Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing argues that the EMFAF is designed for outdated purposes and fails to address the climate and biodiversity crises. It urges EU Member States to use their discretion in operational programming to shift funding away from large-scale industrial fleets and toward small-scale fishers and marine restoration. The author proposes a 'FAIR' framework—Fair, Ambitious, Innovative, and Revitalising—to ensure the 6 billion euro fund supports a transition to low-impact fisheries and enhances the ocean's role as a carbon sink.

The briefing argues that the EMFAF is designed for outdated purposes and fails to address the climate and biodiversity crises. It urges EU Member States to use their discretion in operational programs to shift funding away from industrial fleets and toward small-scale fishers and ocean restoration. The author proposes a 'FAIR' framework (Fair, Ambitious, Innovative, Revitalising) and lists 15 specific recommendations, including allocating at least 25% of national budgets to marine conservation and improving traceability through digitalization.

The document is an annex listing fish species and specific TAC codes excluded from a core analysis due to data gaps or mismatches. Reasons for exclusion include unavailable advice, area mismatches, unclear data, or the removal of the TAC.

The report finds that while 2021 TACs show slight improvement over 2020, the EU and UK missed the 2020 deadline to end overfishing. Over 40% of analyzed TACs for 2021 still exceeded scientific advice. The analysis reveals a persistent lack of ambition for stocks based on precautionary advice compared to MSY-based advice, and for bycatch stocks compared to target stocks. It also highlights systemic failures in transparency and the improper implementation of the landing obligation, which risks further overfishing.

ClientEarth has written to the UK Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy expressing concern over delays in the Strategic Environmental Assessment (OESEA4) for offshore energy. The organization argues that current government plans to extract all economic oil and gas are inconsistent with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal and IEA pathways to net zero. ClientEarth warns that failing to conduct a legally adequate assessment, including downstream emissions, may lead to judicial review.

The document argues that EU trade policy must be consistent with the Green Deal, Farm to Fork, and animal welfare standards to prevent the externalisation of environmental and social impacts. It proposes ten structural reforms for EU Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), including the introduction of enforceable sustainability obligations, conditional preferential tariffs, penalty mechanisms for TSD violations, and mandatory ex-ante sustainability impact assessments.

The Healthy Air Campaign (HAC) advocates for the inclusion of Lords amendment 3 in the Environment Bill to set a legal target for PM2.5 air pollution of 10 µg/m3 by 2030. The briefing argues that current UK legal limits are double the 2005 WHO guidelines and that achieving the stricter target is feasible based on technical analysis. It highlights the severe public health impacts of PM2.5, including an estimated 40,000 premature deaths annually in the UK, and notes the economic burden of over £20bn per year. The document emphasizes that the UK risks losing its global leadership in air quality as the USA and EU move toward stricter standards.

ClientEarth and 20 partner organisations advocate for the modernisation of EU agricultural chemical statistics. They argue that current data gaps prevent effective monitoring of human health and environmental risks. The recommendations urge the AGRI committee to support amendments that ensure the collection of exhaustive data on pesticides, biocides, and veterinary products, published at a granular level (active substance, product, crop, and postal code) to enable informed policy decisions and public transparency.

ClientEarth argues that classifying natural gas as sustainable under the EU Taxonomy Regulation would violate the Paris Agreement, the European Climate Law, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The organization contends that natural gas activities do not meet the 'climate change mitigation' criteria because they increase greenhouse gas emissions, particularly when methane leakages are considered. Furthermore, ClientEarth asserts that natural gas cannot be a 'transition' measure as feasible low-carbon alternatives exist and such investments risk locking in carbon-intensive assets and diverting funds from renewable energy.

ClientEarth argues that the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) obstructs climate action and conflicts with EU law, specifically citing the CJEU's Komstroy ruling. The organization claims that the ECT's modernisation process is unlikely to succeed due to unanimity requirements and that companies are using investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) to sue EU states over climate policies. Consequently, ClientEarth calls for a coordinated EU withdrawal from the treaty.

ClientEarth and BirdLife criticize the European Commission for failing to publish observation letters during the approval of revised Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Rural Development Programmes (RDPs), arguing this opacity prevents public scrutiny of how recovery funds are used for the European Green Deal. They demand that the Commission publish remaining observations and ensure that future CAP Strategic Plans are made public early enough in the decision-making process for citizens to participate.

