Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing examines how CETA's requirements for licensing procedures—that they be clear, objective, established in advance, and as simple as possible—provide Canadian companies with legal avenues to challenge environmental and social regulations in EU Member States. It argues these disciplines are incompatible with a precautionary approach to environmental protection and allow international arbitration panels, often lacking technical expertise, to supersede the judgment of local regulators.

The report examines how CETA's domestic regulatory disciplines may conflict with the EU's Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). It highlights that CETA's requirements for licensing processes to be 'objective' and 'established in advance' could be used by Canadian investors to challenge the discretionary judgment of regulators, the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT), and the inclusion of public participation in environmental permitting.

The document argues that the EU's proposed intellectual property (IP) provisions in Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with ACP countries are premature and potentially harmful to development. It highlights concerns that the proposals omit public interest safeguards, restrict farmers' rights through UPOV 1991, fail to address biopiracy regarding traditional knowledge, and impose enforcement standards that exceed TRIPS requirements and the administrative capacities of ACP nations.

The Alto Maipo Hydroelectric Project (PHAM) is a large-scale run-of-the-river project in Chile with an installed capacity of 531 MW and an estimated annual output exceeding 2,100 GWh. Despite being pitched as a public good, the project faces significant opposition due to its potential to reduce the flow of the Yeso, Volcán, and Colorado Rivers by up to 60%, threatening drinking water for Santiago's 7 million residents and irrigation for 120,000 hectares of farmland. Financially, the project has seen costs rise to US$2.4 billion, with the Grupo Luksic consortium withdrawing in January 2017 at a loss of $350 million. The project is funded by several multilateral banks, including the IFC (US$150 million) and the IDB (US$200 million), both of which are facing complaints regarding violations of environmental and social policies. Environmental concerns include accelerated desertification, erosion of riverbeds, and risks to protected areas like the Glacial Natural Monument. The Chilean government has penalized the project for 14 separate violations of environmental norms.

The statement argues that the World Bank's recent updates to the Inspection Panel's Toolkit are insufficient to modernize the independent accountability mechanism. While welcoming the addition of an advisory role and improved information sharing, the signatories contend that the failure to implement monitoring and dispute resolution functions leaves the Panel deficient compared to other mechanisms. They specifically criticize the reliance on the management-led Grievance Redress Service (GRS) as a substitute for independent dispute resolution and call for the complaint filing deadline to be extended to at least two years after project completion or loan closure.

The document critiques the February 2023 draft proposals from the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) regarding remedial action and responsible exit. It argues that these drafts do not meet international human rights law standards, as they lack an actionable plan for remedy and fail to apply to existing projects. The briefing highlights that remedy can take various forms beyond financial compensation, such as public apologies and guarantees of non-repetition, and suggests that providing remedy actually reduces legal exposure for the institutions. It calls on the IFC/MIGA Board of Directors to require second drafts that implement the 2020 External Review recommendations and commit to financial contributions when financing has contributed to harm.

The report by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) contends that the Korea-U.S. FTA violates the Trade Act of 2002 by providing foreign investors with greater substantive rights than U.S. investors. It specifically criticizes new expropriation tests, the classification of all contract rights as property rights, and the use of secretive investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. CIEL warns that these provisions allow ad hoc arbitral tribunals to override good faith public interest regulations, particularly in emerging technology sectors like biotechnology and nanotechnology, while lacking a general environmental exception.

The document examines the World Bank's historical reluctance to integrate non-economic factors—specifically governance, civil society, and human rights—into its development mission. It argues that the Bank's adherence to a strict interpretation of its Articles of Agreement leads to an ad hoc approach to governance and a failure to protect civil and political rights. While noting progress in 'mainstreaming' public participation and the creation of the Inspection Panel, the author contends that these efforts are often superficial or undermined by an institutional 'culture of approval' that prioritizes loan volume over project quality.

The document argues that the European Commission's conclusions on nanomaterial transparency are biased toward industry interests and ignore the need for an EU nanoregister. It highlights significant data gaps in current REACH registrations, the potential health and environmental risks of nanomaterials like nanosilver, and the benefits of traceability for workers and consumers. The authors contend that a mandatory register would improve risk management and transparency without significantly harming competitiveness or innovation.

The document contends that plastic production and incineration are significant climate threats, projected to emit 2.8 gigatons of CO2e annually by 2050 and consume up to 13% of the global 1.5C carbon budget. It systematically debunks five industry 'myths' regarding net zero: that clean energy and carbon capture and storage (CCS) can make production emissions-free, that plastic waste is a carbon-free fuel, that plastics can be carbon sinks, that offset schemes are viable, and that bioplastics solve the problem. The author concludes that these narratives are delay tactics and that 'real zero'—reducing production—is the only solution.

