Search Climate Insights Directory

ClientEarth argues that the Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture must move beyond 'paper commitments' by integrating environmental, climate, and fisheries laws. The organization emphasizes the need for tangible, measurable targets, the phase-out of harmful subsidies, and a shift in funding toward small-scale fishers and marine restoration to ensure Europe's strategic autonomy and food security.

ClientEarth argues that the MSFD has failed to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) by its 2020 deadline and proposes a revision that turns GES into a binding 'obligation of result'. The response calls for clear, quantifiable EU-wide thresholds, the introduction of interim targets, and a strict non-deterioration obligation. It emphasizes the need for policy coherence between the MSFD and the proposed Ocean Act, as well as the alignment of fisheries management and climate obligations with marine protection. Furthermore, it advocates for dedicated funding streams and the introduction of robust compliance mechanisms, including access to justice, dissuasive penalties, and a right to compensation for damages resulting from breaches of the directive.

ClientEarth has issued formal warnings to major UK gas networks, boiler manufacturers, and the Energy and Utilities Alliance (EUA), alleging that they have engaged in anti-competitive conduct. The organization argues that these entities coordinated to mislead consumers about the viability of hydrogen home heating and disparaged heat pumps to maintain the dominance of gas-based heating. Additionally, ClientEarth identifies potential price-fixing agreements regarding 'hydrogen-ready' boilers and synchronized price increases in response to the Clean Heat Market Mechanism (CHMM). The document asserts that these practices distort competition, harm consumers by preventing informed choices, and obstruct the UK's climate targets.

The document argues that revising the Water Framework Directive (WFD) would create legal uncertainty and weaken environmental protections at a time when accelerating implementation is critical for climate adaptation and water resilience. The signatories contend that the WFD is essential for food security, public health, and the Human Right to Water and Sanitation, and that any changes intended to facilitate critical raw material extraction should not come at the expense of water quality and ecosystem health.

The document argues that the European Commission is increasingly abandoning impact assessments (IAs) and public consultations under the guise of 'political urgency', which ClientEarth claims increases legal risks and the likelihood of unintended environmental and social consequences. It recommends strictly limiting IA exemptions, increasing transparency by publishing assessments earlier in the legislative process, and ensuring balanced stakeholder representation to prevent corporate capture. Additionally, it criticizes the use of 'Omnibus' proposals for simplification, suggesting instead that the Commission focus on removing truly duplicative requirements and tying EU funding to law compliance.

ClientEarth argues that the proposed Ocean Act must move from 'paper commitments to real practice' by becoming a legally binding Regulation rather than a Directive. The organization advocates for the achievement of 'Good Environmental Status' (GES) under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) as the overarching objective, which would prioritize environmental thresholds over socio-economic goals. Key recommendations include establishing a legally binding target for 30% of EU seas as effectively managed Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) by 2030, banning bottom trawling in MPAs, and phasing out harmful fisheries subsidies. ClientEarth also proposes 'Ocean Mainstreaming' to integrate marine protection across all EU sectoral policies and calls for stronger enforcement mechanisms, including access to justice and infringement proceedings, to close the existing implementation gap.

The document analyzes how the 2026 Omnibus directive weakened the CSDDD by significantly reducing the number of companies in scope, removing mandatory climate transition plans, and fragmenting the civil liability regime. It argues that these changes undermine the directive's original intent to foster responsible corporate behavior and increase legal uncertainty for both companies and victims of human rights and environmental abuses.

The document translates the ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion into practical tools for climate litigation, focusing on government framework cases, adaptation, remedies, the right to a healthy environment, corporate conduct, climate finance, speculative interventions, and regulatory rollbacks.

The document argues that the European Commission's proposed amendments to the EU Plant Protection Products Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 would significantly degrade health and environmental protections. Key concerns include the shift toward unlimited approval durations for active substances, the 'freezing' of scientific knowledge during national authorisations, and the introduction of broad exemptions for biocontrol and low-risk substances. The authors contend these changes violate the precautionary principle and the high level of protection required by the TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Furthermore, the document criticizes the Commission's procedural failures, specifically the absence of a comprehensive impact assessment and insufficient stakeholder consultation.

The document evaluates the legal implications of proposed UK government requirements for climate-related transition plan (CRTP) disclosures. It concludes that 'comply or explain' and mandatory disclosure regimes are unlikely to materially heighten liability risks for companies and directors, provided existing safe harbour provisions apply. While disclosing the extent of alignment with the Net Zero Objective introduces some risk, it is not considered materially heightened if clear metrics and authoritative standards are used. The authors state that a full legal analysis of requirements to produce an aligned plan or to implement a CRTP is currently impossible due to a lack of detail in the government's consultation regarding obligations, sanctions, and enforcement mechanisms.

