Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines the immediate and medium-term legal requirements for EU Member States following the entry into force of the EU Deforestation Regulation on June 29, 2023. It specifies the need to designate competent authorities by December 30, 2023, and to establish national regulatory frameworks by December 30, 2024, including sanctions such as fines of at least 4% of total EU turnover for non-compliance.

The document outlines the immediate and future legal requirements for EU member states following the entry into force of the EU Deforestation Regulation on 29 June 2023. It specifies that states must designate competent authorities by 30 December 2023 and establish national regulatory frameworks, including sanctions and monitoring plans, by 30 December 2024.

The Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled that Parliament failed its constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement regarding material amendments to the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Act 2 of 2022. Specifically, the court found that the expanded definitions of "waste", "commercial value", and "trade in", as well as a transitional provision, were introduced without sufficient public consultation. The court declared these provisions invalid and unconstitutional, noting that the expanded definition of "waste" could have severe impacts on the steel and fertilizer industries by including by-products and co-products as waste, potentially leading to criminal penalties including fines up to R10 million or 10 years imprisonment.

The study finds that in eight of the nine researched EU Member States, there are no instances of NGOs bringing actions against State aid measures. It highlights a systemic lack of standing for non-competitors, limited transparency regarding aid schemes, and inconsistent public consultation practices, which collectively hinder the enforcement of EU environmental law in State aid matters.

The report examines the legal friction between the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the proposed Nature Restoration Law (NRL). It argues that the CFP's Article 11 'joint recommendation' process—used to protect marine areas from fishing—is plagued by delays, a de facto veto for fishing states, and a lack of accountability, which risks undermining the binding restoration targets of the NRL. The author proposes that the NRL be drafted with specific triggers and deadlines to force the CFP process forward and recommends that the European Commission take a more active role as a facilitator and mediator to prevent the watering down of environmental protections.

The document details the transition from the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) to the new EU Deforestation Regulation, specifying that Member States must designate competent authorities with adequate powers, functional independence, and resources within six months of the Regulation's entry into force. It further describes the necessity of establishing effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions—including fines of at least 4% of annual EU turnover—and the requirement to implement annual risk-based compliance plans and customs controls within 18 months.

The EU Deforestation-free Products Regulation imposes significant new obligations on EU Member States to ensure products consumed in the EU do not contribute to global deforestation. Member States must designate competent authorities within six months that possess adequate powers, functional independence, and resources. Within 18 months, they must establish national penalty rules that are effective, proportionate, and dissuasive, including fines of at least 4% of annual Union-wide turnover. The Regulation also requires the creation of annual risk-based compliance check plans and enhanced coordination between competent and customs authorities.

The document evaluates Madagascar's legal framework for Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) in the mining sector. While it identifies strengths such as up-to-date environmental texts and established institutions like the Office National pour l'Environnement (ONE), it highlights critical weaknesses. These include broad stability clauses that may freeze outdated laws, the ability of the environment minister to override ONE's technical objections, and a permitting sequence that allows mining licenses to be granted before environmental permits. The report recommends removing or limiting stability clauses, making environmental permits a prerequisite for mining licenses, and increasing public participation during the early stages of ESIA report drafting.

The document evaluates Madagascar's legal framework for Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) in the mining sector. While it finds the framework generally coherent and up-to-date, it identifies four critical gaps: the presence of broad stabilization clauses that can freeze outdated laws, the ability of the environment minister to override the technical opinions of the National Office for the Environment (ONE), the possibility of granting operating permits before environmental permits, and insufficient public involvement during the early stages of ESIA report preparation. The summary recommends deleting or limiting stabilization clauses, restoring the primacy of ONE's technical advice, making environmental permits a prerequisite for operating permits, and engaging local communities from the scoping stage onward.

GreenLatinos condemns H.R. 1 as a 'gift' to the fossil fuel industry that prioritizes oil, gas, and mining interests over clean energy and public health. The organization argues the bill creates dangerous loopholes, dismantles environmental laws, and increases pollution-related health risks, particularly for Latino communities.

