Search Climate Insights Directory

The document highlights a regulatory divergence in climate risk disclosure, noting that TCFD implementation is largely an EU phenomenon. It proposes that IOSCO, which represents regulators for over 95% of world securities markets, can reduce systemic financial risk by issuing formal acknowledgments of TCFD, updating its Principles, and developing reporting standards. It suggests investors engage either their national regulators or IOSCO directly to push for these actions, specifically targeting the Committee on Issuer Accounting, Audit and Disclosure (Committee 1).

ClientEarth argues that the European Commission's 2018 proposal to reform the General Food Law and EFSA's functioning could inadvertently restrict transparency. The analysis highlights risks that new proactive disclosure rules might override the right to access documents upon request and that the definition of 'confidential information' is too broad, potentially allowing industry to keep critical health and environmental data secret. It calls for the maintenance of existing lists of non-confidential information and the preservation of broad 'transparency safeguards' to ensure public trust and meaningful consultation in risk assessments.

The report argues that climate change poses significant physical and transition risks to financial assets, particularly in high-carbon sectors, and that these risks are often not adequately priced into the market. It highlights the potential for 'stranded assets' in fossil fuels and coal, while simultaneously identifying substantial growth opportunities in renewable energy, green infrastructure, and energy efficiency. The document concludes that climate-aware investing is a necessity that can match or outperform conventional benchmarks without sacrificing returns.

ClientEarth criticizes the European Commission's claim that the existing EU regulatory framework for endocrine disruptors (EDCs) is 'comprehensive', highlighting significant gaps in the identification and prevention of adverse effects. The organization argues that EDCs should be established as an independent regulatory class, similar to carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic (CMR) substances, to ensure systematic risk management across all sectors, including toys and cosmetics. ClientEarth further notes that the current substance-by-substance approach leads to problematic substitutions, such as replacing Bisphenol A with Bisphenol S, and calls for a grouping approach to regulation.

A coalition of NGOs supports the European Commission's proposal to use scientific 'selectivity performance indicators' to reduce juvenile fish catches but argues that these targets must be made mandatory, expanded to all commercial species, and tied to ambitious timelines. The NGOs also advocate for minimum conservation reference sizes (MCRS) to be based on the size at first maturity to ensure effective stock protection.

The document identifies plastic pollution as a material business risk, categorising it into transition, reputational, physical, and liability risks. It details how regulatory shifts, technological disruptions, and public perception threaten the long-term viability of plastic-intensive companies. Furthermore, it asserts that under UK law, directors have codified duties to manage these risks to promote company success and exercise reasonable care, warning that failure to do so could lead to personal liability.

ClientEarth argues that the post-2020 EMFF must avoid capacity-enhancing subsidies and instead prioritize marine biodiversity restoration, data collection, and fisheries control. The briefing criticizes the European Commission's proposal for reducing prescriptive eligibility rules and reintroducing harmful subsidies for vessel renewal and cessation schemes, which contradicts EU international commitments under UN SDG 14 and WTO negotiations. Key recommendations include ring-fencing 25% of budgets for biodiversity and control, strengthening conditionality to include environmental law violations, and limiting funding to SMEs and low-impact aquaculture.

ClientEarth alleges that the European Commission is systematically delaying the adoption of authorisations and restrictions for hazardous chemicals under the REACH regulation, which increases public and environmental exposure to risks. The organization claims that 96% of authorisations and 89% of restrictions were decided in an 'unreasonable time', often exceeding a year after scientific opinions were issued. ClientEarth further asserts a lack of transparency regarding how the Commission prioritises these files, suggesting that cases impacting business interests are processed faster than those impacting human health. The document calls for the Commission to publish prospective timelines, clarify prioritisation criteria, and accelerate decision-making to avoid a formal complaint for maladministration to the European Ombudsman.

The document expresses concern that ECHA is favouring industry interests over scientific evidence of environmental and health risks in its approach to restricting microplastics. The authors argue that ECHA's call for evidence discouraged the submission of risk data and erroneously suggested that a lack of demonstrated risk or a lack of alternatives automatically justifies derogations from restrictions.

The document outlines the environmental risks associated with the EU-Indonesia FTA, specifically regarding palm oil and timber trade, and proposes specific textual amendments and structural safeguards to ensure the agreement supports climate goals and human rights.

