Search Climate Insights Directory

ClientEarth supports the Hague's ban on fossil fuel advertising, asserting that EU internal market law allows such restrictions to achieve public interest goals, specifically climate change mitigation and the reduction of high-carbon consumption.

The document is a joint statement from over 360 organisations condemning the European Commission's 'Omnibus proposal' as a 'dangerous deregulation' effort. The signatories argue that the proposal undermines the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and the Taxonomy Regulation. They claim the proposal would reduce corporate accountability, limit access to justice for victims of human rights and environmental abuses, and diminish the quality of sustainability data by excluding a large number of companies from reporting obligations. The statement calls on EU leadership to block these changes and maintain the EU's commitment to becoming the first climate-neutral continent by 2050.

The document argues that current EU legislation, including the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), is insufficient to prevent PFAS pollution and cannot replace a REACH restriction. It highlights gaps in the IED's scope, a lack of specific emission limit values for most PFAS, and weak monitoring and reporting requirements. Furthermore, it finds that occupational health and waste management regulations fail to provide robust protection against PFAS risks. The briefing concludes that while emission controls are a necessary complement, only a REACH restriction can effectively cut pollution at the source.

The document analyzes the scope of 'relevant legislation' under the EUDR, arguing for a broad, teleological interpretation that includes any law with a significant link to halting deforestation, regardless of whether it regulates formal land interests or is limited strictly to the production phase.

ClientEarth and a coalition of civil society organizations argue that the European Commission's 'Omnibus Simplification Package' is being developed through an opaque, non-inclusive process that violates EU democratic principles and the Commission's own Better Regulation Guidelines. The authors contend that the Commission is facilitating 'regulatory capture' by prioritizing private meetings with industry actors over broad public consultation, potentially undermining the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). They demand a comprehensive impact assessment and a public consultation involving all relevant stakeholders before any legislative proposal is presented.

ClientEarth urges the European Commission to use the European Oceans Pact to move beyond 'paper parks' and policy silos. The organization calls for a systemic approach to enforcement of the Common Fisheries Policy and Habitats Directive, the creation of an EU Ocean Fund to replace the EMFAF, and the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies in the maritime sector. It advocates for legally binding targets to protect 30% of EU seas by 2030 and a ban on destructive activities like bottom trawling in all Marine Protected Areas.

ClientEarth argues that the 'recklessness standard' in English law already protects companies from liability for honest but incorrect forward-looking statements in transition plans. It contends that detailed transition planning reduces risks related to greenwashing, breach of duty, and human rights harms, and opposes the introduction of 'safe-harbours' which would undermine market integrity.

The document outlines a framework for EU Member States to accelerate renewable energy deployment through Renewables Acceleration Areas (RAAs) without compromising biodiversity or public participation. It emphasizes that RAAs must be designated in areas with no expected significant environmental impact, requiring robust Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) and Appropriate Assessments (AAs). The guide argues that the presumption of 'overriding public interest' for renewable projects is rebuttable and must not bypass strict environmental safeguards. It further details the necessity of meaningful public consultation and effective access to justice at both the planning and permitting stages to ensure legal certainty and environmental protection.

A joint letter from various NGOs urging the European Commission to ensure the EUDR benchmarking process is based on objective risk criteria rather than political factors or sanctions.

ClientEarth asserts that the EU-Mercosur trade deal contradicts the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) by allowing Mercosur countries to influence the implementation of EU law and by exposing EU Member States to trade disputes when enforcing deforestation rules. The analysis highlights specific articles in the agreement's Trade and Sustainable Development chapter that may force EU authorities to consider third-country information, potentially biasing objective assessments and country benchmarking processes. Furthermore, the agreement's broad definition of 'measure' and its 'rebalancing mechanism' could lead to legal disputes over EUDR compliance, creating political pressure that jeopardizes the EU's goal of protecting global forests.

