OpenLobby.EU
Explore

ClientEarth AISBL

ClientEarth is a non-profit environmental organization that uses legal tools to address environmental issues.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Ana Vasconcelos (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur for opinion) and Transport and Environment (European Federation for Transport and Environment) and

26 Jan 2026 · Performance Regulation

Meeting with Vita Jukne (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall) and WWF European Policy Programme

13 Jan 2026 · Permitting aspects of the Environment Omnibus and Grids Package

Meeting with Vita Jukne (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall) and FUNDACION OCEANA and Seas At Risk

8 Dec 2025 · Implementation of marine/nature laws; MSFD revision and the upcoming European Ocean Act

Meeting with Philippe Mengal (Principal Adviser Regulatory Scrutiny Board), Rytis Martikonis (Chair of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board Regulatory Scrutiny Board) and European Environmental Bureau

8 Dec 2025 · Exchange of views on the simplification agenda of the European Commission and the role of the RSB

Meeting with Per Clausen (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

3 Dec 2025 · Discussing the ECHA revision

Meeting with Dorota Denning (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis), Michael Hager (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis) and

2 Dec 2025 · Roundtable on Food and Feed Safety Omnibus

Meeting with Pascal Canfin (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and WWF European Policy Programme and Frank Bold Society

1 Dec 2025 · Omnibus I

Meeting with Rasmus Nordqvist (Member of the European Parliament)

1 Dec 2025 · Chemicals in ESPR

ClientEarth Urges Stronger Independence Rules for EU Chemicals Agency

27 Nov 2025
Topic — EU regulation modernizing governance and financing of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).
Message — The organization requests clarifying ECHA's mandate to protect sensitive populations, aligning conflict-of-interest rules with EFSA standards, and maintaining transparency provisions from REACH. They emphasize the most protective scientific opinion should prevail when agencies disagree.1234
Why — This would strengthen environmental protections and ensure chemical safety decisions prioritize public health.56
Impact — Chemical industry loses flexibility when agencies adopt the most protective scientific opinions on harmful substances.7
Read full response

Meeting with Christophe Clergeau (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and European Environmental Bureau and Eurogroup for Animals

20 Nov 2025 · ENVI - ECHA

Meeting with Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Transport and Environment (European Federation for Transport and Environment) and

3 Nov 2025 · Sustainability omnibus - update for civil society

Meeting with Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and WWF European Policy Programme and

28 Oct 2025 · Sustainability omnibus and climate transition plans

Meeting with Vita Jukne (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall)

21 Oct 2025 · To discuss permitting and biodiversity topics in the context of the upcoming environmental omnibus

Meeting with Daniel Freund (Member of the European Parliament) and Transparency International Liaison Office to the European Union and LobbyControl

15 Oct 2025 · Speaker at Cross-Party Event on "Transparency of the EU Legislative process"

ClientEarth warns against weakening EU pesticide safeguards in food safety omnibus

14 Oct 2025
Topic — EU simplification of food and feed safety regulations including pesticide authorisation procedures.
Message — ClientEarth argues that pesticide safeguards are constitutional obligations under EU treaties requiring high environmental and health protection. They oppose regulatory simplification that could weaken these protections, instead calling for better implementation and enforcement of existing rules.12
Why — This would prevent erosion of environmental protections that ClientEarth works to defend through litigation and advocacy.34
Impact — Workers, consumers, wildlife and ecosystems lose protections from pesticide harm.5
Read full response

Meeting with Costas Kadis (Commissioner) and

14 Oct 2025 · General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

Meeting with Paul Speight (Head of Unit Environment) and European Environmental Bureau

9 Oct 2025 · REACH restriction roadmap and update on on-going restrictions

Meeting with Delara Burkhardt (Member of the European Parliament) and WWF European Policy Programme and

6 Oct 2025 · deforestation

Meeting with Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Transport and Environment (European Federation for Transport and Environment) and

2 Oct 2025 · Sustainability omnibus - update for civil society

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament)

1 Oct 2025 · Speaker: Hands off nature bus-tour

Meeting with Terry Reintke (Member of the European Parliament) and European Environmental Bureau and

30 Sept 2025 · Climate and Environmental Policies

ClientEarth urges strict safeguards for EU nature credits market

29 Sept 2025
Topic — EU Commission's proposed framework for certifying and marketing nature restoration activities.
Message — ClientEarth requests that the EU prioritize scaling up public biodiversity funding, redirect harmful subsidies, and exclude offsetting from any nature credits market. They argue credits must be outcome-based and issued only after concrete biodiversity results are delivered, not for business-as-usual practices.123
Why — This would ensure credits genuinely close the biodiversity financing gap rather than rewarding existing practices.45
Impact — Businesses seeking credits for compliance activities or existing management practices would lose eligibility.6
Read full response

Meeting with Pascal Canfin (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

