Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that Spain has generally maintained steady progress in implementing the EU IUU Regulation, particularly in catch certificate verification and risk assessment. However, it notes a concerning decline in the number of refused imports and a lack of progress in the prosecution of IUU fishing activities.

The document analyzes the legal mechanisms for accessing justice in environmental matters within the EU, focusing on the Aarhus Convention and EU directives. It details the rights to access environmental information, public participation in decision-making, and the ability to challenge acts or omissions that affect the environment. The guide examines standing requirements for individuals and NGOs, the scope and standard of judicial review, and the necessity of effective remedies, including injunctive relief. It also addresses the specific challenges of challenging decisions made by EU institutions.

The report evaluates the climate and air quality impacts of residual waste treatment in the UK, comparing landfill and incineration across different scenarios. It finds that while incineration may currently appear more favorable due to energy credits, its relative performance is expected to decline by 2035 as the electricity grid decarbonises and waste composition changes. The study emphasizes that pre-treatment is essential for both technologies to align with net-zero targets and notes that incineration has a more significant negative impact on local air quality than landfill.

The document assesses China's transition toward a comprehensive 'one-permit' governance system for stationary pollution sources, analyzing the legal framework, implementation challenges at the local level, and the role of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE). It highlights gaps in the current system, such as the exclusion of noise and solid waste from the primary permitting regime and a lack of specific legal liabilities for permit violations. The report compares China's approach with the EU's Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), emphasizing the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT) and risk-based inspection strategies to improve environmental quality.

The document supports a European Parliament proposal to grant the public and NGOs the right to challenge the legality of national climate plans (NECPs and LTSs) in court. It argues that such a provision is necessary to ensure equal protection across EU Member States and is consistent with existing EU environmental law, the Aarhus Convention, and the right to an effective remedy.

The document argues that EU decision-makers frequently misuse the 'precautionary approach' to justify higher fishing quotas, contradicting the legal requirement to be more cautious when scientific data is limited. It distinguishes between the CFP's legal precautionary approach, ICES's scientific translation of that approach for data-limited stocks, and 'precautionary' (PA) biological reference points, which are warning signs of stock collapse rather than targets for sustainable fishing. The author asserts that choosing PA reference points over Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) advice to increase catches is a violation of the CFP and risks stock collapse.

ClientEarth advocates for a new EU directive on soil to establish binding targets and harmonised standards, noting that current fragmented legislation fails to address threats like compaction and salinization. The organization emphasizes the need for the New Soil Strategy to integrate with the European Green Deal and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to ensure sustainable land management and the remediation of contaminated sites.

ClientEarth welcomes the 8th Environment Action Programme's goals for a climate-neutral and circular economy but argues that the proposal lacks concrete targets and explicit commitments to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. The organization highlights discrepancies between the EAP's ambitions and existing policies like the Common Agricultural Policy and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. It calls for stronger monitoring based on scientific evidence, increased resources for DG Environment, and the integration of the rule of law and access to justice to ensure effective implementation.

The document examines the risks posed to UK agricultural environmental standards by new Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), particularly with the US, Australia, and New Zealand. It proposes a system of 'core' environmental standards based on environmental significance, production constraints, and cost impacts. To protect these, the author suggests several mechanisms: voluntary labelling, legally binding non-regression clauses, conditional import tariffs, and the introduction of mandatory environmental standards for imports. The briefing emphasizes the need for an independent expert body to provide the evidence base and governance required to implement these measures without breaching WTO rules.

The document argues that EU decision-makers must move beyond single-stock assessments to integrate broader ecosystem dynamics, environmental factors, and multi-species interactions when setting catch limits, as mandated by the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). It highlights that uncertainty should trigger the precautionary approach—leading to more protective limits—rather than serving as a justification for inaction. The briefing identifies specific tools for implementation, such as ICES mixed fisheries scenarios and ecosystem overviews, while warning against practices that prioritise commercial value over ecosystem function, such as setting 'bycatch TACs' above scientific advice to avoid 'choking' fisheries.

