Search Climate Insights Directory

ClientEarth asserts that the European Commission and SEAC have failed to fully implement the legal requirements established by the Court in the Lead Chromate case (T-837/16 and C-389/19P). The document demands a systematic approach to identifying 'non-negligible uncertainties' in substitution plans, which should lead to the rejection of authorisations rather than reduced review periods. It also criticizes the current assessment of technical feasibility, arguing that SEAC often accepts applicant claims based on undocumented customer preferences rather than the minimum performance required for the end-use function.

ClientEarth critiques the current EU agricultural and fisheries policies for failing to meet sustainability targets and urges the European Commission to adopt a new, comprehensive legislative framework. The organization argues that existing tools like the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) are insufficient or poorly implemented. It advocates for an 'umbrella law' that covers the entire food value chain, integrates fundamental rights and access to justice, and utilizes public procurement to drive systemic change toward environmentally positive and healthy food systems.

The report argues that Reconnaissance Energy Africa Ltd. (ReconAfrica) shifted its public narrative from targeting unconventional shale resources to conventional ones after the Namibian government clarified that no fracking licenses had been granted. The authors claim that ReconAfrica removed references to 'shale' and 'unconventional' from its website, investor presentations, and personnel biographies while continuing to rely on resource estimates and a technical team specialized in unconventional plays, potentially violating Canadian securities laws on material disclosure.

The research evaluates 168 NDCs against international environmental law, finding that some states use justifications—such as least cost pathways or emissions per GDP—that lack legal backing. By applying principles of harm prevention, precaution, and the Paris Agreement's ambition goals, the author argues that developed states must reach net-negative emission levels by 2030 to meet temperature goals. Among G20 nations, only India and Indonesia are identified as being able to temporarily increase emissions relative to 2010, while others have decreased emissions too slowly or increased them over the last decade.

The document details ten significant court cases across ten different countries—China, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Belgium, Finland, Australia, Tanzania, the Philippines, and India—where legal action successfully protected habitats or species. These cases highlight the application of the precautionary principle, the recognition of the 'rights of nature', and the use of public interest litigation to challenge government inaction or illegal industrial activities. Key outcomes include the halting of a hydroelectric dam in China, the liability of landowners for illegal deforestation in Brazil, and the reintroduction of Asiatic lions in India.

The document argues that 'Big Food' companies face escalating risks across waste, climate, and health dimensions due to their 'addiction to single-use plastics'. It highlights a wave of new legislation in Europe, increasing public backlash, and emerging legal precedents in the US and EU that could lead to significant financial and legal liabilities. The brief warns investors that many companies are failing to disclose these material risks or are relying on 'false solutions' rather than reducing their plastic footprints.

ClientEarth proposes a comprehensive overhaul of the EU Fisheries State Aid Guidelines to integrate strict environmental and climate protections. The document argues that State aid should be conditional on compliance with EU environmental law and the Common Fisheries Policy, specifically calling for a ban on subsidies for new fishing vessels, fossil fuel energy costs, and harmful fishing gear. It suggests introducing a 'greenwashing test' for sustainable seafood claims and requiring 'climate and environment compatibility' assessments for all aid measures to prevent overcapacity and support the transition to a sustainable blue economy.

The document advocates for the inclusion of human rights protections in the EU's upcoming legislation on forest and ecosystem-risk commodities (FERCs). It argues that deforestation is intrinsically linked to human rights abuses, particularly against Indigenous Peoples, and that protecting these rights is essential for effective forest conservation. The briefing proposes a product-based due diligence framework with a 'negligible risk' threshold, mandatory investigation of land tenure and free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), and rights of redress before EU courts. To demonstrate feasibility, it provides case studies of Brazilian beef supply chains involving JBS and Marfrig, showing that human rights risks can be identified using publicly available digital information.

The briefing argues that Brazil's new railroad authorization system, designed to streamline private sector infrastructure grants, lacks the necessary procedural clarity and transparency to ensure adequate socio-environmental oversight. It identifies critical gaps in the requirements for technical studies, the autonomy of the analyzing authority, and the public disclosure of project data, proposing specific amendments to PL no. 261/2018 to mitigate these risks.

The briefing by Climate Policy Initiative (CPI/PUC-Rio) examines the legal framework for private railway exploration in Brazil, specifically MP No. 1.065/2021 and PL No. 261/2018. It argues that while the authorization regime simplifies investment, it lacks procedural clarity and transparency, which may undermine the assessment of socio-environmental impacts. The authors identify critical gaps in the requirement for technical studies, the ambiguity of decision-making authority between the Ministry of Infrastructure and the National Land Transport Agency (ANTT), and the absence of mandatory publication for project documents, georeferencing, and financing conditions.

