Search Climate Insights Directory

The document analyzes the legal and scientific interpretation of Article 2(2) of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). It asserts that to achieve the objective of maintaining fish stocks above Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) levels, the EU must set exploitation rates below FMSY. The briefing argues that setting rates exactly at FMSY is insufficient due to environmental variables and would breach the CFP's precautionary approach and other EU and international legal obligations.

The EMFF Summary Briefing by ClientEarth critiques the 2014-2020 funding instrument for the EU fisheries and aquaculture sectors. The report argues that the final regulation fails to make aid sufficiently conditional on compliance with environmental and CFP rules, reintroduces damaging subsidies for vessel cessation and engine replacement, and lacks strict sustainability requirements for aquaculture. It also notes that total public funding for data collection and fisheries control has remained stagnant despite increased requirements. ClientEarth recommends that Member States use their national discretion to enhance conditionality, avoid harmful subsidies, and increase transparency and funding for monitoring.

ClientEarth argues against the introduction of de minimis aid in the fishery and aquaculture sector, stating that the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) should be the sole source of structural aid to prevent the circumvention of rules designed to combat overfishing and overcapacity. If the proposal proceeds, ClientEarth recommends reducing the Member State aid ceiling to 0.5% of annual sector output and lowering the individual beneficiary limit to EUR 15,000 over three years. They further propose that de minimis aid must not cover operations ineligible under the EMFF, such as vessel decommissioning, and call for the creation of a publicly accessible electronic list of all aid beneficiaries to ensure transparency.

The document examines the complex 'bundle of rights'—control, management, and use—associated with forest resources in Ghana. It details how the 1992 Constitution establishes trusteeship (fiduciary relationships) where the state or stools manage resources for the benefit of the people. The briefing distinguishes between naturally occurring forests (on-reserve and off-reserve) and planted timber, noting that while natural trees generally follow land ownership, the state often superimposes trusteeship via the 1962 Concessions Act. It also reviews international obligations under the African Charter and ILO conventions, concluding that the legal framework requires clarification to ensure accountability and sustainable, collaborative management.

The document examines the gap between legal provisions and practice regarding the right to participate in Ghana's forest sector. It identifies that while the 1992 Constitution and international agreements like the African Charter and the UNCCD support participation, specific national forestry laws offer limited, often non-binding, protections. It highlights that many participatory processes are relegated to non-binding manuals of procedure, leaving stakeholders without judicial redress when these processes are ignored.

The document examines the distribution of benefits from forest resources in Ghana, highlighting a disconnect between constitutional mandates and actual practice. While the 1992 Constitution establishes a specific revenue-sharing formula for Stool and Skin lands, the Forestry Commission often retains significant portions of revenue (such as 50% of stumpage fees and contract area rent) without clear legal backing. The briefing also details various benefit-sharing mechanisms for naturally occurring and planted trees, and reviews international instruments like the African Charter and the Convention on Biological Diversity that support community rights to resource benefits.

The document examines the legal protections for access to information in Ghana's forest sector, noting a gap between constitutional rights and operational enforcement. It details specific obligations of the Forestry Commission and the goals of the 2012 Forest and Wildlife Policy, while reviewing international instruments like the African Charter and the EU-Ghana VPA.

The document outlines the legal framework for prosecuting forest and wildlife offences in Ghana, detailing specific acts, the court hierarchy, and preliminary findings from a field survey of 123 courts across five regions. It identifies significant gaps in judicial enforcement, including a lack of legal knowledge among prosecutors and the need for legislative consolidation.

The document identifies three recognized felling permits in Ghana: Timber Utilisation Contracts (TUCs), Salvage Permits (SPs), and Timber Utilisation Permits (TUPs), while distinguishing the Certificate of Purchase (CoP) as a proof of ownership rather than a felling permit. It emphasizes that TUCs, as grants of natural resource rights, require parliamentary ratification under the 1992 Constitution. The briefing warns that a provision in the Timber Resources Management Act (Amendment) Act 2002 may be unconstitutional if used to grant timber rights without such ratification. Finally, it notes that only TUCs, SPs, and CoPs are recognized as legal sources of timber under the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) for export to the European Union.

The author argues that the European Commission's proposal for the 7th EU Environment Action Programme is a 'mockery' of environmental policy because it contains no concrete actions, instead repeating existing Treaty provisions and vague objectives. The text claims this approach prioritizes economic growth over environmental protection and warns that the EU's failure to provide strong environmental leadership may lead to the renationalization of environmental issues by Member States.