An open letter from over 30 environmental civil society organisations to the European Commission defending the role and funding of EU LIFE operating grants. The authors assert that civil society engagement is a legal requirement under the EU Treaties and the Aarhus Convention, essential for a balanced democratic dialogue against resource-rich corporate actors. They highlight that LIFE operating grants for environmental NGOs represent only EUR 15.5 million per year (0.006% of the EU budget) but provide critical support for climate action, nature conservation, and the energy transition. The letter emphasizes that these grants are awarded through competitive processes and subject to strict accountability and transparency standards.

NGOs BLOOM, ClientEarth, Oceana, and Seas At Risk call on EU Commissioners to finalize the Energy Taxation Directive (ETD) revision to remove fuel tax exemptions and release a roadmap for the decarbonisation of the fisheries sector. The letter argues that current subsidies distort the market, favor industrial fleets over small-scale fishers, and contribute to the release of up to 1 gigaton of carbon via bottom trawling. The authors advocate for a just transition that prioritizes low-impact, artisanal fisheries to ensure energy security and the long-term viability of marine resources.

The report provides a detailed overview of the EU's REACH and CLP regulations and the Chemical Strategy for Sustainability, alongside China's evolving environmental law system and its management of new and existing chemical substances. It highlights gaps in the EU's data availability and the nascent state of China's environmental risk assessment system, ultimately recommending institutionalised annual exchanges and capacity-building activities under the EU-China Environmental Policy Dialogue to share technical expertise and policy lessons.

The document details the expansion of salmon aquaculture in Chile, highlighting the ecological damage caused by open-net cages and the violation of Indigenous rights, particularly for the Kawésqar people. It argues that the industry faces increasing financial, legal, and regulatory risks due to its environmental footprint and failure to conduct proper due diligence.

The report argues that the EU's REACH Authorisation regime, designed to phase out the most hazardous chemicals, is undermined by widespread non-compliance and a lack of deterrent enforcement. It highlights that 40% of inspected companies fail to meet their obligations, yet authorities frequently rely on 'written advice' rather than dissuasive sanctions. Through case studies in France, Germany, and Spain, the document exposes a lack of transparency, with authorities often withholding enforcement data by citing commercial interests. It concludes that the European Commission and ECHA lack sufficient oversight of national enforcement, and recommends a stricter accountability framework, more frequent reporting, and the creation of public registries of infringements to incentivize compliance.

The document provides a detailed analysis of the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), which aims to secure the EU's supply of 17 strategic raw materials by 2030. It highlights the risks of fast-tracked permitting for 'Strategic Projects', the potential for 'greenwashing' through private certification schemes, and the challenges facing Indigenous Peoples and local communities in exercising their rights to participation and consent. The guide also examines the interaction between the CRMA and existing EU environmental directives, such as the Habitats and Birds Directives, and outlines the limited access to justice available to stakeholders.

The document provides a comprehensive overview of Ghana's land law regime, detailing the six major registrable interests in land and various minor rights. It explains the fiduciary duties of those managing collectively owned lands, the mechanisms for benefit sharing and compensation during compulsory acquisition, and the statutory emphasis on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to reduce the burden on the judicial system. It also outlines the roles of the Lands Commission and Customary Land Secretariats in ensuring transparency and access to information.

ClientEarth asserts that the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement undermines the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) by allowing Mercosur countries to influence EU law enforcement and by creating a dispute settlement mechanism that could be used to challenge EUDR implementation. The organization warns that these concessions may force EU Member States to act inconsistently with their legal obligations to ensure deforestation-free imports.

The document advocates for the full implementation of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), arguing that they are essential for the European Green Deal and sustainable finance. It warns that arbitrary reductions in reporting obligations would create legal uncertainty and undermine the ability of investors to allocate capital to the green transition. The authors emphasize that the standards already include significant flexibility through materiality assessments and phase-in periods, and they propose improving usability through practical guidance, capacity building for Member States, and the development of sector-specific standards.

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. Nearly one quarter of assessed TACs for 2024 still exceed scientific advice, with particularly poor compliance for bycatch and data-limited stocks. The report highlights a lack of transparency in negotiations and calls for a genuine ecosystem-based approach to TAC-setting for 2025 and beyond.