The document argues that the IFC's proposed Approach to Responsible Exit fails to establish remedial responsibilities for the IFC or the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), effectively allowing the institutions to exit projects without addressing harms caused by their investments. The authors contend that remedy should be a prerequisite for exit, as divestment removes the financial leverage necessary to drive corrective action. They propose four core principles: ensuring exits do not undermine ongoing Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) processes, conducting pre-divestment due diligence verified by communities, implementing meaningful consultation at least 12 months prior to divestment, and establishing protocols to prevent and manage reprisals against affected populations. The submission includes a table of projects in China, Egypt, Chile, Colombia, Nicaragua, and elsewhere where the IFC allegedly exited without providing remedy for documented harms such as forced labor, environmental damage, and human rights violations.

ClientEarth asserts that the European Commission must use its legislative powers to amend or withdraw the current CAP reform proposal, as it conflicts with the climate and biodiversity goals of the European Green Deal. The briefing claims that relying on non-binding recommendations or the goodwill of co-legislators is insufficient and may constitute a breach of EU law principles, specifically those of consistency, good administration, and environmental integration.

A coalition of 226 scientists, financial professionals, and civil society organizations argues that including fossil gas in the EU Taxonomy contradicts climate science and risks turning the framework into a greenwashing tool. The authors highlight the high climate impact of methane leaks and assert that such a move would undermine the EU's global climate leadership and the goals of the Green Deal.

The author contends that the requirement to integrate environmental protection into EU policies is a binding objective, not a mere principle, and is essential for achieving sustainable development. The paper argues that EU institutions have largely abandoned governance mechanisms intended to operationalize this integration, such as the 'Cardiff process'. To remedy this, the author proposes that citizens and civil society use their fundamental right of access to environmental information (via the Aarhus Convention) to force EU bodies to explain and justify how specific legislative acts and policies ensure a high level of environmental protection and improvement.

The document examines the technical, environmental, and economic drawbacks of using hydrogen as a primary energy carrier. It highlights extreme energy losses across the value chain, where total system efficiency is only 20-30%, and notes that over 98% of current hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels. The text warns that 'hydrogen-ready' infrastructure risks locking in fossil fuel dependence and diverting resources from more efficient direct electrification. Environmental concerns include high water and land footprints for green hydrogen, as well as the indirect warming effect of hydrogen leaks. The author concludes that low-carbon hydrogen should be reserved for chemical feedstocks and niche industrial applications where direct electricity is not feasible.

A coalition of NGOs, including ClientEarth and WWF, argues that the European Commission's current approach to revising the EU fisheries control system violates 'Better Regulation Guidelines' by omitting a mandatory 12-week online public consultation. The NGOs contend that previous consultations from 2015/2016 are insufficient and that the current timeline fails to incorporate critical pending data on small-scale fisheries monitoring and engine power verification.

The document criticizes the European Commission's perceived imbalance in engagement, noting that corporate representatives and business associations account for 69% of meetings with Commissioners' cabinet members, compared to 16% for NGOs. It argues that the 'Antwerp Declaration' serves as a roadmap for dismantling climate and social protections in favor of industrial competitiveness. The authors highlight that European firms in energy transition sectors distributed €1.6 trillion to shareholders between 2010 and 2023, suggesting that public subsidies for these industries are unnecessary. The letter demands a shift toward evidence-based lawmaking that prioritizes the 'Polluter Pays Principle' and protects citizens from 'forever chemicals (PFAS)' and pesticide pollution.

The document critiques the European Commission's proposal to update the Aarhus Regulation, asserting it fails to meet international law standards set by the Aarhus Convention. It highlights gaps regarding 'national implementing measures', 'external effects' of acts, and the exclusion of state aid decisions. The authors propose specific legislative amendments to broaden the scope of internal review, remove cost barriers for NGOs, and explicitly link the Regulation to the Aarhus Convention to ensure effective judicial review of EU environmental decisions.

The document argues that the European Commission's proposal to amend the Aarhus Regulation contains loopholes that would leave the EU in breach of the Aarhus Convention. It specifically criticizes the exclusion of acts requiring national implementing measures and state aid decisions from internal review. The paper proposes amendments to broaden the scope of reviewable acts, ensure that costs of litigation are not prohibitive for NGOs, and explicitly link the Regulation to the EU's international obligations under the Aarhus Convention.

ClientEarth calls on the European Parliament to veto the Taxonomy Complementary Delegated Act on Climate, arguing that the European Commission failed to conduct a dedicated Impact Assessment or ensure consistency with the European Climate Law. The organization asserts that fossil gas activities do not lack feasible low-carbon alternatives and that the act risks creating legal uncertainty and locking in carbon-intensive assets, thereby conflicting with the Paris Agreement and the EU's 2050 climate-neutrality goal.