Search Climate Insights Directory

The EU Timber Regulation, effective March 3, 2013, prohibits the placement of illegally logged timber on the EU market. Operators must perform due diligence by accessing information on timber species and origin, assessing the risk of illegal logging, and taking mitigation steps. While VPA licenses and CITES permits are automatically recognized as legal, certification schemes can only be used as tools for risk assessment and do not alone evidence compliance. Enforcement is the responsibility of the 28 EU Member States, with penalties including fines, seizure of timber, and criminal prosecution.

The document analyzes the legal mechanisms for accessing justice in environmental matters within the European Union, structured around the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention: access to environmental information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice for breaches of environmental law. It details the scope of review, standing requirements for individuals and NGOs, and the standards of judicial scrutiny required to ensure effective legal protection. The guide specifically highlights the disparities in implementation across Member States and the restrictive nature of judicial review for decisions made by EU institutions.

The fact sheet proposes specific targets for the EU's "Farm to Fork" Strategy, focusing on reducing pollution from farming, ending overfishing, and eliminating harmful chemicals and single-use plastics across the food system to align with climate commitments.

ClientEarth asserts that the European Commission must use its legislative powers to amend or withdraw the current CAP reform proposal, as it conflicts with the climate and biodiversity goals of the European Green Deal. The briefing claims that relying on non-binding recommendations or the goodwill of co-legislators is insufficient and may constitute a breach of EU law principles, specifically those of consistency, good administration, and environmental integration.

ClientEarth's feedback on the EU's Offshore Renewable Energy Strategy emphasizes the need for high environmental standards, public transparency, and regional cooperation. It argues that the strategy must adhere to the 'do no harm' principle and the precautionary principle, ensuring that the deployment of offshore wind and other ocean energies does not compromise biodiversity or ignore the rights of public participation under the Aarhus Convention. The document suggests a regional approach to grid development and targeted financial support for technologies that have not yet reached grid parity, such as wave energy.

The document urges the European Parliament to amend the draft EU climate law to include a more ambitious 2030 emissions reduction target of at least 65%, binding climate-neutrality targets for individual Member States, and the establishment of an independent scientific advisory panel. It further calls for a mandatory EU roadmap for emissions reductions across all sectors, a review of all EU policies for climate consistency, improved access to justice, restrictions on fossil fuel lobbying, and the alignment of financial flows with climate goals.

ClientEarth supports a combination of regulatory and non-regulatory measures to revise the Renewable Energy Directive (REDII) to align with the European Green Deal. The organization advocates for a 2030 emissions reduction target of at least 65%, the exclusion of non-renewable hydrogen from support, and the removal of biomass from the category of renewable energy sources due to its impact on climate, health, and biodiversity.

The document reports systemic violations of SO2 limit values in Bulgaria, specifically in the Galabovo and Pernik regions. It argues that Bulgarian authorities are failing to enforce the Air Quality Plan of Galabovo (2019–2023) by granting power plants derogations from desulphurisation standards and allowing boilers to operate without abatement systems. Additionally, it notes the absence of a required short-term action plan to reduce emissions during alert threshold exceedances.

A coalition of 226 scientists, financial professionals, and civil society organizations argues that including fossil gas in the EU Taxonomy contradicts climate science and risks turning the framework into a greenwashing tool. The authors highlight the high climate impact of methane leaks and assert that such a move would undermine the EU's global climate leadership and the goals of the Green Deal.

A coalition of NGOs recommends drastic reductions in fishing quotas for the Baltic Sea in 2024, including zero-catch limits for several cod and herring stocks. The authors argue that current single-species management fails to account for ecosystem dynamics, bycatch, and climate change, urging the EU to implement stricter monitoring and selective gear requirements.

A coalition of 76 organisations calls for the European Union to implement a mandatory, digital, and transparent system for collecting pesticide use data. They argue that current proposals for the agriculture statistics regulation (SAIO) are insufficient, as they delay data collection until 2028 and lack necessary detail. The signatories demand that data collection begin by 2025, be mandatory, and be published by active substance, crop, and treated area to protect public health and biodiversity.

