Search Climate Insights Directory

The document advocates for the transition from paper-based to electronic catch certificates within the EU's fisheries control system to reduce fraud and improve traceability. It supports the European Commission's proposal to implement a mandated EU-wide database system called CATCH to harmonise controls across Member States.

The joint NGO response argues that EU fisheries management fails to fully implement the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), leading to missed deadlines for ending overfishing. The authors contend that Total Allowable Catches (TACs) are routinely set above scientific advice, particularly for depleted stocks caught as bycatch, which creates a cycle of overexploitation and 'choke' situations. They recommend setting fishing opportunities well below the 'headline' scientific advice from ICES to account for ecosystem dynamics and uncertainties. Key demands include the full implementation of the Landing Obligation, the roll-out of Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM), and the rejection of any revisions to the Western Mediterranean multiannual plan (MAP) that would weaken its objectives.

The document argues that the post-2020 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), which allocates over 6 billion euros for 2021-2027, must not include harmful subsidies. The authors highlight that 69% of European fish stocks are overfished and that re-introducing subsidies for new fishing vessels—which were banned since 2004—would increase fishing effort and contradict the EU's international commitments under Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14.6 and World Trade Organization negotiations.

The document argues that the European Union is risking its international credibility by potentially reintroducing harmful fisheries subsidies through the 2021-2027 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The authors highlight that 69% of European fish stocks are currently subject to overfishing and that the former European Parliament's position included subsidies for new fishing vessel construction, which would increase fishing effort. They call on the new European Parliament to amend this position to align with WTO multilateral prohibitions on subsidies that encourage overcapacity and the UN Sustainable Development Goal 14.6.

A coalition of NGOs, including ClientEarth and WWF, calls for the removal of EU fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, specifically those for vessel construction, engine modernization, and short-term cessation payments. The letter argues that the EMFF should instead prioritize scientific data collection, marine nature protection, and support for small-scale low-impact fisheries to align with SDG 14.6 and WTO negotiations.

A coalition of NGOs argues that reintroducing subsidies for fleet renewal and vessel modernisation would increase overcapacity and overfishing, contradicting the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and international commitments like UN SDG 14. The authors contend that capacity ceilings based on tonnage and power are inadequate measures of fishing ability and that engine modernisation is difficult to control due to under-declaration of power. They propose redirecting funds toward crew safety training, research into selective fishing gear, and stock recovery, noting that the majority of small-scale fishers benefit more from recovered stocks than from vessel subsidies.

The document argues that EU fisheries ministers must adhere to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to end overfishing. It provides specific TAC recommendations for cod, herring, sprat, plaice, and salmon, emphasizing a precautionary, ecosystem-based approach to protect biodiversity and restore marine foodweb functionality in the Baltic Sea.

The document argues that current fisheries management in the Baltic Sea has failed to meet EU legal requirements, such as achieving Good Environmental Status by 2020, and calls for a more precautionary, ecosystem-based approach to Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for 2025. It recommends setting catch limits well below ICES headline advice to allow for rapid stock recovery, particularly for collapsed cod populations and declining herring and sprat stocks. The NGOs advocate for the implementation of robust rebuilding plans, the use of Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) to combat widespread misreporting and non-compliance with the Landing Obligation, and the prioritization of low-impact coastal fisheries in quota allocations.

A group of NGOs argues that the European Commission's proposal to amend the Aarhus Regulation fails to meet international law standards for access to justice. The statement highlights that the current internal review mechanism is ineffective, with most NGO requests rejected as inadmissible. The signatories demand amendments to include 'implementing measures', State aid decisions, and cost protections for NGOs to ensure the delivery of the European Green Deal and compliance with the Aarhus Convention.

Five environmental NGOs express concern that the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) for 2021-2027, which allocates over 6 billion euros, may reintroduce harmful subsidies for fishing vessel construction. They argue this would increase overcapacity and overfishing while undermining EU credibility in World Trade Organisation negotiations to ban such subsidies under UN Sustainable Development Goal 14.6.

The document outlines specific recommendations for European Parliament members regarding the post-2020 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The NGOs advocate for ring-fencing 25% of the budget for marine biodiversity and ecosystem restoration, increasing monitoring and control funding from 15% to 25%, and eliminating subsidies for new fishing vessels, ports, and engine replacements. They further call for maintaining strict conditions on funds for the cessation of fishing activities to prevent the artificial maintenance of excessive fishing capacity and demand that aquaculture funding be directed toward activities with proven public and environmental benefits.

