Search Climate Insights Directory

The report identifies land tenure insecurity, administrative complexity in establishment, and limited commercial rights as primary obstacles for Community Protected Areas (CPAs) in Cambodia. It argues that the current 15-year tenure is insufficient for long-term conservation and livelihood development, and highlights a jurisdictional conflict between the Ministry of Environment and the Forestry Administration regarding non-timber forest product permits. Recommendations include expanding exclusion rights, lengthening tenure to 30 years, simplifying management plans, and formalising the conversion process between Community Forests and CPAs.

ClientEarth and the Low Impact Fishers of Europe (LIFE) are urging the European Commission to mandate an administrative inquiry into the Dutch pelagic fishery under Article 102.2 of the EU Fisheries Control Regulation 1224/2009. The organisations argue that the Netherlands has systemic deficiencies in its fisheries control system, noting that only two inspectors manage the vast landings of the pelagic fleet. They claim that pelagic freezer trawlers routinely use "unverified estimates" for landing declarations, creating a risk of "massive underreporting of many thousands of tonnes of pelagic catches over decades." The letter highlights the need for CCTV electronic control tools to ensure accountability for the discard ban and cetacean bycatch, citing the illegal discarding of Blue Whiting by the vessel FV Margiris as a specific example of the need for intensified control. The authors argue that such an inquiry is necessary to ensure a "level playing field" between large-scale and small-scale fishers and to maintain the credibility of the EU's fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

ClientEarth and the LIFE platform are urging the European Commission to mandate an administrative investigation into the Dutch pelagic fishery. They argue that the Netherlands has systemic failures in its fisheries control system, citing a lack of adequate inspectors and the use of unverified estimates for catch data. The organizations claim this leads to massive underreporting of catches, undermining the Common Fisheries Policy and the EU's fight against illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. They request a full audit of catches landed by Dutch-owned pelagic freezer trawlers since 2010 to ensure fair competition and environmental sustainability.

The document argues that the war in Ukraine should not be used as a justification to weaken the EU's Farm to Fork strategy or return to intensive agriculture. Instead, the signatories claim that accelerating the transition to agroecology, organic farming, and plant-based diets is the only way to ensure long-term food security and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. They specifically oppose proposals to increase farmland for biofuels and intensive animal farming, warning that such actions would increase ecosystem collapse and vulnerability.

The submission contends that ISDS mechanisms allow foreign investors, particularly in the fossil fuel industry, to challenge climate policies and shift the financial risk of stranded assets onto taxpayers. It highlights a 'regulatory chill' effect where states may avoid implementing environmental rules to evade costly arbitration. The authors argue that the perceived benefits of investment treaties in attracting capital are unproven, while the costs—including massive compensation awards—are high. To resolve this, the document recommends that the OECD promote multilateral termination of treaties, the removal of protections for carbon-intensive investments, and the creation of 'climate carve-outs' to ensure that measures aligned with the Paris Agreement cannot be interpreted as treaty breaches.

ClientEarth argues that the revised State aid Guidelines and ABER for agriculture and forestry must be fully integrated with the EU Green Deal, the polluter pays principle, and the precautionary principle to avoid compromising environmental protection. The organization recommends strengthening compliance with Union environmental law, refining definitions for carbon farming and forests to prevent biodiversity loss, and increasing transparency in how aid is reported and monitored. Specific concerns are raised regarding aid for irrigation, which may cause a 'rebound effect' increasing water consumption, and the use of forest biomass for energy, which ClientEarth argues should be strictly limited to residues and follow the cascading principle. The document also suggests that aid for climate-related disaster recovery should be conditional on implementing adaptation measures to minimize future losses.

ClientEarth is pursuing a 'world-first' derivative action against Shell's Board of Directors, arguing that the Board has breached its legal duties under the UK Companies Act by failing to properly prepare the company for the net zero transition. ClientEarth asserts that Shell's current climate strategy is insufficient, noting that its net zero target is not reflected in budgets and that its 'Energy Transition Strategy' focuses on 'carbon intensity' rather than absolute emissions reductions. The litigation seeks to compel the Board to align Shell's strategy with the Paris Agreement to protect the company's long-term commercial viability.

The document advocates for a dedicated EU Soil Health Law by 2023 to address the fact that 60-70% of EU soils are unhealthy. It argues that such a law is legally viable under the 'integration principle' of Article 11 TFEU and the principle of subsidiarity, as soil degradation has transboundary effects on climate, biodiversity, and food security. The brief emphasizes the role of the LUCAS Soil database in providing the science-based monitoring necessary for the law's implementation.

ClientEarth has written to the Society of Lloyd’s to challenge the lack of transparency and enforcement mechanisms in its ESG Guidance. The letter questions how the Society will judge the adequacy of managing agents' climate strategies, whether it will require the publication of targets, and what specific actions will be taken if agents fail to meet net-zero goals or continue providing cover for high-carbon activities like coal and Arctic oil.