The document outlines the critical role of cocoa in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire, where together they produce over 60% of the cocoa for the USD$130 billion global chocolate industry. It argues that the sector is hindered by poverty, child labor, and deforestation, and proposes a series of research papers to analyze national legal frameworks, identify governance loopholes, and assess the impact of EU and UK regulations on sustainability.

The document outlines the legal framework and practical procedures for requesting information from EU institutions, specifically contrasting general access under Regulation 1049/2001 with the broader rights for environmental information under the Aarhus Convention and Regulation 1367/2006. It details the application process, the timelines for institutional responses, the mechanisms for challenging refusals—including the European Ombudsman and the General Court—and the specific legal exceptions institutions may invoke to withhold information.

The document outlines five key priorities for the 2019 discard plan joint recommendations (JRs), emphasizing that the landing obligation must cover all species subject to catch limits and that exemptions must be based on rigorous scientific evidence. The authors argue against using de minimis exemptions to solve quota-related choke issues and call for improved documentation of discards to ensure reliable stock assessments.

The document contends that the modernized Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) remains incompatible with EU law and climate goals because it retains an unpredictable investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system and continues to protect fossil fuel investments. It argues that the process for the new treaty to enter into force is uncertain and potentially protracted. Instead, the author proposes a coordinated withdrawal by the EU and Member States, combined with an 'inter-se agreement' to abolish the 20-year sunset clause, as the cleanest method to eliminate legal risks and provide the regulatory flexibility necessary for the energy transition.

The ASEAN Guiding Principles for Effective Social Forestry Legal Frameworks offer a regional baseline for Member States to design laws that empower local communities to manage forests. The guide emphasizes secure tenure, simplified allocation processes, and inclusive governance to improve livelihoods and support climate goals like carbon storage and biodiversity conservation. It details existing social forestry models across ASEAN countries and proposes ten principles covering tenure rights, market access, benefit sharing, and conflict resolution.

The document synthesises a Commission Report and an external study on the EU's implementation of the Aarhus Convention. It identifies significant barriers for environmental NGOs seeking to challenge EU acts, particularly the restriction of internal reviews to acts of 'individual scope'. The analysis concludes that non-legislative guidance is insufficient and that only legislative options—specifically amending the Aarhus Regulation and introducing an Access to Justice Directive—can effectively remedy these shortcomings and ensure compliance with the Convention.

The document provides a scientific and legal basis for the European Court of Human Rights to assess State due diligence regarding climate change. It emphasizes the urgency of limiting warming to 1.5°C to avoid irreversible damage and tipping points, noting that current global emissions trends are insufficient. It highlights severe health risks in Europe, including heat-related mortality, and argues that under the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC, States have a 'best efforts' obligation to pursue the highest possible ambition in emissions reductions. ClientEarth asserts that failure to meet international climate commitments constitutes a prima facie violation of human rights obligations, and that adaptation measures cannot substitute for necessary mitigation.

The document outlines a 'Rescue Plan for Europe' to address the failure of previous ocean safeguarding strategies. It proposes a detailed timeline of legislative and regulatory actions from 2020 to 2030, focusing on ending overfishing, eliminating pollution, and protecting biodiversity. The plan advocates for a transition to low-impact fishing, the establishment of highly protected marine areas, and a total ban on deep-sea mining and new offshore oil and gas exploration to ensure ocean resilience against climate change.

The document argues that the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is incompatible with EU law and climate goals, citing the CJEU ruling in Case C-741/19 (Republic of Moldova v Komstroy) which found ECT ISDS provisions inapplicable to intra-EU disputes. It highlights the risk that investment tribunals may ignore this ruling and notes that the ECT modernization process is unlikely to succeed due to the requirement for unanimity among contracting parties. The author points to lawsuits by RWE and Uniper against the Netherlands over coal phase-out decisions, seeking over 2.4 billion euros, as evidence that the ECT hinders climate action. Consequently, the document calls for a coordinated EU withdrawal from the ECT and the use of an 'inter se' agreement to eliminate obligations that persist after withdrawal.