Search Climate Insights Directory

The report contends that CETA threatens EU pesticide regulations through regulatory cooperation and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). It highlights significant differences between EU and Canadian approaches, specifically the EU's use of hazard-based cutoffs and stricter Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs). The author argues that CETA's mechanisms for regulatory convergence and the ability of investors to sue for 'fair and equitable treatment' will pressure the EU to lower its health and environmental standards to facilitate trade.

The Center for International Environmental Law asserts that the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement violates international law and damages US credibility as an international actor. The statement claims that this decision will not protect the coal or fossil fuel industries nor save jobs, but will instead slow the global response to climate change. It notes that other nations, specifically China and India, as well as US cities and states, will continue to pursue climate action regardless of the federal government's exit.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) argues that South Africa's draft Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) and Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Update are inconsistent with the Constitution, the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), and the National Energy Act (NEA). The CER contends that the plans unjustifiably constrain renewable energy while promoting new coal-fired power stations, which they claim cause severe health impacts and contribute to climate change. They highlight that coal-fired power is no longer the least-cost option and risks creating stranded assets. The document recommends removing build limits on wind and solar, excluding new coal and nuclear power, and conducting a comprehensive assessment of external social and environmental costs.

CIEL opposes the EU's proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC), arguing that it merely improves the institutional aspects of dispute resolution without addressing the substantive treaty provisions that prioritize investor rights over the public interest. The document asserts that an MIC would entrench the flawed investor-state arbitration regime, potentially chilling government regulation on environment and health. CIEL recommends alternatives such as requiring the exhaustion of domestic remedies, limiting jurisdiction to uncompensated direct expropriation, and exploring the complete removal of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in favor of state-state consultations or strengthened domestic courts.

The report criticizes the European Commission's 2016 proposal for EDC identification criteria, arguing that its sector-specific focus on pesticides and biocides creates regulatory gaps and legal uncertainty. The authors contend that this approach deviates from international GHS standards, ignores the 7th Environmental Action Programme's mandate for harmonised criteria, and risks lower levels of protection in consumer products like cosmetics and medical devices.

The author argues that South Africa's new investment regulations, designed to replace terminated bilateral investment treaties, fail to adequately protect foreign investors. The regulations focus almost exclusively on section 13 of the Protection of Investment Act regarding dispute settlement, proposing a mediation process managed by the Department of Trade and Industry. The author identifies several risks, including potential conflicts of interest due to the department's custody of confidential documents, the lack of a requirement for mediators to be lawyers, and the absence of a link to arbitration or specialized investment courts. The text suggests that the reliance on mediation may be an attempt to follow World Bank advice that ignores the practical difficulties of using mediation for high-stakes investment disputes.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) expresses support for the opposition to the provisional application of CETA, asserting that the agreement's Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) chapter imposes burdens on EU regulators that could slow environmental lawmaking and expose the EU to legal challenges from Canada. CIEL specifically highlights risks to the REACH regulation, noting Canada's history of challenging the EU's precautionary, hazard-based approach to dangerous substances.

The document argues that Eskom is obstructing South Africa's transition to renewable energy and violating constitutional rights through the continued operation of polluting coal-fired power stations. The signatories call for the removal of barriers to small-scale renewable energy, the decommissioning of ageing coal plants, and greater transparency regarding emission compliance plans.

ClientEarth critiques the European Commission's 2017 fishing opportunity proposals, asserting that using FMSY point values as targets rather than limits fails to meet the legal requirement to maintain fish populations 'above' levels capable of producing MSY. The organization highlights a decline in stocks within safe biological limits between 2013 and 2014 and criticizes the Commission's Article 50 report for being misleading and lacking data on biomass levels. Furthermore, ClientEarth warns that quota top-ups for the landing obligation could increase fishing mortality if not strictly based on validated discard data. The response calls for clearer quantitative criteria for socio-economic derogations and a more transparent, comprehensive reporting framework for the landing obligation.

The Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) is one of North America's most endangered mammals, with a wild population of only 113 individuals as of February 2017. Historically found across the southwestern U.S. and Mexico, the subspecies was nearly eliminated by the livestock industry and government agents. Current recovery efforts are hampered by poor genetic diversity, as all existing wild wolves descend from just seven captive ancestors. Earthjustice argues that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2017 Recovery Plan is flawed because it limits wolves to inadequate habitats, fails to provide sufficient wild releases, and ignores scientific recommendations to establish three interconnected populations totaling at least 750 individuals across Arizona, New Mexico, the Grand Canyon, and southern Colorado.