The document argues that ISDS creates a 'regulatory chill' that discourages states from implementing climate policies due to the risk of expensive arbitration and compensation for 'stranded assets' in the fossil fuel sector. It suggests two main paths for reform: either terminating investment treaties and moving toward domestic courts and state-state dispute settlement, or adopting a 'legal tool-box' of procedural changes. These changes include a 'climate carve-out' to dismiss claims against good-faith climate measures, requiring the exhaustion of local remedies, allowing state counterclaims, banning third-party funding, and adjusting compensation calculations to account for public interest and climate impacts.

The report finds that climate risk is increasingly viewed as a material financial risk rather than a niche ethical concern, driving asset owners to improve governance and risk management. While 67% of the sampled asset owners have divestment policies and many are adopting TCFD-aligned reporting, there is a significant gap between public and private sector disclosure. Most asset owners focus on long-term risks and equity portfolios, with limited progress in quantifying risks or performing scenario analysis across all asset classes.

The briefing calls for a fundamental redesign of the next EU Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to stop funding destructive fishing practices and instead prioritize marine biodiversity and small-scale coastal communities. It proposes specific spending targets, including a 50% climate and environment target and a 10% biodiversity target, and advocates for the full integration of the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies into EU law to prohibit harmful subsidies.

The Hague District Court ordered Royal Dutch Shell to reduce its net carbon dioxide emissions by 45% by 2030 to align with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. This landmark ruling extends corporate responsibility to include Scope 3 emissions across the entire global value chain and grounds corporate duty of care in climate science and human rights standards. The briefing warns that companies relying on vague or non-binding climate strategies face significant litigation, stranded asset, and personal liability risks for directors.

The Minerals and Mining Policy of Ghana outlines a strategic framework to balance mineral exploitation with sustainable economic, social, and environmental development. It details the transition from state-controlled mining (1957-1983) to a privatized sector, emphasizing the need to diversify the mineral base beyond gold, diamonds, manganese, and bauxite. The policy sets objectives to enhance local value addition, improve geo-scientific data, and support artisanal and small-scale mining, which is reserved for Ghanaian citizens. It establishes regulatory roles for agencies like the Minerals Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency, while committing to international climate goals, including the UNFCCC. Fiscal policies aim for a transparent regime that balances investor attraction with the optimization of government revenue, while social policies focus on community participation, sustainable livelihoods for displaced persons, and the prevention of child labour.

The document identifies significant gaps in the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), noting that overfishing persists due to catch limits exceeding scientific advice and weak compliance with the landing obligation. It highlights the under-utilization of the European Maritime Fisheries Fund (EMFF) for monitoring and selective fishing, and warns against the reintroduction of harmful subsidies. The authors urge EU decision-makers to align conservation measures with environmental directives and adopt robust monitoring to protect marine ecosystems and fish populations.

A coalition of European civil society organisations (CSOs) is protesting a campaign of disinformation led by some Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from the European People’s Party (EPP) and far-right groups. The attack specifically targets the legitimacy of public funding for environmental NGOs under the LIFE programme. The statement argues that independent CSOs are essential for a functioning democracy and a fully informed decision-making process, contrasting the modest public grants received by NGOs with the high spending of corporate lobbyists in Brussels.

A coalition of NGOs, including ClientEarth and WWF, argues that the European Commission's current approach to revising the EU fisheries control system violates 'Better Regulation Guidelines' by omitting a mandatory 12-week online public consultation. The NGOs contend that previous consultations from 2015/2016 are insufficient and that the current timeline fails to incorporate critical pending data on small-scale fisheries monitoring and engine power verification.

The document outlines specific recommendations for the European Parliament's Environment Committee to reform the post-2020 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The NGOs advocate for the elimination of subsidies that increase fishing capacity, the ring-fencing of 30% of the budget for marine biodiversity and ecosystem protection, and the increase of monitoring and control funding from 15% to 30%. They further call for financial support to be conditional on compliance with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and EU environmental law, while urging the removal of funding for temporary cessation of fishing activities.