Search Climate Insights Directory

A joint call by environmental, health, and consumer organisations urging EU policymakers to introduce a right to compensation (Article 79a IED) for victims of illegal industrial pollution. The authors argue that such a mechanism would protect fundamental rights, create a level playing field for industry by incentivising compliance, and harmonise existing fragmented national laws.

A coalition of organisations, including ClientEarth and the European Consumer Organisation, calls for the adoption of an effective right to compensation within Article 79a of the EU Industrial Emissions Directive. The appeal argues that current legal frameworks leave victims of illegal industrial pollution without real opportunities for redress, despite the significant health and economic costs of such pollution. The proposed solution includes minimum guarantees such as liability for illegally operating industry and authorities, class actions, and information disclosure tools. The authors contend that this would harmonise inconsistent national laws, uphold fundamental human rights, and encourage legal compliance, potentially saving the EU economy 55 billion euros annually.

The briefing advocates for four key minimum guarantees to make the IED compensation right effective: support for collective actions to represent vulnerable individuals, accountability for authorities when their breaches cause individual damage, court-led disclosure tools to address information asymmetry, and the use of rebuttable presumptions to balance evidence requirements. It also rejects any limitations on the use of scientific data as evidence in court.

The document advocates for the inclusion of all financial institutions—including banks, insurers, asset managers, and institutional investors—within the scope of the CSDDD. It argues that the sector's immense scale and influence make it integral to preventing human rights and environmental harms. The briefing highlights that excluding the sector would contradict UN Guiding Principles and OECD Guidelines, and would leave a gap in conduct requirements that existing EU regulations like the SFDR and CSRD do not fill. It recommends that the CSDDD explicitly cover financing, investment, and advisory activities, while allowing for proportionate differentiation in how different types of financial entities meet their obligations without diluting the fundamental duties.

The document details the management cycles and legal deadlines of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), emphasizing the obligation to achieve 'good status' for water bodies and the strict conditions under which deadlines may be extended. It highlights that while the primary deadline for good status was 22 December 2015, extensions for technical feasibility or disproportionate costs are limited until 2027, after which only 'natural conditions' can justify further delays. The paper also addresses the immediate requirement to prevent water deterioration and the inferred deadline of 18 December 2028 for phasing out priority hazardous substances. A case study on mercury pollution in North Rhine-Westphalia illustrates the legal consequences of failing to implement necessary measures to meet these standards.

The briefing examines the necessity of including illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing within the scope of the EU's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). It highlights that IUU fishing accounts for approximately 20% of wild-caught ocean fish annually and acts as a multiplier for environmental degradation, including the decline of fish stocks and destruction of marine habitats. The document critiques current Commission and Council proposals for being too restrictive and instead recommends a cumulative approach that combines specific categories of environmental impacts (such as biodiversity loss and marine ecosystem degradation) with a comprehensive list of international environmental conventions, including the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Paris Agreement.

ClientEarth critiques the European Commission's proposed Soil Monitoring Law for lacking legally-binding targets and implementation timetables. The briefing recommends establishing a long-term target of 100% healthy soils by 2050 with intermediate milestones, requiring Member States to implement detailed soil district management plans, and ensuring meaningful public participation and access to justice to prevent the law from being ineffective.

The document analyzes the role of access to justice within the proposed Directive on Soil Monitoring and Resilience (Soil Monitoring Law). It argues that Article 22 is essential for holding public authorities accountable and ensuring compliance with the Aarhus Convention. The briefing recommends explicitly including human health organizations and prohibiting restrictive procedural standing rules to prevent obstacles to legal recourse.

The brief, submitted by ClientEarth and The Shareholder Commons, opposes efforts by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) to eliminate SEC Rule 14a-8. The authors argue that climate change represents a systemic financial risk that is material to all businesses, affecting them through physical damages, transition risks, and litigation. They contend that a divergence of interests exists between corporate managers, who may prioritize short-term gains, and diversified shareholders, who are exposed to broader economic instability (beta risk). The brief asserts that Rule 14a-8 is a critical tool for investor stewardship, allowing shareholders to hold management accountable and mitigate catastrophic systemic risks.

The document is a formal letter from a group of NGOs to the European Commission and the UK Government calling for sustainable, ecosystem-based fishing limits for 2024. The authors argue that current catch limits often ignore scientific advice, undermining biodiversity and the capacity of marine life to mitigate climate change. They demand that limits be set at or below the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) advice, the adoption of a precautionary approach for mixed fisheries and forage fish, the elimination of bycatch and discards through remote electronic monitoring, and increased transparency in decision-making.