The landing obligation, in force since January 2019, requires EU fishers to bring almost all catches to shore to eliminate wasteful discarding and provide accurate catch data. However, ClientEarth argues that compliance is poor and the system is riddled with exemptions, with 48% of 2019 and 55% of 2020 Total Allowable Catches (TACs) subject to one or more exemptions. These gaps in reporting, combined with a 'margin of tolerance' for underreporting, make it difficult to monitor illegal discarding and risk overfishing. Because TACs were 'topped up' to reflect total catches rather than just landings, they were on average 50% higher in 2020 than landings-based scientific advice. The document recommends removing the 50 kg reporting threshold, requiring electronic reporting for all vessels (including those under 10 metres), installing Remote Electronic Monitoring, and transparently deducting exemption discards from TACs.

The document clarifies the relationship between the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the scientific reference points used by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to set Total Allowable Catches (TACs). It distinguishes between different biological indicators—fishing mortality (F) and spawning stock biomass (SSB)—and explains how MSY, precautionary (PA), and limit reference points define the health and sustainability of fish stocks. The briefing argues that setting TACs based only on precautionary reference points (Fpa and Bpa) is insufficient to meet the CFP's legal obligation to maintain stocks at levels capable of producing Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY).

ClientEarth argues that the revised IPCEI Communication must align with the European Green Deal by mainstreaming climate protection and excluding fossil fuel projects. The organization recommends that eligibility for aid be contingent on strict environmental compliance, the 'Energy Efficiency First' principle, and the production of hydrogen exclusively from 100% renewable sources. Additionally, ClientEarth calls for increased transparency in the State aid process, including the publication of pre-notification files and the implementation of competitive tenders to select beneficiaries.

ClientEarth's feedback on the EU Taxonomy draft delegated regulation emphasizes the need for science-based thresholds, the exclusion of fossil gas and hazardous chemicals, and the prevention of corporate lobbying from watering down environmental standards.

The document asserts that ICES headline advice is the most reliable scientific basis for setting TACs in the EU, as it aligns with the Common Fisheries Policy's requirements for sustainability and the precautionary approach. It argues that these figures represent a maximum limit rather than a target, and that TACs should often be set below this level to account for ecosystem needs, climate change, and data uncertainty.

A group of NGOs is calling for the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the Council to make the CAP trilogue process transparent by publishing meeting calendars, agendas, minutes, and '4-column' documents, arguing that the CAP's 387 billion € budget and its role in the European Green Deal make it a matter of significant public interest.

The document examines how proposed changes to the CAP and EU budget threaten the green transition of agriculture. It highlights the risk of making direct payment capping voluntary, the potential for diverting rural development funds to hectare-based payments, and the use of flawed climate expenditure tracking. It also warns that NGEU recovery funds may be distributed without green conditionality. ClientEarth calls for mandatory capping, ring-fencing at least 50% of the EAGF for qualitative eco-schemes, and a science-based methodology for tracking climate spending.

ClientEarth contends that Belgium's proposed capacity remuneration mechanism (CRM) is legally non-compliant and unnecessary. The organization argues that the national resource adequacy assessment (NRAA) fails to follow ACER's methodology, ignores the absence of price caps, and overstates adequacy concerns. Furthermore, ClientEarth asserts that the CRM's support for new gas capacity contradicts the European Green Deal and Belgium's own climate neutrality goals for 2050, and that the scheme lacks a required phase-out provision.

The document analyzes the ECHA proposal to restrict intentionally added microplastics under the REACH Regulation, arguing that the current proposal is weakened by excessive derogations and long transition periods. It advocates for a broad scope that includes nanoplastics and soluble polymers, rejects exemptions for allegedly biodegradable plastics and sport pitch infill, and calls for stricter reporting requirements for plastic pellets to prevent environmental leakage.

ClientEarth urges EU decision-makers to prohibit the use of Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) funds for gas-reliant projects, asserting that such investments would breach the Paris Agreement and EU legal obligations. The document argues that gas is not a viable 'bridge fuel' due to methane leakages and that existing infrastructure overcapacity makes new investments a stranded asset risk.