Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that Spanish river basin planning continues to prioritise socioeconomic demands over environmental objectives, leading to the degradation of aquatic ecosystems. It identifies systemic failures in quantifying water resources under climate change, an over-reliance on ineffective irrigation modernisation, and the misuse of WFD exemptions to defer environmental recovery. Case studies of the Tagus, Ebro Delta, Doñana, and Mar Menor illustrate severe overexploitation and pollution, while the Alcolea dam project is cited as an example of flawed cost-recovery and strategic planning.

The report argues that Spanish hydrological planning consistently fails to prioritize environmental objectives over agricultural demands, leading to widespread failure in achieving 'good status' for water bodies. It highlights a systemic reliance on irrigation modernization as a flawed adaptation strategy, the misuse of WFD exemptions to delay environmental recovery, and the critical failure to implement adequate ecological flows, particularly in the Tajo and Ebro basins. Case studies on Doñana, Mar Menor, and the Alcolea dam further illustrate the gap between legal protections and actual water management practices.

ClientEarth proposes a series of legislative reforms for the UK to accelerate its transition to net zero by 2050 and protect biodiversity. Key recommendations include the introduction of an Environmental Rights Bill to comply with the Aarhus Convention, the implementation of mandatory corporate transition plans, and a ban on fossil fuel advertising and carbon offsetting. The document also calls for the UK to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty, accelerate fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution reduction targets to 2030, and ensure 30% of land and sea are effectively protected by 2030. Additionally, it urges the government to address the 'Dieselgate' scandal by supporting affected consumers and funding a clean-up fund.

The report reveals a 'plastic paradox' where a vast majority of consumers in four European countries view plastic packaging as environmentally negative, yet are frequently persuaded by green logos to perceive the same products as environmentally positive. High levels of trust in recycling logos and a strong preference for labels indicating recyclability or recycled content significantly drive purchasing behavior across all surveyed markets.

The CJEU ruled on March 2, 2023, that Polish law violated EU biodiversity conservation laws and the Aarhus Convention by preventing the public from challenging forest management plans in court. The Court determined that such plans, when they significantly affect Natura 2000 sites, constitute 'decisions' under the Aarhus Convention, granting environmental NGOs access to judicial review. While the ruling specifically addresses plans impacting protected sites, the author notes that other plans may still be challengeable under Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention if they contravene national environmental law.

A coalition of NGOs, led by ClientEarth, is urging the European Commission to withdraw a proposal published on 6 December 2023 that would remove critical safeguards from multiannual plans (MAPs) for the Baltic Sea, North Sea, and Western Waters. The NGOs argue that deleting the requirement to ensure less than a 5% probability of stocks falling below the limit level (Blim) would endanger depleted fish stocks and damage the EU's international reputation for sustainable fisheries management. They further allege that the proposal was issued without proper stakeholder consultation or impact assessment and appears intended to legalise an unlawful Council Regulation regarding 2024 fishing opportunities.

ClientEarth advises a UK pension scheme's trustees to cease providing bond capital to energy companies unless they have credible net-zero transition plans and enforceable bond covenants. The letter asserts that climate change represents a material financial risk—including physical, transition, and litigation risks—that trustees must manage to meet their legal fiduciary duties and protect beneficiaries' interests.

ClientEarth asserts that banks providing financial services to fossil fuel expanders like Saudi Aramco are contributing to climate-related human rights impacts. The organization argues that such financing violates the UN Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines, creating significant legal risks through emerging mandatory human rights due diligence laws and greenwashing litigation. ClientEarth proposes specific 'red-lines,' including an immediate end to financing new fossil fuel exploration and requiring clients to publish Paris-aligned transition plans by H1 2024.

The brief provides scientific and legal arguments to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, asserting that the climate emergency constitutes a threat to fundamental human rights. It emphasizes that States have a positive obligation to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available science, specifically the 1.5°C target. The document argues that this duty includes regulating 'Carbon Majors' and avoiding 'false solutions' like carbon offsetting and unproven geoengineering, which may undermine genuine decarbonization. It concludes that failure to take effective, science-based action violates the rights to life, health, and a healthy environment, particularly for marginalized groups and future generations.

