Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines Spain's dual-track legal system for combating IUU fishing, highlighting the success of administrative sanctions—such as the 25 million euro penalties from Operations Sparrow I and II—while contrasting this with the failure of criminal prosecutions in external waters, specifically the Supreme Court's dismissal of charges against Vidal Armadores due to jurisdictional limits.

The document outlines the legal framework for accessing environmental information in the EU, including the Aarhus Convention and specific EU regulations. It details the process for submitting requests, the grounds upon which authorities may legally withhold information, and the various avenues for challenging refusals, such as confirmatory applications, complaints to the EU Ombudsman, and judicial appeals to the EU General Court. Additionally, it provides guidance on filing formal complaints with the European Commission regarding Member State failures to implement EU environmental law and discusses the limitations of direct access to EU courts for NGOs.

ClientEarth argues that the UK's statutory audit framework is inadequate, particularly regarding the disclosure of climate change-related financial risks. The organization advocates for a shift toward a 'fully integrated audit' of the entire annual report—not just financial statements—to a standard of 'reasonable assurance'. ClientEarth highlights a 'significant audit quality gap' where auditors fail to exercise professional scepticism regarding business risks like the low carbon transition. The response further contends that audit reforms will fail unless accompanied by stronger public and private enforcement of directors' duties, suggesting the UK adopt more rigorous oversight models similar to those used by the US SEC and Australia's ASIC.

ClientEarth argues that the PSI Guide must explicitly distinguish between reputational ESG risks and financially material risks, such as climate change, to ensure insurers do not adopt approaches less stringent than those required by law. The response highlights that regulators like the UK Prudential Regulatory Authority (PRA) and EIOPA already integrate sustainability risks into risk management frameworks, making board-level oversight and specific responsibility allocation a legal necessity rather than an optional best practice. ClientEarth further suggests that certain high-polluting sectors, such as coal and tar sands, should be managed through straightforward exclusion policies rather than ESG frameworks. Additionally, the document critiques the PSI's risk heat maps for underestimating the climate risks associated with agriculture, livestock, and real estate.

The report examines how disparities in the implementation of the IUU Regulation across EU Member States create risks that illegal fishery products are diverted to countries with stricter controls, such as Spain, through intra-EU trade. It analyzes three scenarios: third-country products in transit, third-country products already imported by another Member State, and products produced within the EU. While the free movement of goods under the TFEU limits systematic 'double-checking' of Union goods, the report identifies that random sample checks and requirements to prove Union goods status remain viable tools. It recommends that the European Commission harmonize IUU Regulation implementation and that Spain increase random checks and resources for the General Secretariat of Fisheries (SGP).

The document argues that public spending in the post-2020 EMFF must align with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and UN Sustainable Development Goals, specifically opposing subsidies for fleet renewal and modernisation which the authors claim increase fishing capacity and undermine marine biodiversity.

The briefing details extensive administrative failures by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in managing EMFF funds between 2014 and 2017. Key issues include the wrongful granting of funds to fishers who committed serious infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy, incorrect application of support rates, and failure to prevent fraud and conflicts of interest. The document calls for all EU Member States to conduct national audits of EMFF management to ensure conditionality and admissibility rules are respected.

The document expresses concern over the lack of action by the North Western Waters regional group in developing ambitious bycatch reduction plans for Irish Sea whiting, West of Scotland whiting and cod, Celtic Sea cod, and plaice in area 7h-k. The signatories argue that current draft plans are vague and rely on existing measures, failing to address the 'dire state' of stocks for which ICES issued zero catch advice for 2019. They request the Commission to monitor the process, ensure STECF review via a dedicated Expert Working Group, and confirm that bycatch TACs will be decreased or withdrawn if plans are insufficient.

ClientEarth calls for the abolition of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and investment court system (ICS) mechanisms, arguing that these asymmetric systems prioritize corporate interests over the public good. The organization asserts that such mechanisms create a 'regulatory chill' that prevents governments from implementing climate and environmental laws, citing examples in Germany and Romania. It advocates for the use of domestic legal systems as the primary route for resolving investment disputes to ensure the protection of the environment and the sovereignty of states.

The document defines 'resource adequacy' as the availability of all necessary resources—including generation, demand-side resources, and interconnection—to meet electricity demand. It outlines how RAAs can be used by campaigners to argue against the need for coal or gas plants and to challenge the legality of capacity mechanisms. It contrasts the limited, non-binding RAA rules of the 2009 Third Energy Package with the more legally binding framework introduced by the recast Electricity Regulation from 2020, which requires the consideration of interconnection and regional adequacy.

