Search Climate Insights Directory

A joint letter from environmental organisations to the European Commission calling for the integration of rebuilding targets, ecosystem-based approaches, and long-term biomass projections into the ICES scientific advice process for fisheries.

The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) requires that commodities and products be produced in accordance with the local laws of the country of production. This briefing argues that the 'legality requirement' must be interpreted broadly, encompassing all laws—including customary and human rights laws—that affect the legal status of the area of production and its surrounding environment. It emphasizes that due diligence cannot rely solely on official government records, especially in jurisdictions with high corruption or weak law enforcement, and must instead incorporate verification from local experts and civil society stakeholders.

ClientEarth argues that EU State aid policy currently lacks environmental mainstreaming, allowing for the approval of aid that supports environmentally harmful activities, such as fossil fuels. The briefing asserts that there are no fundamental legal obstacles to integrating environmental requirements and proposes three main pillars: systemic verification of compliance with EU environmental law, horizontal application of the "Do No Significant Harm" (DNSH) principle, and the inclusion of environmental risks when assessing the negative effects of aid on competition and trade.

ClientEarth's response to the CARACAL-54 presentation on the REACH revision emphasizes the need to modernize registration requirements, enhance transparency, and maintain the phase-out goal for substances of very high concern (SVHCs). The organization strongly opposes making the Analysis of Risk Management Options (RMOA) mandatory, claiming it would create regulatory bottlenecks and undermine the objective of phasing out hazardous chemicals. Key recommendations include introducing a mixture assessment factor (MAF) of at least 100, expanding the scope of registration to include polymers, and harmonizing sanctions across EU Member States to ensure effective enforcement.

ClientEarth's response to the CISAF consultation emphasizes the need for horizontal integration of the 'Do No Significant Harm' (DNSH) principle and the removal of aid for fossil gas in industrial decarbonisation. The organization warns that proposed 36-month project completion deadlines may compromise environmental permitting and public participation. It further advocates for stricter conditions on carbon capture and hydrogen aid, suggesting that support be limited to 100% renewable hydrogen and hard-to-abate sectors.

ClientEarth proposes a 'Simple Plan' centered on the rigorous application of existing EU laws to restore marine biodiversity and support a just transition for small-scale fishers. The document argues that revising the CFP Regulation is unnecessary and would cause delays, whereas full enforcement of current tools—such as Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and the Landing Obligation (LO)—could provide immediate environmental and economic benefits. Key recommendations include the creation of an EU Ocean Fund, increasing the use of infringement proceedings against Member States, and phasing out bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) by 2030.

The report analyzes the emergence of 'hydrogen readiness'—the declared ability of infrastructure to use hydrogen in the future—within EU law, private finance, and national policies. It argues that the concept is often used as a 'Trojan horse' to justify the continued construction and subsidization of fossil gas assets. The author identifies significant risks, including carbon lock-in, price volatility, and external energy dependencies, and concludes that the term should be abandoned unless assets can use 100% hydrogen from the outset.

The document examines the legal framework and compliance risks for soy and cattle in Brazil under the EUDR. It highlights systemic issues including land grabbing, illegal deforestation, and labour violations, while warning EU companies that official records and third-party certifications are often insufficient for due diligence.

The document analyzes the EUDR's legality requirement, arguing that it encompasses all laws affecting the legal status of production areas, including human rights and customary laws. It highlights systemic risks such as land grabbing, corruption, and weak enforcement in Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Indonesia, and recommends that EU companies move beyond official records to consult local experts and stakeholders to verify compliance.

The document examines the legal framework for cocoa production in Côte d’Ivoire to guide EU companies in conducting due diligence under the EUDR. It highlights a significant gap between formal laws and the informal reality of smallholder farming, where 90% of cocoa is produced. Key risks include the widespread production of cocoa in protected "classified" forests, the use of unregistered pesticides, and high levels of child labour. The report notes that while trade and export are well-regulated by the Conseil Café-Cacao, production-level compliance is difficult to verify due to a lack of centralized land-use maps and the informality of land tenure and labour contracts.