The document argues that the proposed WMedMAP is insufficient to reverse the overexploitation of the Western Mediterranean Sea, where over 90% of assessed fish stocks are overfished. The NGOs call for a transition to science-based governance, including the expansion of trawl-free zones to 100m depth, the introduction of Total Allowable Catches (TACs) to supplement effort management, and the adoption of a more participatory, local co-management approach to ensure long-term sustainability and the recovery of key species like hake, red mullet, and anglerfish.

ClientEarth asserts that the EU is in violation of international law following a 2017 finding by the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) that the EU fails to provide the public with adequate access to EU courts. The document argues that the current Aarhus Regulation is unduly restrictive, noting that only 7 out of 35 internal review requests were declared admissible. ClientEarth contends that amending the Aarhus Regulation is the only viable legal mechanism to remedy these shortcomings and bring the EU into compliance with the Aarhus Convention and the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties.

The report proposes a UK-wide Nature and Environment Commission to replace the oversight and enforcement functions previously provided by EU institutions. It argues that environmental law is often ineffective due to poor compliance by public authorities and a lack of a dedicated enforcer. The proposed Commission would combine technical expertise with strong legal powers, including the ability to conduct thematic inquiries, issue binding notices, and seek specific mandatory injunctions from courts. To ensure independence, the report recommends that the Commission be funded by and accountable to parliaments rather than governments, and be composed of an interdisciplinary team of experts. It also emphasizes the need for the Commission to act as a voice for nature and local communities through a transparent complaints process and public advocacy.

ClientEarth urges the European Commission to enhance its reporting on fish stocks and Total Allowable Catches (TACs) to ensure progress toward maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is accurately tracked. Key recommendations include extending reporting to all harvested stocks using proxies where necessary, reporting on biomass and long-term trends, and ensuring that indicators comparing TACs to scientific advice are clearly referenced and calculated by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).

The document argues that the CJEU's narrow interpretation of the NPE rule in Article 11(4) of the EIA Directive may discourage public challenges to unlawful environmental decisions by creating cost uncertainty for applicants.

ClientEarth and the European Environmental Bureau are calling on EU Environment Ministers to push the Commission to revise the Aarhus Regulation. This follows a 2017 finding by the Aarhus Convention's Compliance Committee that the EU is in non-compliance because environmental NGOs have virtually no access to the Court of Justice of the EU to challenge EU institutional acts and omissions, except in cases involving access to documents.

The report argues that the UK's current vehicle taxation system is insufficient to meet legal air quality limits and the 2040 target for banning new internal combustion engine vehicles. It proposes a three-tiered strategy: mandating charging Clean Air Zones in the short term, replacing the plug-in grant with a time-limited VAT rebate for ULEVs in the medium term, and developing a road-user charging system in the long term to replace eroding fuel duty revenues.

The Achmea judgment establishes that ISDS provisions are incompatible with EU law when they sideline domestic courts and undermine the EU's judicial system. While the ruling explicitly applies to bilateral investment treaties (BITs) between EU Member States, the briefing argues that the same reasoning likely renders agreements with third countries impermissible. This is because such tribunals are not part of the EU judicial system, may resolve disputes relating to EU law, and their awards lack sufficient review by Member State courts. Consequently, this creates significant legal uncertainty, potentially making awards won by non-EU investors unenforceable and hindering the negotiation of new agreements containing investment arbitration.

The report argues that Rio Tinto lacks adequate governance to manage financial and reputational risks from its industry association memberships, which often lobby against climate policies. It criticises the company's failure to provide transparent disclosures on climate-related financial risks and its lack of executive incentives linked to a low-carbon transition. The authors recommend shareholders support resolution 19 to allow advisory resolutions in Australia and resolution 20 to increase transparency regarding climate lobbying.

The document argues that the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines has the jurisdiction to investigate the 'Carbon Majors'—major fossil fuel companies—for their role in driving climate change and subsequent human rights violations. It asserts that these companies knew of the climate risks associated with their products for decades but promoted misinformation. The briefs argue that climate change threatens fundamental rights in the Philippines, including the rights to life, health, food, and water, and that these companies should be held accountable under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the 'Polluter Pays' principle.