The document outlines the legal requirements for public participation in the development of national long-term strategies (LTS) for greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2050. It asserts that the EU Governance Regulation (GR) is insufficiently clear and may not fully comply with the Aarhus Convention, which mandates early public involvement when all options are open. ClientEarth provides a consolidated procedure for compliant participation, including open access to all interested parties, active dissemination of relevant documents, and specific timeframes for consultation. The briefing notes that previous strategies submitted under the Paris Agreement are insufficient to meet current GR requirements and urges that public participation for the 2020 deadline should have commenced by September 2019.

ClientEarth challenges the proposed Greek capacity mechanism (CM), asserting that the Greek authorities have failed to implement necessary market reforms and have provided a flawed generation adequacy assessment. The document argues that the CM's design discriminates against demand side response (DSR) and renewable energy in favor of lignite-fired plants, potentially using a 'grandfathering' clause to bypass EU emission standards. ClientEarth calls for a formal State aid investigation to ensure the scheme does not provide unjustified subsidies to fossil fuel incumbents.

The Higher Administrative Court of Münster scheduled a two-day evidence hearing on 9-10 May 2019 featuring science and health experts to resolve debates over air quality rules and diesel restrictions in Germany. This follows legal actions in 35 German cities supported by ClientEarth and Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) to enforce air quality limits. While some officials and specialists have questioned the science linking nitrogen dioxide (NO2) to health issues, the briefing notes that the majority of researchers, the European Commission, and Germany's environment minister maintain that limits are based on sound science. The hearing aims to provide the evidence necessary to adjudicate appeals regarding diesel restrictions in 14 cities in North Rhine-Westphalia.

ClientEarth supports ECHA's broad scope to restrict intentionally added microplastics but criticizes specific derogations and long transitional periods. The organization highlights that fertilisers account for 58% of microplastic emissions and argues that the proposed timelines for phasing out non-biodegradable polymers are too slow given the permanent persistence of these particles in the environment.

ClientEarth argues that state aid in the fisheries and aquaculture sector should be strictly regulated to avoid 'harmful subsidies' that increase fishing capacity or artificially maintain fishers in the sector. The organization recommends that EU-level aid remain the primary financial source and that any national aid be subject to the normal notification system to ensure transparency and alignment with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). ClientEarth specifically warns against aligning the state aid framework with the post-2020 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) if that fund introduces subsidies that undermine fish stocks or the marine environment.

ClientEarth's contribution to the European Commission's evaluation of food contact materials (FCM) rules highlights critical gaps in public health protection. The organization argues that the current lack of EU-wide harmonisation for 13 of the 17 listed FCM categories allows for inconsistent safety standards and a 'race to the bottom' due to the principle of mutual recognition. Furthermore, ClientEarth criticizes the current risk assessment model based on 'migration' limits, which allows hazardous chemicals like CMRs and EDCs to be used if exposure is deemed acceptable. They propose a 'cut-off' criterion—similar to that used in pesticides regulation—to completely prohibit these substances in FCM to better protect human health and incentivize safer innovation.

The report analyzes a March 2019 General Court ruling (Case T-837/16) to clarify the legal requirements for granting authorisations under the REACH Regulation, specifically regarding the availability of safer alternatives. It emphasizes that the burden of proof rests solely with the applicant to provide 'cogent' and 'reliable' evidence that no suitable alternatives exist. The document argues that the European Commission cannot rely blindly on SEAC's opinions if they lack 'full, consistent and relevant' reasoning. It further asserts that substitution plans are mandatory if alternatives exist but are not currently feasible for the applicant, and that uncertainties regarding alternatives cannot be deferred to future review reports. To implement these findings, the report proposes a detailed checklist for SEAC, updates to the opinion template to shift the focus toward the applicant's burden of proof, and revisions to third-party consultation instructions to clarify that third parties are not required to provide a full analysis of alternatives to raise valid doubts.

The document outlines the legal pathways for citizens and NGOs in Spain to access justice regarding environmental information, public participation, and the enforcement of environmental laws. It details the application of the Aarhus Convention and EU Directives within the Spanish legal system, highlighting the role of the 'acción popular' for non-profit organizations. A significant portion of the text focuses on the right to free legal aid (AJG) for environmental NGOs, noting a recent Spanish Supreme Court ruling that removes the requirement to prove financial insufficiency. It also describes international recourse options via the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

The document argues that capacity-enhancing fisheries subsidies, estimated at $20 billion globally, drive overfishing and jeopardize ocean health. It calls on WTO members to implement disciplines that eliminate subsidies contributing to overcapacity, overfishing, and illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing to meet UN Sustainable Development Goal target 14.6.

The General Court of the EU ruled that the Brussels Region lacked standing to challenge the Commission's renewal of glyphosate authorisation, finding the Region was not 'directly concerned'. This contradicts a previous ruling (T-339/16) where cities were granted standing to challenge Euro 6 emissions standards. The court rejected the Region's arguments that the regulation undermined its local ban on glyphosate or forced it into specific administrative procedures, and it declined to apply the Aarhus Convention to public authorities.