GreenLatinos condemns H.R. 1 as a "giveaway" to the oil, gas, and mining industries that creates "dangerous loopholes" and undermines environmental and public health laws. The organization asserts that the bill ignores the climate crisis and the availability of clean energy, leading to increased pollution, asthma, and cancer in communities, specifically those with significant Latino/a/e populations.

ClientEarth argues that the UK government has significantly reduced its ambitions for soil health, moving from a goal of all soils being sustainably managed by 2030 to only 60% of agricultural soils. The submission highlights a fragmented regulatory landscape, poor enforcement by the Environment Agency, and the risk that the Retained EU Law Bill will create a 'regulatory gap' by removing cross-compliance standards. ClientEarth advocates for a new legal framework with binding targets, a universal definition of 'healthy soils', and a shift away from purely voluntary schemes like the Environmental Land Management schemes (ELMs), which they argue lack the mandatory minimum standards necessary to achieve national environmental goals.

ClientEarth argues that the European Commission's proposal for a recast Ambient Air Quality Directive lacks sufficient ambition and contains legal loopholes. The organization recommends aligning limit values with WHO Air Quality Guidelines by 2030, accelerating the timeline for 'Delivery Plans' to avoid widespread breaches in 2030, and introducing time-based financial sanctions for public authorities that fail to meet deadlines. It also advocates for maintaining and strengthening provisions for access to justice and health-related compensation for citizens.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) is a South African public interest law organisation that uses litigation and advocacy to defend the constitutional right to a healthy environment. Between 2009 and 2023, CER achieved landmark judgments on climate change (Thabametsi), air pollution (Deadly Air), and the protection of activists against SLAPP suits. The organisation operates four main programmes: Pollution & Climate Change, Corporate Accountability & Transparency, Activist Support & Training, and Mining. CER emphasizes an intersectional approach, focusing on the disproportionate impact of pollution on poor and Black communities and promoting women's leadership within the environmental justice movement.

The document outlines a series of legislative acts and wider trends in the UK that ClientEarth argues undermine the rule of law. It details how new laws like the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill may weaken judicial oversight and strip away environmental safeguards. The report also highlights systemic issues, including the politicisation of the Attorney General, cuts to legal aid, and a trend toward 'government by decree' through the increased use of secondary legislation.

The Institute for Policy Integrity asserts that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is incorrectly relying on a 2009 D.C. Circuit case, Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of the Interior (CBD), to claim it cannot consider downstream greenhouse gas emissions in its 2023–2028 leasing program. The brief argues that while CBD established that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) does not require such consideration, it does not prohibit it, and that considering these effects aligns with OCSLA's text, legislative history, and regulatory history.

The document is a formal request to the Canadian government to pass Bill C-226, which would create the country's first law addressing environmental racism. The signatories argue that Canada has a documented pattern of placing polluting industries in Indigenous and racialized communities and requires a national strategy to ensure equal protection from environmental hazards.

The document critiques the draft National Land Policy of Mozambique for its limited scope, lack of clarity on land tenure, and failure to integrate climate change strategies and human rights protections. It advocates for the adoption of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), stronger protections for customary land rights, and a coordinated inter-sectoral approach to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from the oil and gas industry. The authors emphasize the need for gender equality in land access and the establishment of clear mechanisms to combat corruption and land grabbing.

The Supreme Court ruled to restrict the federal government's power to limit greenhouse gas emissions in West Virginia v. EPA, a case initiated by coal companies and Republican-led states. The briefing urges journalists to focus on the global climate consequences of this decision rather than political conflicts and provides a list of legal and public health experts for commentary.

The document details the legal challenge by Plan B Earth and others against the UK Government's Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) supporting a third runway at Heathrow Airport. The central dispute was whether the Secretary of State failed to account for the Paris Agreement under the Planning Act 2008 and the SEA Directive. While the Court of Appeal initially found the designation unlawful due to a failure to consider the Paris Agreement as 'Government policy', the UK Supreme Court ultimately reversed this decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of State had lawfully exercised discretion and that the Paris Agreement's obligations were sufficiently reflected in the Climate Change Act 2008.