A group of environmental NGOs has called on the Spanish Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to lead the EU in setting 2024 fishing limits based on scientific advice rather than exceeding it. The letter highlights failures in the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) to end overfishing by 2020 and notes specific crises in the Baltic Sea and Northeast Atlantic. The NGOs argue that overfishing undermines marine biodiversity and the capacity of oceans to mitigate climate change, urging the adoption of an ecosystem-based approach, the elimination of bycatch, and increased transparency in decision-making.

The document argues that the EU failed its 2020 legal deadline to end overfishing and continues to set Total Allowable Catches (TACs) above scientific advice. The NGOs recommend setting 2024 TACs well below the maximum catch levels advised by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to build ecosystem resilience against climate change. Key proposals include the mandatory roll-out of remote electronic monitoring (REM), the application of an ecosystem-based approach for forage fish, and the reinstatement of TACs for stocks where limits were previously removed. The report also emphasizes the need for stricter management of deep-sea stocks and the recovery of critically endangered species like the European eel.

A coalition of NGOs urges the UK to set 2024 Total Allowable Catches (TACs) at or below scientific advice to combat persistent overfishing and climate change impacts. The report highlights that 60% of 2023 TACs exceeded scientific advice and calls for an ecosystem-based approach, the implementation of remote electronic monitoring (REM), and stricter protections for depleted, deep-sea, and non-TAC stocks.

The document argues that the European Commission's communication regarding wolves in Europe is misleading and lacks scientific basis, particularly concerning threats to humans and livestock. The NGOs contend that the Commission violated its own 'Better Regulation' guidelines by conducting a non-transparent 18-day consultation via email instead of the standard 12-week portal process. They emphasize that existing tools, such as the Habitats Directive and State Aid guidelines, already provide sufficient flexibility for managing conflicts and funding livestock protection, and that changing the conservation status of wolves would jeopardize a major conservation success.

A coalition of health and environmental experts and NGOs argues that removing specific provisions of the National Emission Ceilings (NEC) Regulations 2018 would weaken accountability, transparency, and public scrutiny regarding the UK's air pollution reduction plans. The letter contends that these regulations provide a more robust framework for plan-making than the Environment Act 2021 and are essential for protecting vulnerable populations and biodiversity.

ClientEarth urges the FCA to implement mandatory sustainability disclosures at the point of listing, aligned with TCFD and ISSB standards, to correct information asymmetry and protect investors from climate-related financial risks. The document specifically advocates for a new 'atmospheric viability' test for fossil fuel companies' reserves in Competent Person's Reports to address stranded asset risks. Additionally, it recommends extending these requirements to the debt market and introducing stricter, contractually binding disclosures for labelled bonds to prevent greenwashing and mispricing of climate risk.

The document outlines recommendations for a proposed EU legislative framework for a sustainable food system, emphasizing the need for binding targets, corporate due diligence, and mandatory sustainable public procurement to address the food system's contributions to climate change and biodiversity loss.

ClientEarth argues that the proposed FMP for mixed flatfish in the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel lacks binding commitments and fails to adhere to the precautionary and ecosystem-based objectives of the Fisheries Act 2020. The submission specifically calls for fishing limits to be set below Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) to build climate resilience, the recovery of the depleted witch stock, and the implementation of firm Minimum Conservation Reference Sizes (MCRS) and towed gear measures.

The document is a joint call from 200 civil society organisations for the European Union to implement a robust Nature Restoration Law. The signatories argue that current efforts are inadequate to combat mass biodiversity extinction and climate breakdown, which are manifesting in Europe as frequent droughts, floods, and forest fires. They demand the safeguarding of specific legal elements, including enforceable targets for all terrestrial and marine habitats, the restoration of agricultural ecosystems and peatlands, and the provision of dedicated funding and access to justice.

The report argues that biodiversity loss represents a material financial risk—categorised as physical, transition, and liability risks—for the seafood and agriculture sectors and their financiers. It details how these sectors depend on ecosystem services while simultaneously driving biodiversity loss through land-use change, pollution, and overexploitation. The document outlines specific legal risks under EU regulations, such as the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), as well as national laws in France, Germany, and Norway. It concludes that robust due diligence and transparent disclosure are essential for mitigating these risks and ensuring long-term business viability.