Search Climate Insights Directory

ClientEarth argues that state aid in the fisheries and aquaculture sector should be strictly regulated to avoid 'harmful subsidies' that increase fishing capacity or artificially maintain fishers in the sector. The organization recommends that EU-level aid remain the primary financial source and that any national aid be subject to the normal notification system to ensure transparency and alignment with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). ClientEarth specifically warns against aligning the state aid framework with the post-2020 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) if that fund introduces subsidies that undermine fish stocks or the marine environment.

The report analyzes a March 2019 General Court ruling (Case T-837/16) to clarify the legal requirements for granting authorisations under the REACH Regulation, specifically regarding the availability of safer alternatives. It emphasizes that the burden of proof rests solely with the applicant to provide 'cogent' and 'reliable' evidence that no suitable alternatives exist. The document argues that the European Commission cannot rely blindly on SEAC's opinions if they lack 'full, consistent and relevant' reasoning. It further asserts that substitution plans are mandatory if alternatives exist but are not currently feasible for the applicant, and that uncertainties regarding alternatives cannot be deferred to future review reports. To implement these findings, the report proposes a detailed checklist for SEAC, updates to the opinion template to shift the focus toward the applicant's burden of proof, and revisions to third-party consultation instructions to clarify that third parties are not required to provide a full analysis of alternatives to raise valid doubts.

The document criticizes the EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS) for granting excessive free pollution permits to heavy industry, citing court cases involving ArcelorMittal in Luxembourg and ExxonMobil in Germany as evidence of systemic abuse. It argues that lax 'carbon leakage' rules allow companies to profit from selling surplus permits while emissions remain stagnant, and advocates for a transition to a carbon-free industrial framework based on meaningful carbon pricing and innovation.

The paper argues that international trade agreements do not inherently impede sustainable public procurement, though they prohibit 'buying local' and discourage favoring specific social groups. It identifies the primary barriers as a lack of agency capacity, financial constraints, and political will, rather than the regulatory framework itself.

The document evaluates the EU's proposed Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) as a replacement for ad hoc investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms. ClientEarth argues that the MIC provides only cosmetic procedural improvements and fails to address systemic imbalances, such as the lack of investor obligations and the marginalization of domestic courts. The briefing provides six key recommendations for reform, including the requirement to exhaust local remedies, the inclusion of 'clean hands' and 'supremacy' clauses to protect public interest legislation, and the limitation of compensation to proven economic damages. Alternatively, the document suggests that states should withdraw consent from ISDS and terminate international investment agreements (IIAs) in favor of domestic judiciaries, political risk insurance, and state-to-state dispute settlement.

The document outlines the legal obligations of 38 local authorities in England and Wales to address illegal nitrogen dioxide levels. It details a three-part legal test from High Court judgments requiring plans to achieve compliance as soon as possible, reduce human exposure quickly, and ensure compliance is likely rather than just possible. It emphasizes that cost and political difficulties, including election Purdah, are not lawful reasons for delay, and that these duties persist despite Brexit.

The document examines Provisional Measure 867/2018, which aims to extend the deadline for entry into the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA) under Brazil's Law 12,651/2012 (the new Forest Code). While the author supports the deadline extension to protect small producers and traditional communities, they warn that 35 proposed amendments to the measure could undermine the Forest Code by altering rules on Legal Reserves and forest offsets, potentially reintroducing provisions already rejected by the Supreme Court in 2018. The brief recommends that the National Congress approve the original version of the measure and reject all amendments to avoid legal uncertainty and the interruption of state-level PRAs.

The document warns that 35 amendments to MPV 867/2018, which was intended only to extend the deadline for joining the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA), seek to drastically alter the Forest Code. The authors argue these changes are unconstitutional, lack thematic relevance, and risk creating legal insecurity, potentially undoing the consensus reached during the law's creation and subsequent STF rulings.

The document examines why the WTO has seen few legal proceedings against fossil fuel subsidies despite their distorting impact on trade and investment. It specifically analyses the compatibility of four fossil fuel support measures in G20 countries with the 1994 Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, concluding that litigating consumption subsidies is particularly difficult.

The policy brief argues that women are frequently excluded from contract farming agreements despite providing the majority of the labor, and that contracted crops often displace the subsistence crops women grow for household nutrition. To remedy this, the authors propose incorporating legal protections into contracts and national legislation, drawing on principles from consumer protection, franchising, and mortgage laws. Key recommendations include requiring spousal consent for contract validity, ensuring informed consent through plain-language summaries, and conferring third-party rights to women who perform substantial work but are not signatories to the contract.

