Search Climate Insights Directory

ClientEarth proposes a blueprint for a UK environmental watchdog with binding legal powers, independent funding from parliament, and a UK-wide mandate to ensure government accountability for environmental obligations.

ClientEarth argues that ECHA's current interpretation of Article 66 of REACH is too restrictive, failing to require essential data from downstream users and overestimating the need for confidentiality. The document asserts that ECHA has the power and obligation to make the notification of exposure data, SVHC functions, and substitution activities compulsory to meet REACH objectives. Furthermore, it contends that under EU law and the Aarhus Regulation, information regarding emissions into the environment—including site addresses, tonnage, and use descriptions—must be systematically disclosed to the public, regardless of commercial interest claims.

The document compares the US Lacey Act, EU Timber Regulation, Australian Illegal Logging Prohibition Regulation, and Japanese Clean Wood Act across definitions of illegal timber, key requirements, regulated parties, product coverage, and enforcement mechanisms.

The document identifies systemic failures in the REACH authorisation process, specifically noting that authorisations are often granted even when suitable alternatives exist. It argues that applicants lack incentives to provide comprehensive information and that the Committee for Socio-economic Analysis (SEAC) incorrectly shifts the burden of proof away from applicants. To remedy this, the authors propose proactive consultation methods—inspired by EU merger law—and a more rigorous technical assessment based on 'end-use function' rather than just chemical performance. Key recommendations include requiring applicants to provide contact lists of competitors and customers, implementing a decision tree for feasibility assessments, and withdrawing authorisations if undisclosed alternatives are discovered.

The briefing examines the application of penalties under the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), concluding that current enforcement practices often fail to meet the EU legal standard of being 'effective, proportionate and dissuasive'. It highlights a prevalence of 'soft' enforcement approaches and a lack of transparency regarding sanctions, which creates an uneven playing field for companies. The document recommends the adoption of credible enforcement policies, increased public access to enforcement data, and the development of harmonised guidance on determining penalty levels.

ClientEarth acknowledges Lloyd's decision to divest the Central Fund from companies heavily associated with coal starting 1 April 2018, but argues that this represents only 2.5% of the total assets in the 'Chain of Security'. The organization contends that coal-related stranded asset risks increase the likelihood of insolvency and property and casualty claims, thereby threatening the broader market's solvency. ClientEarth proposes that Lloyd's modify its Minimum Standards to require stress testing for coal risks, adopt the Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) Recommendations as industry best practice, and mandate the use of peer-reviewed climate science in risk evaluations.

ClientEarth argues that Canada's chemical and pesticide regulations are significantly less restrictive than those of the EU, citing the continued use of 46 active agents banned elsewhere and more lenient maximum residual limits for pesticides in food. The organization warns that the Regulatory Cooperation Forum (RCF) under CETA could allow Canadian business interests to pressure the EU to weaken its environmental protections, specifically regarding endocrine disruptors and the precautionary principle. ClientEarth contends that regulatory cooperation on environmental issues should occur in international environmental fora rather than trade agreements focused on trade facilitation.

The document analyzes how the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill treats retained direct EU legislation as subordinate legislation for the purposes of amendment. It argues that this allows Ministers to use existing and future delegated powers to repeal or revoke EU law with lower Parliamentary scrutiny and fewer constraints than the specific powers granted in clauses 7-9 of the Bill. The authors express concern over the ambiguity of the legal status of retained EU law and propose a drafting solution to classify certain retained EU law as primary legislation to protect it from modification by subordinate legislation.

The document explains that while UK shareholders can successfully propose advisory resolutions on climate change reporting, Australian shareholders face significant legal barriers. In Australia, legislation and case law prevent shareholders from directly proposing resolutions that direct board action or express opinions on management powers, often requiring a 'special resolution' to amend a company's constitution first—a process that has not yet succeeded due to the 75% support threshold.

The document outlines Bulgaria's EUTR framework, noting that while the Executive Forests Agency serves as the Competent Authority, enforcement is hindered by underfunding, low administrative fines, and high corruption. It details the legal mechanisms for reporting illegal logging and the challenges NGOs face in challenging administrative inaction.

