Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines the intersection of climate change and fiduciary duty for public pension fund trustees. It identifies four primary financial risks—physical impact, carbon asset, transition, and litigation—and argues that these risks necessitate the exercise of duties to inquire, monitor, diversify, and act impartially. The document suggests that failure to account for these risks may lead to lawsuits for breach of fiduciary duty, particularly regarding the interests of future beneficiaries. Recommended actions include modifying investment principles, divesting from climate-vulnerable assets, active shareholder engagement, and investing in clean energy.

ClientEarth criticizes the European Commission's Roadmap for the REFIT Evaluation of pesticides legislation, claiming it overemphasizes implementation costs over benefits and fails to incorporate the precautionary principle. The organization highlights inconsistencies between this roadmap and other chemical legislation evaluations, specifically regarding risk management terminology and endocrine disruptor 'cut-off' criteria, and argues that separating the evaluation of pesticide use (Directive 2009/128) from pesticide placement (Regulation 1107/2009) makes the process incomplete.

The document outlines a legal opinion stating that UK pension fund trustees must account for climate risks in investment decisions if those risks are financially material, warning that failure to do so could lead to legal challenges.

ClientEarth argues that the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines has the jurisdiction to investigate the Carbon Majors because climate change threatens fundamental civil and political rights. The brief asserts that there is a linear causal relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, and that the Carbon Majors' emissions have contributed significantly to this process. It recommends that the Philippine government ratify the Paris Agreement and that the Carbon Majors publish business plans aligned with a warming limit of well below 2 degrees Celsius, in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

A group of US investors filed a class action lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corporation on 8 November 2016, alleging the company made "false and misleading statements" about climate change impacts to artificially inflate its value. The claim follows a 13% drop in stock price and reports that Exxon may need to write down nearly 20% of its oil and gas assets. The document warns that other oil majors, including Chevron, Oxy, ConocoPhilipps, Total, BP, and Shell, also show poor disclosure quality according to InfluenceMap, and urges investors to engage with companies to ensure robust disclosure of energy transition risks.

The document analyzes three legal pathways for the US to exit the Paris Agreement: direct withdrawal from the Agreement (effective November 4, 2020), withdrawal from the UNFCCC (potentially effective by January 20, 2018), or simple non-compliance. It concludes that unilateral 'cancellation' is not legally possible and warns that such actions would violate international law and increase climate-related financial risks for businesses.

ClientEarth contends that the European Commission is attempting to unlawfully modify the derogation mechanism for endocrine disruptors in pesticides. The organization argues that the approval mechanism is an 'essential element' of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, meaning it can only be changed by co-legislators through the ordinary legislative procedure, not by the Commission via delegated powers under Article 290 TFEU. Furthermore, ClientEarth asserts that the Commission's proposed shift toward a risk-analysis-based approach is less protective of human health and the environment than the existing system of limiting exposure to negligible levels.

The document identifies six key risks in Liberia's forest conversion laws, including land use conflicts and community dispossession, and suggests reforms such as passing the Land Rights Bill and implementing multi-stakeholder land use planning.

The report argues that CETA fails to be a 'gold standard' for the environment, citing weak enforcement of environmental commitments, the risks posed by the Investment Court System (ICS), and the potential for increased imports of carbon-intensive tar sands oil. It highlights a lack of transparency in negotiations and suggests that the agreement's regulatory cooperation and domestic regulation chapters could hinder the EU's ability to implement ambitious climate and environmental policies.

The document analyzes the legal mechanisms for clearing natural forests for other uses in Liberia, highlighting a lack of national land use planning and poor coordination between government agencies. It examines the roles of the Forest Development Authority (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the status of community forest rights, and the challenges of integrating conversion timber into the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with the European Union.

