Supreme Court's decision on the 2012 Forest Code introduces a critical inconsistency regarding the Environmental Reserve Quote (CRA). While the court upheld the CRA's constitutionality, it diverged on the geographic criteria for compensation: requiring 'ecological identity' in one instance while maintaining the broader 'biome' criterion in another. This contradiction creates legal insecurity for rural producers and environmental agencies and may weaken the CRA market by making it more restrictive than other compensation alternatives.

A coalition of NGOs issued a statement following a U.S. District Court ruling that granted a preliminary injunction against the delay of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) methane waste rule. The court found that the BLM failed to follow legal requirements for agency rulemaking, relying on "opinions untethered to evidence" rather than reasoned analysis. The statement highlights that the 2016 rule requires oil and gas companies to reduce methane venting and flaring and perform leak detection and repair on federal public lands. The NGOs argue that allowing methane waste results in significant financial losses for taxpayers, public health risks from toxic pollutants like benzene, and increased climate emissions due to methane's potency as a greenhouse gas.

The Life After Coal campaign and the Highveld Environmental Justice Alliance Network argue that Eskom's application for a second postponement of Minimum Emission Standards (MES) at the Tutuka Power Station is legally impermissible. They contend that because Tutuka is located in the Highveld Priority Area (HPA), where ambient air quality does not comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), no postponement can be granted under the existing regulatory framework. The submission further alleges that the Background Information Document (BID) is defective and misleading, omitting critical health data and failing to justify delays in installing abatement technology. The authors assert that 'rolling postponements' are equivalent to illegal exemptions and demand the rejection of the application based on constitutional environmental rights and the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act.

The document argues that the right to participate in public affairs must be centrally linked to self-determination and access to information, particularly regarding environmental decisions and international investment treaties. It highlights the systemic marginalization of rural women and ethnic communities, the criminalization of human rights defenders, and the lack of transparency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms. CIEL recommends that the guidelines mandate public participation in the initial decision to invite foreign investment, the negotiation of investment contracts, and the settlement of disputes to prevent corporate interests from overriding public interest laws and human rights.

The briefing analyzes the legal instability resulting from the Brazilian Supreme Court's (STF) decisions regarding the 2012 Forest Code. It highlights contradictions in the court's treatment of the July 22, 2008, cutoff date, the Environmental Reserve Quote (CRA), and the amnesty for past environmental infractions, warning that these inconsistencies create a 'Frankenstal' code that threatens environmental outcomes.

The research examines the fragmented nature of migration regulation across three African regional economic communities (RECs)—SADC, EAC, and Comesa—and their integration into the Tripartite Free Trade Area (TFTA). While the EAC has made significant progress in ratifying and implementing protocols for the free movement of labour and persons, SADC and Comesa suffer from low ratification rates and a tendency to treat economic migration as a national security threat. The document highlights that the TFTA, which covers 26 states with a combined GDP of $1.2 trillion, requires the removal of migration barriers to achieve its market integration goals. Case studies of Tanzania and Rwanda illustrate the tension between regional liberalisation and domestic protectionism, as well as the benefits of an economically driven migration policy. The authors argue that for the TFTA to succeed, RECs must move beyond a security-centric approach and link migration policies to economic imperatives.

The document describes Exxon's legal strategy of initiating discovery processes in Texas against public officials and attorneys from California and Massachusetts. The author characterizes these actions as intimidation tactics designed to disrupt lawsuits filed by California jurisdictions against fossil fuel producers for their role in the climate crisis. It highlights previous failed attempts by Exxon to claim a conspiracy involving NGOs and prosecutors in New York and Massachusetts, and argues that the company is attempting to use municipal bond disclosures to allege fraud against the cities suing it.

ClientEarth argues that the draft guidance from ECHA and EFSA exceeds its legal mandate by lowering the level of environmental and health protection established by EU co-legislators. The organization specifically criticizes the requirement for a detailed understanding of the mode of action as a pre-condition for EDC identification, asserting that this creates an excessive evidentiary burden that risks 'false negatives' and contradicts the precautionary principle. ClientEarth also contends that the guidance illegally attempts to extend its scope beyond pesticides and biocides and fails to sufficiently mandate the inclusion of all available relevant scientific data, including novel test methods.

The document argues that the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system is flawed due to a lack of representation for the Global South, a lack of checks and balances, and jurisprudential incoherence. It examines 'revolutionary' European proposals like the Investment Court System (ICS) in the TTIP and CETA, which introduce permanent judges and appellate mechanisms. It also analyzes the more ad hoc responses of India, which introduced a model BIT requiring the exhaustion of domestic remedies, and South Africa, which replaced BITs with the Protection of Investment Act 2015 to shift toward state-to-state arbitration. The author recommends that African nations avoid purely domestic remedies and instead pursue regional, institutionalized court systems—such as an AU-EU or China-Africa Investment Court—to ensure fair representation and legal coherence.

The document identifies four critical areas for legal reform to prevent forest conversion: ensuring consistency between sectoral laws, establishing transparent land-title granting processes, formally recognizing customary land rights of local communities and indigenous peoples, and providing detailed implementation and enforcement mechanisms. It warns that legal ambiguity and a lack of stakeholder consultation lead to uncontrolled deforestation, land-tenure conflicts, and the potential for unfair evictions.

The document identifies five critical areas for legal reform to prevent illegal forest conversion: land allocation, clearance permits, conversion timber rules, environmental protections, and community rights. It highlights how contradictory laws, lack of transparency, and failure to recognize customary land tenure lead to uncontrolled deforestation and social conflict. The toolkit uses case studies from nine tropical countries to illustrate legal gaps and provides checklists for policy-makers to ensure comprehensive and enforceable regulations.