The document argues that the proposed Trade Secrets Directive lacks sufficient clarity and scope limitations, potentially chilling the activities of journalists, whistleblowers, and workers' representatives. It specifically calls for protections for disclosures related to public health and the environment, alignment with the UN Aarhus Convention, and safeguards to ensure that employees' honestly acquired skills are not classified as trade secrets.

The document criticizes the European Union for promoting a 'one-sided' legal framework that empowers corporations via Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in trade deals like TTIP and CETA, while simultaneously resisting a legally binding UN treaty on business and human rights. It highlights the inadequacy of the EU's reliance on voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) guidelines and the UN Guiding Principles (UNGP), noting that such 'soft laws' fail to provide victims of corporate abuse with effective access to justice or enforceable sanctions.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) warns that Section 912(b)(15) of the Customs Bill would hinder climate mitigation by preventing trade agreements from requiring changes to U.S. law regarding global warming. CIEL argues this would leave domestic policies vulnerable to trade challenges, weaken U.S. bargaining power in UNFCCC and CITES negotiations, and block the use of trade agreements to phase out fossil fuel subsidies or promote green technologies, specifically citing risks to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and U.S.-China climate cooperation.

The author contends that the TTIP and CETA trade agreements allow corporations to bypass national courts and sue EU governments in the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) via the ISDS clause. The text highlights 2014 updates to LCIA rules that allegedly make it easier for corporations to sue taxpayers, limit the ability of governments to challenge arbitrator impartiality, and allow for corporate class action suits. The author warns that these mechanisms could be used to block environmental protections, such as bans on fracking, or prevent the reversal of public service privatisations, effectively placing corporate interests above democratic law.

The letter argues that Sasol and Natref's court application to set aside air pollution regulations threatens public health and environmental rights, particularly in the Vaal Triangle and Highveld Priority Areas. The signatories contend that Sasol's high profitability makes its claims of prohibitive compliance costs immoral and that granting exemptions would set a dangerous precedent for other polluters, including Eskom.

CIEL argues that TTIP would allow the chemical industry to weaken safety regulations and limit access to critical health and safety data. The statement highlights the divergence between the U.S. risk-based approach and the EU's hazard-based REACH system, asserting that regulatory harmonization would likely result in lower standards. CIEL also warns that Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms would enable corporations to bypass domestic courts and challenge public interest laws, creating a 'regulatory chilling effect'.

The EMFF Summary Briefing by ClientEarth critiques the 2014-2020 funding instrument for the EU fisheries and aquaculture sectors. The report argues that the final regulation fails to make aid sufficiently conditional on compliance with environmental and CFP rules, reintroduces damaging subsidies for vessel cessation and engine replacement, and lacks strict sustainability requirements for aquaculture. It also notes that total public funding for data collection and fisheries control has remained stagnant despite increased requirements. ClientEarth recommends that Member States use their national discretion to enhance conditionality, avoid harmful subsidies, and increase transparency and funding for monitoring.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) warns that TTIP may hinder public health and safety goals by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could lower chemical safety standards. The document highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH approach and the US's risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that trade-driven 'regulatory coherence' often results in a 'lowest-common denominator' outcome. It further cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which could allow corporations to sue governments over environmental laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-national regulations in the US and EU. Finally, it suggests that a US-EU agreement could negatively influence the development of chemical regulations in other regions, such as the BRIICS countries.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), on behalf of several environmental organizations, warns the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance that TTIP may prioritize trade interests over public health. The document highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH regulation and the U.S.'s risk-based Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), arguing that harmonization or mutual recognition could lead to a 'lowest-common denominator' approach to chemical safety. It specifically opposes investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which it claims allow corporations to sue governments over public interest laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-federal laws in the U.S. and national laws in EU member states. Finally, it suggests that a restrictive TTIP could discourage other nations, particularly BRIICS countries, from adopting more stringent chemical safety standards.

The Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2013 aims to strengthen wildlife law enforcement in India and align national legislation with CITES obligations. However, critics argue that the bill lacks accountability mechanisms for Gram Sabha consultations in Scheduled Areas and that increased penalties for crimes in tiger reserves may paradoxically lower conviction rates. Further concerns are raised regarding the potential for bureaucratic interference in scientific research and the disproportionate criminalization of minor permit violations.