ClientEarth argues that the Council's position on the SAIO reform will prevent the EU from meaningfully monitoring its 2030 pesticide reduction targets. The briefing claims the Council is undermining the European Commission's proposal by delaying implementation until 2026, maintaining infrequent five-year data collection, and relying on voluntary surveys rather than mandatory professional records. Furthermore, the Council is accused of limiting the scope of 'agricultural activities', excluding non-approved active substances, and removing transparency guarantees related to the Aarhus Convention. ClientEarth asserts there are no legal grounds for the Council's reluctance to mandate the electronic collection of professional users' records.

ClientEarth asserts that compliance with the NFRD is extremely poor and that national competent authorities (NCAs) are failing to enforce reporting obligations. The document highlights data showing significant gaps in climate-related disclosures among large European companies and argues that without immediate enforcement action, the transition to the CSRD will be hindered by a lack of supervisory experience and lost time.

The document provides a detailed guide on the rights of individuals and NGOs to participate in environmental decision-making in the UK, primarily through the framework of the Aarhus Convention. It outlines the specific requirements for three types of decisions: specific activities (Article 6), plans and policies (Article 7), and legislation (Article 8). The guide also discusses domestic UK consultation standards, such as the Sedley/Gunning principles and Cabinet Office Consultation principles, and provides advice on challenging deficient consultations through judicial review or the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee.

The document outlines the requirements for public participation in environmental matters in the UK, focusing on the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention: access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice. It details the specific obligations for public authorities regarding activities, plans, and legislation that significantly affect the environment. Additionally, it explains domestic standards for fair consultation, including the Sedley/Gunning principles and Cabinet Office Consultation principles, and provides guidance on challenging deficient consultations through judicial review or the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee.

ClientEarth warns Greater Manchester authorities that delaying or diluting the Clean Air Zone (CAZ) risks legal challenge and exacerbates public health crises. The region continues to report illegal nitrogen dioxide levels, contributing to an estimated 1,200 premature deaths annually. ClientEarth argues that the CAZ is the most effective tool for compliance and that economic or political concerns do not justify delaying health protections, particularly for low-income and minority communities who are disproportionately affected.

ClientEarth argues that the European Commission's proposed amendments to the Solvency II Directive are insufficient to manage climate-related risks. The organization recommends requiring insurers to model extreme warming (3°C+) and disorderly transition scenarios over a minimum 30-year period. It further advocates for 'double materiality' in risk management to account for the environmental impact of underwriting and calls for fast-tracking EIOPA's analysis of capital requirements for fossil fuels to mitigate systemic financial risks.

ClientEarth argues that the EU suffers from a persisting democratic deficit that hinders the implementation of the European Green Deal. The organization recommends four primary reforms: increasing transparency in decision-making (particularly in comitology and the EIB), granting the public direct access to the Court of Justice of the EU, ensuring EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to close human rights gaps in climate and environmental governance, and expanding the ordinary legislative procedure to all environmental matters to remove Member State vetoes on critical issues like fuel taxation.

ClientEarth supports the FCA's proposed SDR and labelling framework in principle but warns that without strict criteria and enforcement, the regime could formalise greenwashing. The organization advocates for the adoption of 'double materiality' in disclosures, the removal of the 'Responsible' label, and the refinement of the 'Sustainable-Transition' label to avoid confusion with climate-specific terminology. It further calls for mandatory sustainability impact metrics and a clear enforcement roadmap to ensure accountability for fund managers.

The report examines the legal and operational challenges facing Community Protected Areas (CPAs) in Cambodia. It highlights critical issues such as insecure land tenure, complex and slow establishment processes, limited economic opportunities, and a lack of clear mechanisms for dispute resolution and benefit sharing. The document argues that while the legal framework recognizes community roles, it often lacks the specificity and flexibility needed to empower local and indigenous communities effectively, leaving them dependent on NGOs and vulnerable to powerful private interests.

The report compares the Green Development Guidance (GDG) and the Green Investment Principles (GIP), finding them highly compatible and complementary tools for reducing environmental risks and accelerating green finance in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). While the GIP is an industry-led voluntary initiative focusing on corporate governance and high-level principles for financial institutions, the GDG provides detailed project-level evaluation criteria, including a 'green light system' for project classification. The document recommends deeper information sharing, joint development of risk assessment tools, and enhanced communication between regulators and financial institutions to further align these frameworks.

The document outlines a comprehensive approach for Chinese financial institutions to manage environmental and social (E&S) risks in BRI projects. It emphasizes that proactive stakeholder engagement—comprising environmental information disclosure, public consultation, and the establishment of grievance mechanisms—reduces the likelihood of project delays and cancellations. The guide details the responsibilities of both financial institutions and their clients across the project lifecycle, from initiation and evaluation to construction and decommissioning. It aligns these practices with international standards such as the Equator Principles and IFC Performance Standards, while also mapping relevant Chinese regulatory requirements from bodies like the PBOC and CBIRC. A significant portion of the text is dedicated to the operationalization of an Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) and provides case studies on tailoring engagement to local contexts in the DRC, Russia, and the Philippines.