Search Climate Insights Directory

The document is an annex listing fish species and specific TAC codes excluded from a core analysis of MSY achievement. It details the reasons for exclusion, such as area mismatches between TACs and scientific advice, unavailable advice, or changes in TAC units.

The report finds that while the EU and UK have made progress in aligning TACs with scientific advice since 2015, they missed the 2020 legal deadline to end overfishing. In 2024, nearly 24% of analyzed TACs still exceeded scientific advice. The analysis reveals a systemic lack of ambition for data-limited stocks subject to precautionary advice and for bycatch stocks, which are more frequently overfished than target stocks. The report also highlights significant transparency failures in the TAC-setting process and calls for an ecosystem-based approach that sets limits well below single-stock advice to ensure stock recovery and resilience against climate change.

The document expresses concern over the proposed separation of the ocean portfolio from the environment portfolio in the new European Commission. The signatories argue that placing the Commissioner-designate for Fisheries and Oceans under the Vice-President for Cohesion and Reforms breaks critical links between ocean health, energy, and climate. They advocate for the Ocean Commissioner to instead be guided by the Executive Vice President for Clean, Just, and Competitive Transition to support the success of a proposed European Oceans Pact.

A coalition of civil society organisations calls on EU authorities to reject a proposed twelve-month delay to the EU deforestation-free products regulation (EUDR), arguing that such a postponement undermines the European Green Deal and rewards companies profiting from environmental destruction.

A joint open letter from civil society organizations criticizes the Draghi report for neglecting the societal and environmental costs of the chemicals industry, misrepresenting EU regulatory processes like REACH, and overlooking the availability of safer alternatives to PFAS.

The document analyzes how 'plastic recycling claims'—including circular loop symbols and statements like '100% recyclable'—misrepresent the limited efficacy of plastic recycling. It highlights that 91% of global plastic waste was not recycled in 2019 and that soft plastics are particularly difficult to recycle, often ending up as fuel or incinerated. The briefing concludes that such claims deceive the 'average consumer' and undermine the waste hierarchy, urging regulators like the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to require evidence based on 'real world conditions' to substantiate these claims.

ClientEarth's response to CP24/12 advocates for mandatory climate disclosures aligned with TCFD and ISSB standards, specifically calling for an 'atmospheric viability test' for mineral companies to prevent stranded asset risk. The organization argues against voluntary sustainability-labelled debt disclosures, urging for contractually binding commitments to prevent greenwashing, and cautions against reducing issuer liability for forward-looking climate statements.

ClientEarth advocates for a shift from siloed environmental policies to comprehensive, legally binding frameworks that integrate biodiversity into all sectors of governance. The briefing emphasizes the need for human rights-based approaches, particularly for Indigenous Peoples, and highlights the importance of accountability mechanisms and the role of strategic litigation and regulation, such as the EU's Nature Restoration Law and Deforestation-free Products Regulation, in achieving global biodiversity targets.

A coalition of over 300 civil society and animal welfare organisations opposes the European Commission's proposal to downgrade the protection status of wolves in the EU. The signatories argue that there is no scientific basis for such a change, as wolf populations remain vulnerable in many regions and culling is not proven to reduce livestock depredation. They call for the maintenance of strict protections under the Bern Convention and the Habitats Directive, while advocating for increased investment in non-lethal prevention measures, improved compensation schemes, and science-based public awareness campaigns.

The document argues that the EU has failed its legal deadline to end overfishing by 2020 and calls for 2025 Total Allowable Catches (TACs) to be set well below scientific advice to build ecosystem resilience against climate change. It specifically recommends stricter management for the Western Mediterranean, depleted stocks with zero-catch advice, and deep-sea species, while urging the full implementation of the Landing Obligation through remote electronic monitoring.

A group of NGOs is calling on the EU and UK to adopt precautionary, ecosystem-based fishing limits for 2025. They argue that current practices often exceed scientific advice, undermining biodiversity and climate resilience. The letter demands catch limits well below single-stock advice, full implementation of the western Mediterranean multiannual plan, and increased transparency in negotiations.

A coalition of environmental organisations calls on the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to adopt precautionary, ecosystem-based catch limits for 2025. The authors argue that current scientific advice often fails to account for ecosystem integrity and that setting limits at or above this advice undermines marine biodiversity and climate resilience. They specifically recommend setting limits below International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) advice for forage fish and abundant stocks in mixed fisheries, eliminating bycatch, and increasing transparency in negotiations with the EU.