The document examines the TCMF Proposal's approach to combining common EU-level technical measures with regionalised measures. It argues that regional measures must be supported by robust scientific evidence to ensure they are at least as effective as baseline measures in achieving CFP and TCMF objectives. The briefing details how the regionalisation process under Article 18 of the CFP Basic Regulation links technical measures to discard plans and multiannual plans (MAPs), and discusses the necessity of coherence between fisheries management and EU environmental laws, such as the Nature Directives and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

The report assesses Poland's compliance with the EU Control Regulation and IUU Regulation. While the 2014 Marine Fisheries Act established a necessary legal framework, the report finds that the system is overly complicated and lacks transparency. Data from 2016 indicates a surprisingly low rate of detected infringements compared to the number of inspections, suggesting a lack of effectiveness in detection or a lack of political will to implement sanctions. The report recommends improving inspection quality, providing guidance on administrative sanctions, increasing public access to the national register of infringements, and simplifying the legal framework.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted comments to the Department of Environmental Affairs on October 7, 2016, regarding proposed amendments to the Financial Provisioning Regulations, 2015. The CER argues that several proposed deletions of appendices and clauses would create legal uncertainty, reduce transparency, and weaken the state's ability to ensure that mining rehabilitation funds are available and used correctly.

The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) has found that the European Union fails to comply with the Aarhus Convention because neither the Aarhus Regulation nor the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) provides adequate access to justice for the public. The ACCC identified that the 'Plaumann test' and strict 'individual concern' criteria effectively preclude NGOs and private individuals from challenging EU institutional decisions. Furthermore, the ACCC found that Regulation (EC) No. 1367/2006 (the Aarhus Regulation) is too narrow, as it limits internal review to 'administrative acts' of 'individual scope' rather than all acts and omissions that contravene environmental law. The ACCC recommends that the EU amend the Aarhus Regulation and that the ECJ interpret EU law to provide effective judicial remedies for members of the public.

The report argues that for the Energy Union Governance System to be credible, indicators must be rooted in law and serve both ex-ante planning and ex-post monitoring functions. It recommends a two-tier system of mandatory key indicators and supporting auxiliary indicators, integrated into National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs). The author suggests that these indicators should trigger a differentiated response mechanism, ranging from non-binding Country-Specific Recommendations for minor deviations to mandatory corrective action plans and punitive measures for serious failures to meet binding targets. To ensure objectivity, the report proposes strengthening the role of independent expert bodies, such as the European Environment Agency (EEA), and utilizing a public scoreboard to increase transparency and accountability.

The document examines the tension between WTO non-discrimination rules and national climate policies, such as renewable energy subsidies and carbon pricing. It analyzes recent WTO disputes over local content requirements and proposes solutions including authoritative interpretations of GATT Article XX, the use of regional trade agreements (RTAs) to test new rules, and increased institutional coordination between the WTO and UNFCCC.

The report provides a comprehensive overview of Brazil's rural land tenure system, tracing its history from colonial sesmarias to the 1988 Constitution. It highlights a fragmented system of multiple rural registries and cadastres that lack integration, which facilitates 'grilagem' (illegal land grabbing). The document details the specific regularization processes and obstacles for five key land categories: Indigenous Lands, quilombola territories, Conservation Units, agrarian reform settlements, and individual possessions on federal lands. It concludes by analyzing the complexities of implementing the 2012 Forest Code, particularly the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR), in the context of collective land tenure and overlapping territorial claims.

The report examines the catastrophic environmental and human rights impacts of transnational oil companies, specifically Shell, in Nigeria's Niger Delta. It details the persistence of gas flaring and oil spills, the resulting destruction of rural livelihoods, and the systemic barriers—such as high legal costs, burden of proof, and judicial delays—that prevent victims from accessing justice in Nigerian courts. Through case studies, it demonstrates how corporations use legal stalling and jurisdictional challenges to evade accountability, concluding that a legally binding global treaty and an international environmental court are necessary to protect human rights and the environment.

The Global Campaign advocates for a legally binding UN treaty to hold transnational corporations (TNCs) accountable for human rights violations. The proposals include establishing an International Tribunal on Transnational Corporations and Human Rights, enforcing extraterritorial obligations on home states, extending liability across TNC supply chains, and reforming the international trade and investment regime by ending the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism. The document also calls for the accountability of International Financial Institutions (IFIs) like the IMF and World Bank and the recognition of the rights of affected people to access justice without financial barriers.

The document argues for a legally binding international treaty to end the impunity of transnational corporations (TNCs) regarding human rights violations. It proposes the creation of an International Tribunal on Transnational Corporations and Human Rights to counter the 'architecture of impunity' created by private arbitration systems like ICSID. The proposals emphasize the extraterritorial obligations of home states, joint and several liability across corporate value chains, and the need to reform International Financial Institutions (IFIs) like the IMF and World Bank. It further advocates for the supremacy of human rights over investment treaties and the establishment of accessible, free legal remedies for affected communities.