Search Climate Insights Directory

ClientEarth warns that the current ISDS system may be used by fossil fuel companies to delay energy transition policies or shift stranded asset risks to taxpayers, creating a 'regulatory chill' that threatens the achievement of Paris Agreement temperature targets.

The document assesses the integration of the UNFCCC's Cancun safeguards into the national legal frameworks of Ghana, Liberia, and the Republic of Congo. It finds that while broad principles of participation and transparency exist in constitutions and forestry laws, they often lack practical procedural detail or consistent implementation. The briefing highlights a gap between high-level policy goals and the legal reality for local communities and indigenous peoples (LCIPs), particularly regarding land tenure and equitable benefit sharing. It suggests that REDD+ can act as a catalyst for legal reform, leveraging existing mechanisms like Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and the EU's FLEGT-VPA initiative to strengthen forest governance.

The analysis argues that large compensation payments to German lignite operators are unlikely to be legally justified because the sector is currently loss-making and most plants have already amortised their investments. Under the German Constitution, compensation is only required in cases of 'exceptional hardship', which is unlikely given the plants' low profitability. Furthermore, such payments would likely be classified as EU State aid, requiring European Commission approval. The document suggests the Commission would struggle to find such aid proportionate or necessary, as market forces and high carbon prices are already driving closures, and other countries like the UK have phased out coal without compensation.

The report finds that Denmark has failed to establish necessary control measures to ensure compliance with the EU landing obligation, noting that the Danish Fisheries Agency detected only three infringements per year in 2017 and 2018. Evidence from last-haul inspections indicates widespread illegal discarding of fish below the Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS), with cod under MCRS making up 13% in the Baltic and 6% in the North Sea, compared to less than 1% reported in logbooks. The document also highlights 'high-grading' (discarding legal but smaller fish) as a persistent issue, supported by trials from 2008-2015. It concludes that traditional surveillance is ineffective and identifies closed-circuit television (CCTV) and Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) as the only effective tools for enforcement. Furthermore, it criticizes the European Commission for failing to police Member State compliance and for setting Total Allowable Catches (TAC) based on the flawed assumption that no unaccounted discards occur.

The report finds that France significantly delayed the implementation of reporting requirements for the landing obligation until 2019 and failed to sanction any infringements in 2017 and 2018. It highlights a lack of effective enforcement at sea and suggests that the adoption of Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) is a necessary step to improve data reliability and compliance.

The report examines Spain's compliance with the Common Fisheries Policy's landing obligation, which requires fishers to retain and record all catches of species subject to catch limits. While Spain has introduced guidelines and selectivity studies, the report finds a critical lack of effective monitoring and enforcement. Evidence suggests that reported data for 2017 and 2018—showing almost no infringements and very low discards—is likely inaccurate due to industry resistance and insufficient control mechanisms. The document recommends increasing the use of remote electronic monitoring, improving port infrastructure, and enhancing data transparency to ensure the sustainability of fishing quotas.

ClientEarth identifies systemic failures in the implementation of the IED's 'Aarhus rights' across the EU. It argues that the IED's wording is too narrow to comply with the Aarhus Convention, particularly regarding public participation during permit updates. National implementation is further hindered by limited online information, high litigation costs in the UK, and a tendency for judges in Bulgaria and the UK to defer to regulators due to the technical complexity of the IED. Case studies from Bulgaria, Spain, and the UK illustrate these deficits, including the withholding of baseline reports in Spain and the lack of electronic access to permit applications in Bulgaria.

ClientEarth and ECOS submit that the European Chemicals Agency's (ECHA) proposed exemption for 'biodegradable' microplastics lacks sufficient scientific evidence to ensure degradation in real-world environmental conditions. They argue that current laboratory tests at 20°C do not reliably predict biodegradation at lower average temperatures found in nature, such as 12°C in soil and fresh water or 9°C in marine environments. The organizations recommend that no exemption be granted at this stage to maintain incentives for improving testing criteria. Alternatively, they propose a more rigorous framework requiring each polymer and substance in a microplastic mixture to be evaluated separately, with specific ultimate degradation thresholds of ≥ 90% relative to reference materials within defined timeframes for water and soil.

The document outlines the legal mechanisms available to the public and environmental NGOs in Estonia to challenge environmental decisions, access information, and participate in decision-making. It details the 'three pillars' of the Aarhus Convention—access to information, public participation, and access to justice—and explains how these are implemented through EU directives and Estonian laws. The guide describes specific court procedures in Estonia, the role of the European Court of Justice, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, and the European Court of Human Rights, while highlighting challenges such as court costs and the strict 'personal interest' requirements for standing.