The document examines the legal framework governing cocoa production in Ghana to guide EU companies in conducting due diligence under the EUDR. It highlights a pluralist legal system where statutory law overlaps with unwritten customary law, particularly regarding land tenure. Key risks identified include the encroachment of cocoa farms into forest reserves, the use of unregistered pesticides, and the prevalence of child labour. The report notes that while the trade and export of cocoa are well-regulated by the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), production remains largely informal, making traceability to the farm of origin difficult. It recommends that companies consult local experts and stakeholders rather than relying solely on official records to verify legal compliance.

The document examines the application of the EU Deforestation Regulation's (EUDR) legality requirement to the Indonesian palm oil sector. It highlights a complex, decentralized legal framework where national laws are often poorly enforced at sub-national levels. Key systemic risks include widespread failure to obtain mandatory Indonesia Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) certification, pervasive corruption in permitting, illegal plantation establishment in forest zones, and significant violations of Indigenous land rights and labour standards. The report concludes that EU companies cannot rely solely on official documentation or third-party certificates for due diligence due to these systemic irregularities.

The document outlines the challenges of verifying legal compliance in global agricultural supply chains under the EUDR. It argues that official documentation and third-party certifications are often insufficient due to systemic corruption, land-grabbing, and informality. Through case studies of Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Indonesia, it highlights specific risks such as illegal deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado, child labour in cocoa production, and the widespread lack of mandatory ISPO certification in Indonesia's palm oil sector. It recommends that EU operators consult local experts and civil society to verify the 'reality on the ground'.

The European Ocean Pact is presented as a critical opportunity to address the over-exploitation of Europe's marine areas, where over 90% is impacted by human activity. ClientEarth argues that the Pact must prioritize the achievement of healthy, clean, and resilient marine ecosystems over economic activities. The document outlines three strategic priorities: enhancing compliance with existing regulations like the Common Fisheries Policy, establishing legally binding targets to ensure policy coherence, and facilitating a just transition for coastal communities via an EU Ocean Fund.

The document argues that the EU's landing obligation, intended to eliminate discarding and provide a robust picture of total catches, is undermined by poor compliance and a lack of comprehensive catch documentation. It highlights that numerous exemptions further complicate the monitoring of activities at sea and calls for improved reporting to ensure sustainable TAC-setting.

The report finds that while some progress has been made since 2015, the EU and UK failed to meet the 2020 deadline to end overfishing, with over 40% of assessed TACs for 2021 still exceeding scientific advice. It highlights a particular lack of consistency in following advice for data-limited stocks and notes a mixed record for the UK, which improved transparency by including NGOs in negotiations but continued to push for unsustainable bycatch TACs and inter-area flexibility in the West of Scotland.

The report finds that the EU failed to meet its 2020 deadline to end overfishing, with over half of the assessed TACs for 2019 still exceeding scientific advice. It highlights a particular lack of consistency in following advice for data-limited stocks and identifies several Member States that actively pushed for unsustainable catch limits, while noting that all involved states benefited from TACs exceeding scientific recommendations.

The document serves as a guide for EU decision-makers to understand the translation of legal wording in the Common Fisheries Policy into the concrete scientific catch figures provided by ICES when determining Total Allowable Catches.

The document clarifies that under the EU's Common Fisheries Policy, a lack of data cannot justify inaction in conserving fish stocks. It aims to prevent the misuse of the term 'precautionary' by distinguishing between the general legal approach and specific ICES precautionary reference points used in scientific catch advice.

The document asserts that TACs are frequently set at or above scientifically advised levels, failing to account for ecosystem needs or uncertainty. It argues that ICES advice should be treated as a maximum limit rather than a target, and that TACs should often be set below this level to meet the EU's maximum sustainable yield, precautionary, and ecosystem-based management requirements.