The document argues that EU competition rules should move away from a "full compensation" theory for consumers and instead adopt a "fair share" approach to enable businesses to cooperate on climate and sustainability goals. It emphasizes that environmental benefits for society should be considered when granting exemptions under Article 101(3) TFEU, even if individual in-market consumers do not receive direct benefits. The authors also address the distinction between genuine sustainability cooperation and greenwashing, and call for greater transparency in the Commission's guidance to businesses.

ClientEarth argues that the UK government's proposed 'Better Regulation' framework, informed by the TIGGR report, risks a deregulatory shift that would threaten environmental protections. The organization specifically opposes the adoption of a 'common law approach' to regulation and a 'new' proportionality principle, warning that these could erode the precautionary principle and lead to 'death by a thousand cuts' for the environment. ClientEarth also cautions against delegating excessive discretion to regulators through guidance rather than legislation, citing failures in oil and gas and agricultural pollution enforcement. Instead, it advocates for a prescriptive, government-led approach that integrates the value of natural capital into regulatory impact assessments.

The report argues that the food industry's reliance on single-use plastics creates significant ecological and health crises while exposing the sector and its financiers to material financial risks. It highlights a 'financial bubble' in the plastics industry driven by overproduction and impending regulation. Research reveals that seven banks operating in Belgium provided over 78 billion euros in financing to nine food industry companies between 2015 and 2021, with Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, and ING as the primary financiers. The document calls for banks to implement concrete plastic policies and for the Belgian government to use its influence as a shareholder to drive a transition toward a circular economy.

The document examines the legal frameworks governing shareholder resolutions in thirteen European countries, focusing on how investors can compel companies to adopt Paris-aligned climate strategies. It identifies a recurring tension between the general management powers of corporate Boards and the reserved rights of shareholders to amend a company's Articles of Association. The guide argues that framing climate 'asks'—such as net-zero commitments, transition plans, 'Say on Climate' votes, and lobbying disclosures—as amendments to the Articles of Association is often the most effective legal path to ensure resolutions are tabled at Annual General Meetings (AGMs). While the UK, Ireland, Spain, and Sweden are described as relatively simple jurisdictions for filing, others like France, Germany, and Austria require more nuanced framing to avoid infringing on Board competencies. The Netherlands is highlighted as the only jurisdiction among the thirteen where shareholders cannot legally compel a company to table a resolution without Board consent.

ClientEarth asserts that the European Commission and SEAC have failed to fully implement the legal requirements established by the Court in the Lead Chromate case (T-837/16 and C-389/19P). The document demands a systematic approach to identifying 'non-negligible uncertainties' in substitution plans, which should lead to the rejection of authorisations rather than reduced review periods. It also criticizes the current assessment of technical feasibility, arguing that SEAC often accepts applicant claims based on undocumented customer preferences rather than the minimum performance required for the end-use function.

ClientEarth argues that Clause 1 of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, specifically the introduction of prospective-only quashing orders, would weaken the public's right to an effective remedy when public bodies act unlawfully. The briefing contends that these proposals conflict with the UK's obligations under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention, thereby damaging environmental democracy. It further warns that such remedies could allow unlawful decisions to stand, reducing accountability and preventing the protection of the environment from irretrievable harm.

The report argues that the Socio-economic Assessment (SEA) tool used in REACH authorisations is flawed due to a narrow focus on quantitative cost-benefit analysis (CBA), which prioritises business-as-usual over innovation and substitution. It claims that ECHA's guidance encourages a micro-economic perspective focused on applicant companies rather than a broad societal perspective. The authors recommend abandoning the current SEA model in favour of integrating socio-economic factors into a broader analysis of alternatives and reforming the SVHC listing and authorisation process to increase the incentive for substitution.

ClientEarth critiques the current EU agricultural and fisheries policies for failing to meet sustainability targets and urges the European Commission to adopt a new, comprehensive legislative framework. The organization argues that existing tools like the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) are insufficient or poorly implemented. It advocates for an 'umbrella law' that covers the entire food value chain, integrates fundamental rights and access to justice, and utilizes public procurement to drive systemic change toward environmentally positive and healthy food systems.

The document argues that expanding the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is essential to combat illegal nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels in London, which are nearly twice the legal limit. It details the expansion's scope, the specific vehicle emission standards required to avoid charges, and the projected health benefits, including the avoidance of 250,000 new cases of air pollution-related disease. The guide highlights that road transport, particularly diesel cars, is the primary source of NO2 pollution and emphasizes that low-income and minority communities are disproportionately affected by poor air quality. It also advocates for further measures, such as expanding the ULEZ to all of Greater London and adopting stricter World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for particulate matter (PM2.5).