The document argues that climate change poses an existential threat to economic, social, and cultural (ESC) rights, necessitating urgent State action through mitigation, adaptation, and finance. It establishes a 'human rights red-line' at 1.5°C, asserting that warming beyond this limit severely threatens rights to food, water, health, and work. The briefing outlines five key State obligations, including adopting science-based emission targets and addressing extraterritorial emissions. It further critiques current climate finance, noting a gap in adaptation funding and a reliance on loans over grants, while providing a directory of independent tools like the Climate Action Tracker and Oxfam's shadow reports to monitor State performance.

The authors argue that the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) currently hinders the low-carbon transition by treating fossil-fuel and renewable energy investments identically. They propose a modernization process that abandons 'energy-source neutrality' in favor of state-specific lists that encourage low-carbon investments and phase out carbon-intensive ones. The paper also suggests reforming Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) by requiring the exhaustion of local remedies, introducing state-to-state dispute settlement, and clarifying 'denial of benefits' clauses to protect climate policy space. Substantive recommendations include narrowing the 'Fair and Equitable Treatment' (FET) standard, defining indirect expropriation to protect public welfare measures, and adopting a 'sunk-costs' approach for valuing damages in the phase-out of fossil fuels.

The policy brief examines how women are often excluded from contract farming agreements despite providing the majority of the labor, and how contract crops often displace the subsistence crops women manage. It suggests adapting legal principles from consumer protection, franchising, and mortgage laws to ensure women's consent, informed participation, and direct access to benefits within agricultural contracts.

ClientEarth criticizes the UK government's proposal to continue operating parts of the Capacity Market (CM) during a European Commission (EC) State aid investigation. The organization argues that the government has not provided sufficient information on the legal and commercial risks if the EC rejects the scheme. ClientEarth highlights evidence from Ofgem suggesting that the UK's security of supply has been maintained at a higher cost to consumers than necessary due to overestimated capacity gaps. The response calls for a fundamental reassessment of whether the CM is still justified, urging a transition toward a technology-neutral, low-carbon energy system that prioritizes demand-side response and storage over long-term contracts for conventional generators.

The analysis argues that EUSIPA perpetuates the flaws of old-generation Bilateral Investment Treaties by providing vague investor protections and a biased dispute settlement system that lacks sufficient judicial independence and fails to prioritize public interest over investment claims.

The report analyzes the legal frameworks of 22 IGF member countries, identifying systemic weaknesses in how ESIAs and related plans (ESMPs, closure plans, and RAPs) are used as decision-making tools. Key issues include ambiguity over the rights of exploration permit holders during the transition to exploitation, inadequate sequencing of document submission, and weak monitoring mechanisms. It argues that ESIAs should be capable of leading to project rejection and recommends the use of Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) to identify sensitive areas before exploration permits are granted. The document also highlights the risk of international arbitration arising from these legal ambiguities.

The report analyzes the legal frameworks of 22 IGF member countries to identify systemic gaps in the implementation of Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) in mining. Key issues include ambiguity over the rights of exploration permit holders to transition to exploitation, inadequate timing for submitting closure plans and financial guarantees, and a lack of coordination between mining and environmental authorities. The document argues for a shift toward using ESIAs as genuine decision-making tools that can lead to project rejection, the adoption of Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) to identify sensitive zones, and the strengthening of community participation and independent monitoring to ensure sustainable mine closure.

The document analyzes the tension between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the African Union (AU), attributing the friction to perceived bias, the influence of the UN Security Council, and a clash between retributive and restorative justice. It explores the proposed African Court of Justice and Human Rights (ACJHR) and the Malabo Protocol as regional alternatives, while noting significant hurdles in funding and ratification. The author argues that while the ICC is limited by global power politics, Africa's path to accountability depends on the political will to ratify regional judicial frameworks and utilize hybrid courts.

The report examines the evolving relationship between human rights and the international climate regime, specifically the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. It identifies a trend of increasing explicit and implicit references to human rights in COP decisions, though it notes these are often disproportionately linked to adaptation rather than mitigation. The document details how procedural rights, the rights of indigenous peoples, gender equality, and the right to food are being integrated into climate policy. It also reviews national-level implementation through Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and national communications, finding that while many countries reference human rights, there is a lack of harmonized guidance. The report argues that a rights-based approach is essential to increase climate ambition and protect vulnerable populations from both climate impacts and poorly designed climate responses.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) critiques the ICSID Secretariat's proposed rule amendments (Working Paper #2), stating they fail to address core concerns of states and stakeholders. The IISD argues that many necessary reforms—such as prohibiting 'double-hatting' of arbitrators, mandating the publication of awards, and expanding the grounds for review of decisions—cannot be achieved through rule changes alone and require amendments to the ICSID Convention itself. The document specifically recommends stricter standards for arbitrator independence, more flexible expedited arbitration rules for developing countries, and the introduction of mechanisms for third-party intervention and joinder to protect the rights of non-party stakeholders.