10 Sept 2025 · Omnibus I

ClientEarth calls for EU protection against abusive corporate lawsuits

5 Sept 2025
Topic — The EU is developing a strategy to strengthen civil society engagement and protect democratic space.
Message — ClientEarth calls for a binding framework for civil dialogue and structural protections against abusive lawsuits. They demand simplified funding and more equitable access to decision-makers to counter corporate influence.12
Why — Simplified funding and legal protections would lower administrative burdens and reduce risks from lawsuits.34
Impact — Privileged corporate interests would lose their current disproportionate influence over European Union policy-making negotiations.56
Read full response

Meeting with Pascal Canfin (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Schneider Electric

4 Sept 2025 · Omnibus I

Meeting with Philippe Lamberts (Principal Adviser Inspire, Debate, Engage and Accelerate Action)

3 Sept 2025 · Ongoing simplification drive and the risks of it degrading into deregulation and loss of ambition of the CID

Meeting with Ana Vasconcelos (Member of the European Parliament)

17 Jul 2025 · European Ocean Pact

Meeting with Taru Haapaniemi (Cabinet of Commissioner Christophe Hansen) and WWF European Policy Programme and

17 Jul 2025 · EUDR and its implementation

Meeting with Eva Maria Carballeira Fernandez (Head of Unit Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and Stichting BirdLife Europe and

15 Jul 2025 · Recommendations on how to address shortcomings in the ICES advice and requests

Meeting with Costas Kadis (Commissioner) and Greenpeace European Unit and

10 Jul 2025 · Review of the Common Fisheries Policy, Oceans Pact, and future situation of the fishing activity and marine environment

Meeting with Tiemo Wölken (Member of the European Parliament)

3 Jul 2025 · Chemical Policy

Meeting with Jessika Roswall (Commissioner) and

1 Jul 2025 · Circular and toxic-free plastic

Meeting with Bruno Tobback (Member of the European Parliament) and European Environmental Bureau

26 Jun 2025 · Training on REACH Regulation Basics

ClientEarth: Bioeconomy Strategy Must Prioritize Planetary Boundaries Over Growth

23 Jun 2025
Topic — This consultation seeks views on revising the EU strategy for a circular bioeconomy.
Message — The EU must leverage sufficiency approaches to limit resource use on an absolute basis. It should strictly enforce the cascading principle to prioritize reusing materials over burning them. All measures should be subject to a climate consistency assessment under European climate law.12
Why — This approach ensures that climate action and biodiversity protection are not relegated to secondary issues.3
Impact — Energy producers would lose income as the strategy should work towards ending biomass subsidies.4
Read full response

Meeting with Nicolo Brignoli (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis) and Human Rights Watch and

18 Jun 2025 · Omnibus

Meeting with Ana Miranda Paz (Member of the European Parliament) and European Environmental Bureau and Friends of the Earth Europe

11 Jun 2025 · Meeting

Meeting with Francois Wakenhut (Head of Unit Environment) and European Environmental Bureau and Health & Environment Alliance

6 Jun 2025 · Exchange on the implementation of Directive (EU) 2024/2881 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (recast)

Meeting with Patrick Child (Deputy Director-General Environment) and

3 Jun 2025 · Exchange of views on LIFE

Meeting with Vita Jukne (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall)

3 Jun 2025 · Follow-up to implementation dialogue on environmental permitting

Meeting with Luis Planas Herrera (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall) and WWF European Policy Programme and

27 May 2025 · EUDR

Meeting with Eoin Mac Aoidh (Acting Head of Unit Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and FUNDACION OCEANA and Seas At Risk

22 May 2025 · Exchange of views on the Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation and vade mecum on allocation of fishing opportunities by Member States

Meeting with Axel Hellman (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall), Pernille Weiss-Ehler (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall) and

20 May 2025 · Ocean Pact and Water Resilience

Meeting with Axel Hellman (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall), Pernille Weiss-Ehler (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall) and

20 May 2025 · Exchange of views on the upcoming Ocean Pact and Water Resilience Strategy

Meeting with Gabriela Tschirkova (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis) and European Environmental Bureau

15 May 2025 · Simplification

ClientEarth urges clearer definitions in EU deforestation law

13 May 2025
Topic — Updating the list of products covered by the EU Deforestation Regulation.
Message — ClientEarth requests the Commission to clarify the scope of exceptions for second-hand or used products by referring to existing law. They also suggest a recital stating that technical changes do not narrow the regulation's scope.12
Why — This prevents legal loopholes that could weaken the regulation's environmental impact.3
Impact — Operators seeking to bypass rules through vague definitions would lose flexibility.4
Read full response

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur for opinion) and Frank Bold Society

12 May 2025 · Omnibus I

Meeting with Ilaria Flores Martin (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall) and Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. and

8 May 2025 · Bottom trawling in Natura 2000 sites

Meeting with Sirpa Pietikäinen (Member of the European Parliament) and European Environmental Bureau and

6 May 2025 · Protection status of the wolf

Meeting with Hubert Gambs (Deputy Director-General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs) and

11 Apr 2025 · Exchange of views on the REACH revision

Meeting with Christophe Clergeau (Member of the European Parliament)

8 Apr 2025 · SEARICA

Meeting with Veronica Manfredi (Director Environment) and European Environmental Bureau

1 Apr 2025 · EEB and Client Earth requested a meeting to discuss work on the preparation of the chemicals industry package including the work on PFAS.