ClientEarth advocates for the European Investment Bank (EIB) to reinforce its support for energy efficiency and savings, suggesting that the bank develop innovative financing instruments and increase technical assistance to overcome market barriers such as high upfront costs. The organization argues that energy efficiency investments drive local job creation and economic growth, citing potential EU-wide gains of 2 million jobs and greenhouse gas emission reductions of 740 million tons annually. ClientEarth recommends upgrading the EIB's minimum energy efficiency criteria as project volume grows and explicitly calls for the exclusion of unabated coal and lignite plants from financing to avoid carbon lock-in.

The document defines Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) as the highest amount of fish that can be harvested from a stock indefinitely without causing depletion. It details the biological reference points used to estimate MSY—BMSY, SSBMSY, and FMSY—and emphasizes the necessity of a 'precautionary approach' to account for environmental uncertainties and data gaps. The guide notes that 57% of Europe's fish stocks are currently overfished and highlights legal and international commitments to reach MSY by 2015 (where possible) and 2020 for all stocks under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

The document is a letter from ClientEarth and a coalition of NGOs to the Council Presidency and Member States, warning that the proposed recast of Regulation 1049/2001 could undermine transparency and violate international standards, including the Aarhus Convention. While welcoming the extension of rules to all EU bodies and proactive publication of legislative documents, the authors criticize several proposals: a restrictive definition of 'document', the introduction of 'block exceptions' for certain classes of documents, a presumption that transparency undermines legal advice, and the allowance of national exceptions. They also argue that new exceptions for staff selection and contracts increase corruption risks, that privacy protections lack a proper public interest balance, and that proposed time limits for requests (up to 80 working days) are excessive. Finally, the letter criticizes the closed nature of the 'trialogue' negotiation process.

The document is a statement from a coalition of NGOs expressing serious concerns over the 'trialogues' negotiations regarding the revision of Regulation 1049/2001. While welcoming the extension of rules to all EU bodies and proactive publication of legislative documents, the authors argue that the Council's proposal would severely limit the right of access in ways inconsistent with international standards. They specifically oppose the introduction of 'block exceptions', a restrictive definition of 'document', and new exceptions for staff selection and contract awards, which they claim increase the risk of corruption. The coalition calls for the European Parliament to maintain its first reading position to ensure transparency and accountability within EU institutions.

The briefing proposes the concept of 'life-cycle characteristics' to allow public procurement authorities to legally account for non-physical product attributes, such as fair trade or sustainable sourcing, during the bidding process. It argues that the European Commission's current proposal is insufficient to eliminate legal uncertainty regarding whether social factors and specific production processes can be used as technical specifications. Drawing on case law like the North Holland case, the document asserts that social and environmental impacts should be treated equally and linked to the subject matter of the contract across all stages of a product's life cycle.

The document examines the framework for industry self-regulation under the Ecodesign Directive, arguing that while these measures are not legally binding at the EU level, they must meet rigorous ex-ante and ex-post criteria to be admitted as alternatives to legislation. It emphasizes the need for representativeness, civil society consultation, and robust monitoring to avoid the failures seen in previous voluntary agreements, such as those regarding CO2 emissions from passenger cars.

ClientEarth argues that the Commission's proposal to recast Regulation 1049/2001 restricts transparency through a narrower definition of 'document' and new exceptions for dispute settlement proceedings. The briefing calls for the regulation to be updated in line with the Lisbon Treaty, Court of Justice case law, and the Aarhus Convention to ensure broader public access to EU institutional information, including legal advice in legislative processes and environmental data.

The document outlines the nature of EU directives under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), detailing the obligation of Member States to adopt national laws to achieve the results specified in directives. It describes three types of infringement procedures: non-communication, non-conformity, and bad application. It specifically highlights that since the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission can seek lump sum or penalty payments from the Court for non-communication cases.

The briefing concludes that the European Parliament's proposals to require Member States to implement national financial incentives and for the Commission to propose Community financial instruments are legally acceptable, though they may face political opposition due to perceived infringements on national sovereignty.

This report details ten landmark climate change cases across different countries, highlighting how courts are holding governments and corporations accountable. Key examples include the Urgenda case in the Netherlands, which established a state's legal duty to increase climate ambition, and the Milieudefensie v. Shell case, which held a private company liable for inadequate emissions reductions. The document explores diverse legal strategies, including human rights obligations, fiduciary duties of corporate boards, and the necessity of climate considerations in environmental impact assessments.