The document examines the systemic failure to apply the Polluter-Pays Principle (PPP) to PFAS pollution, noting that clean-up costs in Europe could exceed €100 billion annually. It proposes a framework where the PPP covers legacy, present, and future pollution—regardless of legality—and targets both producers and users. The authors advocate for a combination of taxes, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, and risk-pooling funds to prevent public funds from bearing the cost of remediation, while emphasizing that the PPP must be paired with a total phase-out of PFAS.

A cover letter co-signed by 30 organisations calling on the EU and UK to set catch limits below scientific single-stock advice to protect fish populations and coastal communities from climate change and overfishing.

The #HandsoffNature coalition, comprising BirdLife Europe & Central Asia, ClientEarth, the European Environmental Bureau, and WWF, warns that the European Commission is dismantling core environmental protections under the guise of reducing administrative burdens. The coalition highlights the economic and human costs of climate-induced disasters, noting that droughts, floods, and heatwaves caused €43 billion in damages in a single summer, with projected losses reaching €126 billion by 2029. They specifically criticize the proposed revisions to the Water Framework Directive and the draft Omnibus Regulation on Food and Feed, asserting that these moves favor mining and agrifood lobbies over public health and ecological stability. Furthermore, the coalition points to findings by the EU Ombudswoman that the Commission bypassed democratic processes and transparency in previous regulatory actions.

A coalition of organizations, led by ClientEarth, calls on Commissioner Kadis to ensure that the renewal of the Specific Grant Agreement and Framework Partnership Agreement with ICES results in scientific advice that is recovery-focused, precautionary, and ecosystem-based. The authors argue that current advice is not designed to rebuild populations or safeguard wider ocean health, citing declines in stocks like mackerel and Northern Shelf cod. They propose five key actions, including extending rebuilding advice beyond the Baltic Sea, setting 2026 fishing limits below ICES headline advice by default, and increasing stakeholder consultation.

A coalition of businesses, investors, and NGOs opposes proposals by the Council of the EU and European Parliament to delay the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) by another year and conduct a review in April 2026. The signatories argue that such delays create market instability, waste existing corporate investments in compliance, and postpone urgent action against global forest loss and its associated climate and biodiversity risks.

The document argues for a shift from simply following single-stock scientific advice to adopting precautionary, ecosystem-based fishing opportunities for 2026. The NGOs demand an end to overfishing, the prioritisation of rebuilding depleted populations regardless of whether they are targeted or bycatch, and the full implementation of the Western Mediterranean multiannual plan and the CFP's landing obligation.

The European Ombudsman found that the European Commission committed maladministration by applying a broad and poorly defined interpretation of 'urgency' to bypass impact assessments and public consultations for three legislative proposals. The investigation revealed a lack of formal records for derogations, delayed publication of analytical documents, and insufficient stakeholder engagement. Additionally, the Commission failed to provide clear evidence of mandatory climate consistency assessments required by the European Climate Law and excessively shortened an inter-service consultation to less than 24 hours in one case. The Ombudsman recommends that the Commission define 'urgency', formally record all exemptions, and establish procedures to ensure that urgent law-making remains transparent and evidence-based.

ClientEarth outlines three legal imperatives for COP30: combating climate disinformation, translating the ICJ's Advisory Opinion into 1.5°C-compatible domestic laws, and establishing enforceable corporate accountability for environmental harms. The brief emphasizes the transition from voluntary pledges to mandatory legal compliance to ensure the goals of the Paris Agreement are met.

The report examines the role of social media platforms in spreading climate disinformation, highlighting how algorithmic systems and revenue-sharing models incentivise misleading content. It specifically assesses the compliance of Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) with the EU Digital Services Act (DSA), concluding that most have failed to identify or mitigate climate disinformation as a systemic risk.

The document argues that civic space in the EU is narrowing due to restrictive laws, exclusion from decision-making, and the criminalisation of peaceful activism. It highlights specific threats such as SLAPPs, funding cuts to the LIFE programme, and national laws in France, Hungary, Poland, and Italy that curtail CSO operations. ClientEarth calls for a pro-CSO narrative, transparent access to decision-making, and stable long-term financial support to safeguard environmental democracy.