The report evaluates the Polish Act on the Capacity Market, concluding that while it is likely to be approved by the European Commission due to alignment with EU State aid guidelines, it may result in higher costs for final customers and primarily benefit existing coal-fired power plants. Key improvements over previous drafts include the removal of auction 'baskets' and the introduction of preferences for low-carbon technologies, though the author argues these may not be sufficient to substantially reduce the overall emission factor of the Polish Power System.

The report finds a significant gap in how UK contract-based pension providers manage climate risk compared to trust-based schemes, urging the FCA to implement mandatory reporting and guidance.

The document is a joint statement from various environmental organisations warning that the Fisheries Committee's position on the regulation to conserve the marine environment through fisheries technical measures (COM(2016)0134) would dangerously undermine existing environmental standards. The authors argue that the proposed legislation fails to ensure coherence with existing environmental laws or follow scientific evidence, potentially leading to the depletion of protected species, increased juvenile fish bycatch, and the use of damaging fishing gears such as electric pulse fishing.

ClientEarth argues that the draft guidance from ECHA and EFSA exceeds its legal mandate by lowering the level of environmental and health protection established by EU co-legislators. The organization specifically criticizes the requirement for a detailed understanding of the mode of action as a pre-condition for EDC identification, asserting that this creates an excessive evidentiary burden that risks 'false negatives' and contradicts the precautionary principle. ClientEarth also contends that the guidance illegally attempts to extend its scope beyond pesticides and biocides and fails to sufficiently mandate the inclusion of all available relevant scientific data, including novel test methods.

The document identifies four critical areas for legal reform to prevent forest conversion: ensuring consistency between sectoral laws, establishing transparent land-title granting processes, formally recognizing customary land rights of local communities and indigenous peoples, and providing detailed implementation and enforcement mechanisms. It warns that legal ambiguity and a lack of stakeholder consultation lead to uncontrolled deforestation, land-tenure conflicts, and the potential for unfair evictions.

The document identifies five critical areas for legal reform to prevent illegal forest conversion: land allocation, clearance permits, conversion timber rules, environmental protections, and community rights. It highlights how contradictory laws, lack of transparency, and failure to recognize customary land tenure lead to uncontrolled deforestation and social conflict. The toolkit uses case studies from nine tropical countries to illustrate legal gaps and provides checklists for policy-makers to ensure comprehensive and enforceable regulations.

The document serves as an overview for a legal toolkit designed to help law-makers address the complexities of forest conversion laws. It identifies five key areas for legal attention: land allocation, clearing permits, timber rules, environmental protection, and community rights. The toolkit is based on an analysis of legal frameworks in nine tropical countries and focuses primarily on the regulation of large-scale projects to balance economic growth with environmental and social protections.

The document outlines five essential requirements for a legal framework regulating forest clearance: unambiguous permits, environmental and social evaluations, explicit application timelines, protection of community and indigenous rights, and strong enforcement. It highlights risks such as the use of clearance permits as loopholes for illegal timber harvesting and the conflict between sectoral laws, providing case studies from Liberia, the Republic of Congo, Brazil, and Viet Nam to illustrate these legal failures.

The document argues that timber from forest conversion is becoming a dominant source of global timber trade but often lacks the strict regulatory frameworks applied to selective logging. This creates legal loopholes that companies may exploit to access valuable timber under the guise of land clearance for agriculture, mining, or infrastructure. To mitigate risks of illegality and land-grabbing, the author recommends three essential requirements: clear and detailed rules for the entire supply chain, a definition of legality that incorporates land title and community rights, and full public transparency of data regarding clearance permits and timber volumes.

The document outlines the necessity of detailed, binding environmental legal tools to mitigate the impacts of forest conversion, such as biodiversity loss and climate change. It emphasizes the role of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), the importance of transparency, and the need for laws to be fit for the specific national context. Through case studies from Gabon, Ghana, Brazil, and Liberia, it illustrates how non-binding guidelines, limited agency capacity, and sustainability policies affect forest protection.