The document is a letter to the Hungarian Minister of Agriculture calling for a precautionary, ecosystem-based approach to setting 2025 fishing limits. The NGOs argue that the EU has failed its legal obligation to end overfishing by 2020 and that current scientific advice does not fully account for ecosystem integrity. They demand catch limits below ICES and STECF advice, full implementation of the western Mediterranean multiannual plan, the elimination of bycatch and discards, and increased transparency in decision-making to ensure long-term ocean health and climate mitigation capacity.

The document argues that the UK has consistently set Total Allowable Catches (TACs) above scientific advice, failing to meet its own legal commitments under the Fisheries Act 2020 and international agreements. It recommends setting 2025 catch limits well below the maximum levels advised by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to create a 'climate buffer' and prioritize rapid stock recovery. Key proposals include implementing Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) to combat illegal discarding, adopting an ecosystem-based approach that accounts for predator needs (especially for forage fish), and reinstating TACs for stocks where they were removed. The authors emphasize the need for a precautionary approach to deep-sea species and the urgent recovery of severely depleted stocks, such as Celtic Sea and Irish Sea cod, which are currently below biomass limit reference points.

The report analyzes eight nature-based solutions (NbS) case studies across the EU and China, focusing on land, water, urban, and financing ecosystems. It evaluates these projects against the UNEA-5 definition and IUCN Global Standard, highlighting successes in large-scale landscape restoration and the role of research programs like Horizon 2020. Key findings emphasize that while NbS are increasingly mainstreamed, challenges remain in inclusive governance and private sector financing. The document recommends enhanced bilateral lesson-sharing, the development of a global costs-benefits database, and the use of standardized assessment tools to prevent greenwashing.

The report analyzes the CS3D, highlighting gaps in its scope of companies, value chain coverage, and the definition of environmental impacts compared to international standards like the OECD Guidelines and the CSRD. It argues that the current framework is too narrow, particularly regarding downstream activities and the financial sector. The authors provide 20 specific recommendations for Member States to strengthen the directive during transposition, focusing on expanding the scope of impacts, enhancing the effectiveness of climate transition plans, empowering supervisory authorities with proactive investigative powers, and broadening civil liability to better protect victims and the environment.

The Blue Manifesto argues that EU seas are at a tipping point due to over-exploitation and climate change, proposing an 'Ocean Deal' framework, a dedicated 'Ocean Fund', and the appointment of an Ocean Commissioner to ensure policy coherence. The document outlines a detailed timeline of sectoral policy asks through 2029, including bans on bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas, the phase-out of offshore oil and gas exploration, and the elimination of environmentally harmful subsidies by 2027.

ClientEarth argues that the EMFAF and its predecessor (EMFF) have failed to meet their objectives, with significant funding still supporting capacity-enhancing and biodiversity-harming subsidies. The organization calls for a categorical prohibition of harmful subsidies by 2027, increased funding for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) to meet EU nature restoration targets, and a shift in financial priority toward small-scale and low-impact fishers (SSF), who currently receive a disproportionately small share of funding compared to industrial fleets.

ClientEarth asserts that the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is a sound framework but suffers from systemic failures in implementation and enforcement. The organization argues that the EU has missed the 2020 deadline to end overfishing in all European sea basins and calls for the strict application of maximum sustainable yield (MSY), the landing obligation, and the integration of environmental legislation. Key recommendations include the deployment of remote electronic monitoring (REM) to combat illegal discards, the use of transparent social and environmental criteria for quota allocation, and the redirection of the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) away from harmful subsidies toward small-scale, low-impact fisheries.

The document argues that the EU is currently in breach of the Aarhus Convention because the public and environmental NGOs lack a viable legal mechanism to challenge state aid decisions that violate environmental law. It explains that current CJEU admissibility standards effectively exclude NGOs, and that national court actions are insufficient substitutes. The briefing addresses business concerns, stating that a new review procedure would not be suspensive (meaning aid can still be granted and spent during litigation) and would not compromise confidential business information. It evaluates three options proposed by the Commission to grant access to justice, favoring the amendment of the EU Aarhus Regulation as the most legally certain and democratic solution.