ClientEarth has submitted a referral request to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) alleging that Carnival plc and Carnival Corporation failed to disclose material climate-related financial risks in their 2020 reporting. The request argues that the companies' reports are vague or entirely silent on climate change, potentially misleading investors and violating Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules (DTRs) and the UK Market Abuse Regulation (UK MAR). ClientEarth specifically challenges Carnival's reliance on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) as a decarbonisation strategy, noting that such claims are not substantiated in financial statements and ignore methane emissions and the UK Climate Change Committee's findings on biofuels. The referral seeks financial penalties, public censure, and corrective disclosures.

ClientEarth has submitted a referral request to the FCA alleging that Just Eat Takeaway.com N.V. failed to disclose material climate-related risks and impacts in its 2020 Annual Report. The document argues that Just Eat's reporting is vague, potentially misleading, and fails to provide a fair review of its business or its long-term viability in a net-zero economy. Specifically, it highlights the absence of a Paris-aligned transition strategy and inadequate data on the environmental impact of food packaging and digital operations. ClientEarth requests that the FCA impose financial penalties, issue a public censure, and require the company to rectify its reporting deficiencies.

The text examines the governance of fossil fuel subsidies, noting that while institutional fragmentation across climate, trade, and economic regimes creates coordination challenges, it allows for multiple rationales to drive reform. It argues that because legally binding disciplines have largely failed to capture these subsidies, a system of informal international law—based on voluntary commitments and transparency efforts—has become significant. To increase the effectiveness of this governance complex, the author suggests clarifying the definition and measurement of subsidies and expanding transparency to more countries.

The report analyzes the legal landscape of mandatory forest replacement in Brazil, finding that only nine states have legislation fully aligned with current federal rules. It argues that most regulations still focus on raw material supply rather than biodiversity conservation, often allowing replacement areas to be significantly smaller than the suppressed areas. The authors recommend adopting 'no net loss' principles, ecological equivalence, and improved geospatial monitoring systems.

The report analyzes the challenges developing countries face when purchasing food at administered prices for public stockholding, which often exceeds WTO Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS) limits. It evaluates the 2013 Bali 'peace clause' and proposes five options for a permanent solution: updating reference periods for AMS calculations, redefining eligible production, exempting support when administered prices are below international levels, exempting Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and small economies, and expanding the Bali decision framework. The authors conclude that a modified Bali decision, combined with technical corrections to reference prices and production calculations, is the most promising path forward, provided transparency and anti-circumvention measures are maintained.

The document examines the public-private incorporated joint venture (JV) model in agriculture, highlighting its potential to combine private sector innovation with public interest objectives. It warns of 'in-built conflict of interest' and risks such as lack of real oversight and the failure of dividends to materialize. To mitigate these, it recommends detailed JV agreements covering funding, board decision-making, 'reserved matters', and clear exit strategies, while cautioning against including investment contract-type incentives within the JV agreement itself.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) supports the creation of a National Mine Closure Strategy but argues that the draft must prioritize 'mining affected communities' over 'mining dependent communities' and ensure that closure planning begins at the pre-feasibility stage. The CER emphasizes the need for meaningful public participation, the integration of land reform and economic diversification to support a just transition, and the alignment of the strategy with the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) to prevent 'temporary closure' from becoming a gateway to mine abandonment.

ClientEarth argues against the use of materiality assessments for climate metrics, advocates for mandatory Scope 3 emissions disclosure, and calls for transition plans to include science-based targets aligned with national commitments and a 1.5°C pathway.

Earthjustice, on behalf of the Conservation Council for Hawai'i and Moana Ohana, advocates for the adoption of 'Alternative 3' in a regulatory amendment to mandate monofilament leaders and the removal of trailing gear for oceanic whitetip sharks. The document argues that monofilament leaders alone are insufficient and should be combined with the elimination of shallow hooks, the use of corrodible circle hooks, and mandatory crew training to maximize survival rates. It further recommends that the U.S. leverage these domestic measures to advocate for similar international requirements through Regional Fishery Management Organizations, including increased observer coverage and a ban on shark lines.

ClientEarth argues that Lloyd's of London's 2020 ESG Report fails to align the insurance market with the Paris Agreement goals. The letter highlights gaps in the 'Climate Targets', such as the lack of restrictions on oil and gas (outside tar sands and the Arctic) and the absence of scope 3 emissions targets. ClientEarth asserts that the Society of Lloyd's has a legal duty under PRA Solvency II rules and the 'prudent person principle' to manage climate risks, which include physical risks making assets uninsurable and transition risks leading to stranded assets. The document questions whether the Climate Targets are binding and calls for transparent public disclosure of managing agents' compliance.