ClientEarth calls for global leaders at COP28 to implement bold legal actions to phase out fossil fuels. The organization emphasizes the need to eliminate the $7 trillion in global fossil fuel subsidies reported by the IMF for 2022 and to combat greenwashing and disinformation used by the fossil fuel industry to delay climate action. ClientEarth advocates for bans on fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship, citing precedents such as the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and its own legal actions against companies like BP, KLM, and Total.

The document provides a roadmap for aspiring environmental lawyers in England and Wales, detailing the legal framework they will work within and the professional routes available. It explains the distinction between solicitors and barristers and identifies employment opportunities across the private sector, public bodies like the Environment Agency and DEFRA, and NGOs such as Greenpeace International and WWF-UK. Additionally, it highlights professional networks like the UK Environmental Law Association (UKELA) and the Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) as resources for training and collaboration.

The report finds that while some progress has been made since 2015, the EU and UK failed to meet the 2020 deadline to end overfishing. One quarter of assessed TACs for 2023 still exceeded scientific advice, with particularly poor compliance for bycatch stocks and data-limited stocks. The report highlights a lack of transparency in negotiations and notes that while the UK has shown progress in ecosystem-based management for forage fish, it has also pushed for unsustainable bycatch TACs and increased inter-area flexibility in the West of Scotland.

ClientEarth argues that France's current position in CSDDD trilogue negotiations risks reducing the directive's scope and effectiveness, contradicting France's own international commitments and its 2017 domestic duty of vigilance law. The organization demands that France support three core requirements: mandatory due diligence on climate and other environmental impacts, the implementation of clear climate transition plans including scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions targets, and the full inclusion of the financial sector.

ClientEarth analyzes the proposed EU Soil Monitoring Law (SML), arguing that while it fills a critical gap in environmental law, it requires stronger legally-binding targets, mandatory district management plans, and enhanced enforcement mechanisms to effectively achieve the goal of healthy soils by 2050.

The document advocates for adding access to justice clauses to the Euro 7 Regulation to prevent 'forum shopping' by manufacturers and to codify existing case law regarding the public's right to challenge emission type-approval decisions.

The document defends the European Commission's proposed Soil Monitoring Law (SML), asserting that EU-level action is necessary because approximately 60-70% of EU soils are unhealthy and national frameworks are insufficient. It argues that the proposal respects the principle of subsidiarity as the objectives cannot be achieved by Member States alone, and the principle of proportionality by using a Directive format that allows for national flexibility.

The report finds that while the EU and UK have made progress in aligning TACs with scientific advice since 2015, they missed the 2020 legal deadline to end overfishing. Analysis of 2023 TACs shows that 25% still exceed scientific advice. The report highlights a systemic lack of ambition for data-limited stocks (precautionary advice) and bycatch stocks compared to target stocks. It also criticises the lack of transparency in the TAC-setting process and the poor implementation of the landing obligation, which risks further overfishing. Key recommendations include setting TACs below scientific advice to account for ecosystem needs and climate change, and improving public access to the decision-making process.

The document argues for the adoption of a compensation right in the EU Industrial Emissions Directive to address the health impacts of illegal industrial pollution and provide legal redress for victims.

The document argues for the adoption of an effective right to compensation within the EU Industrial Emissions Directive (specifically article 79 bis) to address health damages caused by illegal industrial pollution. It highlights that industrial air pollution caused damages valued between 277 and 433 billion euros in 2017 and asserts that current legal frameworks leave victims powerless. The authors propose that a harmonized right to compensation, including industry and authority liability, class actions, and the production of evidence, would protect fundamental rights, encourage legal compliance, and save the European economy 55 billion euros annually through better environmental law adherence.

A joint statement by environmental, health, and consumer organizations calling for the adoption of a harmonized right to compensation within the EU Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). The authors argue that current legal frameworks are inconsistent, leaving victims of industrial pollution without effective recourse. They propose that introducing minimum guarantees for compensation would protect fundamental rights to life and health, incentivize industrial compliance, and provide legal certainty for citizens, industry, and governments.