The document outlines a framework for Spanish seafood businesses to implement responsible sourcing through public policy commitments, risk assessments, and third-party verifiable traceability. It defines 'responsibility' as company behavior regarding environmental, social, and economic aspects, and 'sustainability' as the conservation of natural resources to meet present and future human needs. Key recommendations include strictly complying with legislation, identifying illegal, unreported or unregulated (IUU) fishing risks, and prioritizing fisheries certified by ISEAL or GSSI standards. The brief also calls on public authorities to improve fisheries control, enhance scientific stock assessments, and mandate Remote Electronic Monitoring systems to eliminate discarding unwanted catches.

The document is a guide for creating enabling legal frameworks for community forestry, emphasizing iterative and participatory reform processes. It provides a comprehensive set of questionnaires across ten thematic areas—including land tenure, allocation, governance, and market access—to ensure that laws protect the rights of local communities and indigenous peoples while promoting sustainable forest management.

The document argues that the European Commission has made insufficient progress in implementing the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), noting that 41 percent of analysed stocks remain overfished. The NGOs call for 2020 TAC proposals to strictly follow scientific advice, improve the implementation of the Landing Obligation (LO) through better monitoring like CCTV, and increase transparency in the TAC setting process.

The document analyzes the implementation of the Aarhus Convention in Austria, detailing the legal paths for accessing environmental information, public participation in decision-making, and the right to challenge environmental violations. It highlights significant deficits in the Austrian system, particularly regarding the third pillar of the Aarhus Convention (access to justice for general environmental violations), and examines the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) in shaping these rights.

The Republic of Congo is revising its forest legislation to include community forestry for the first time. ClientEarth identifies five priority areas for the new legal framework: clear land and forest tenure rights, accessible allocation processes, principles for community governance, simple management rules, and equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms. The briefing emphasizes that current proposals lack precision in these areas and calls for an inclusive, participatory drafting process involving local communities and indigenous populations to avoid implementation challenges and elite capture.

ClientEarth argues that HM Treasury (HMT) is an obstacle to ambitious climate policy and lacks transparency in its coordination with other departments. The submission calls for a 'Climate Cabinet' and a parallel climate budget to ensure legal targets are met. In the financial sector, ClientEarth highlights a widespread failure among pension funds and asset managers to treat climate change as a material financial risk, noting a 'herd mentality' that stifles innovation. It criticises the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for a lack of enforcement regarding climate risk disclosures and warns of 'greenwash' in sustainable financial products. The document recommends mandatory TCFD reporting for large asset owners by 2022 and the regulation of investment consultants by the FCA.

The document expresses alarm over widespread non-compliance with the landing obligation and argues that current management approaches, such as setting Total Allowable Catches (TACs) based on scientific catch rather than landings, undermine the goal of minimizing unwanted catches. The NGOs recommend rectifying shortcomings in the North Western Waters bycatch reduction plan, tightening the criteria for exemption requests, and introducing Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) to ensure accurate catch documentation.

ClientEarth argues that the proposed reductions in the capacity mechanism levy for energy-intensive users (EIUs) in Poland would undermine the security of supply objectives of the capacity market by dis-incentivising demand-side response. The organisation highlights that the scheme's costs would be shifted to households and non-EIU consumers, potentially affecting public acceptance. ClientEarth suggests that a fixed annual compensation would be a more adequate form of aid to maintain incentives for shifting consumption away from peak hours. The document also questions the expansion of the beneficiary pool from 52 to 300-350 EIUs and recommends that the Commission reject the scheme to avoid distorting the energy market.

The General Court's decision in Case T-108/17 ClientEarth v Commission reinforces restrictive barriers for NGOs seeking to challenge EU environmental decisions. The court ruled that the internal review procedure under Article 12 of the Aarhus Regulation cannot result in the annulment of the underlying administrative act, only the decision on the review request itself. Furthermore, the court limited the admissibility of arguments to those explicitly raised in the initial request, preventing NGOs from adapting their claims based on the Commission's response. ClientEarth argues these restrictions violate the Aarhus Convention by denying an effective remedy for illegal EU acts.

The document serves as a guide for citizens, NGOs, and legal professionals to navigate the complex system of environmental litigation in Germany. It details the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention—access to information, public participation, and access to justice—and explains how these are implemented through EU directives and German national law. The toolkit outlines specific procedures for challenging government inaction or illegal acts, the standing of recognized environmental associations, and the roles of international bodies like the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC), and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

The report evaluates options for replacing Poland's Bełchatów Lignite Power Plant, concluding that a 'Coal Exit' strategy by 2035—replacing coal with renewables (RES) and gas—is more cost-efficient and beneficial for health and employment than maintaining current policies. The Coal Exit scenario is projected to reduce CO2 emissions by 38% and total system costs by €64 billion compared to the Reference scenario, while increasing total employment by 76%. Specifically, phasing out Bełchatów earlier contributes €4 billion to these savings and approximately 50 million tonnes to the overall CO2 reduction.