ClientEarth warns EU against weakening green finance reporting rules

26 Mar 2025
Topic — The Commission is amending EU Taxonomy rules to simplify corporate sustainability reporting requirements.
Message — ClientEarth opposes the 10% materiality threshold and narrowing the reporting scope for companies. They urge the Commission to require disclosure of all mandatory indicators to prevent greenwashing.123
Why — Strict rules preserve the scientific credibility of the environmental laws the NGO monitors.45
Impact — Large companies would lose the ability to hide harmful activities behind high thresholds.6
Read full response

Meeting with Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Member of the European Parliament) and Frank Bold Society

24 Mar 2025 · Omnibus

Meeting with Christophe Clergeau (Member of the European Parliament)

18 Mar 2025 · ENVI

Meeting with Vilija Sysaite (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné)

5 Mar 2025 · Chemicals Package

Meeting with Alice Kuhnke (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and European Environmental Bureau and

5 Mar 2025 · Green Claims

ClientEarth urges EU to prioritize river recovery for resilience

4 Mar 2025
Topic — The European Water Resilience Strategy aims to manage water sources and address scarcity.
Message — ClientEarth demands the effective implementation of the Water Framework Directive without further delays. They argue rivers must regain functionality through ecological flows and better demand management instead of new infrastructure.12
Why — Stricter enforcement empowers the NGO to hold authorities accountable for protecting vital ecosystems.3
Impact — The irrigation and hydropower industries lose unrestricted access to water resources and infrastructure.45
Read full response

Meeting with Paul Speight (Head of Unit Environment) and European Environmental Bureau and

14 Feb 2025 · EU chemicals regulations / REACH revision

Meeting with Delara Burkhardt (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and European Environmental Bureau and

13 Feb 2025 · Green Claims

Meeting with Vita Jukne (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall) and Human Rights Watch and

29 Jan 2025 · Upcoming Omnibus proposal

Meeting with Arthur Corbin (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné), Vilija Sysaite (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné)

28 Jan 2025 · Sustainable corporate Reporting

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament)

27 Jan 2025 · Due diligence

Meeting with Paul Speight (Head of Unit Environment) and European Environmental Bureau and

16 Jan 2025 · Restrictions under REACH

Meeting with Alice Kuhnke (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and European Environmental Bureau and Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs

17 Dec 2024 · Green Claims

Meeting with Danuše Nerudová (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

10 Dec 2024 · discussions on Green Claims Directive

Meeting with Pascal Canfin (Member of the European Parliament) and CEMBUREAU - The European Cement Association

29 Oct 2024 · Clean Industrial Deal

Meeting with César Luena (Member of the European Parliament)

16 Oct 2024 · Deforestation regulation

Meeting with Michal Wiezik (Member of the European Parliament) and WWF European Policy Programme and

15 Oct 2024 · Ocean Pact

Meeting with Javi López (Member of the European Parliament) and European Environmental Bureau

15 Oct 2024 · Air Quality

Meeting with Dimitris Tsiodras (Member of the European Parliament) and European Environmental Bureau and CEMBUREAU - The European Cement Association

2 Oct 2024 · Environmental policies

Meeting with Emma Wiesner (Member of the European Parliament) and FUNDACION OCEANA and Seas At Risk

1 Oct 2024 · Lansering av rapport & panelsamtal

Meeting with Lynn Boylan (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

26 Sept 2024 · Green Claims, Plastics and Recycling Targets, Zero-Waste initiatives

Meeting with Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus (Member of the European Parliament)

25 Sept 2024 · Influence of plastic waste and the plastic industry on human rights and the situation of women and children

Meeting with Christophe Clergeau (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

17 Sept 2024 · One Substance One Assessment

Meeting with Thomas Bajada (Member of the European Parliament) and WWF European Policy Programme and

11 Sept 2024 · Introductory Meeting with Blue NGOs

Response to Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy

6 Sept 2024

ClientEarth welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to the Commissions call for evidence for an evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The CFP, governed by Regulation (EU) 1380/2013 ('CFP Regulation'), is vital to preserving the long-term sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture, to contributing to the protection of the marine environment and the availability of food supplies, and to providing a fair standard of living for fisheries and aquaculture communities. According to ClientEarths assessment, the CFP Regulation can be if well implemented effective in meeting its objectives; efficient and proportionate in terms of cost-benefit; relevant to addressing the current and emerging needs; coherent with other EU actions; and can add value beyond what would have been achieved by EU Member States alone. However, there is great untapped potential to achieve the CFPs objectives which would be released by fully implementing and enforcing its provisions as well as other EU environmental legislation in order to protect fishers, coastal communities and the environment. Instead of revising the CFP, the implementation, control and enforcement of the existing instruments of the CFP and its related laws and policies will be key to delivering the EUs transition to sustainable fisheries. By way of example, we reiterate the urgent need to implement and enforce the CFP rules regarding maximum sustainable yield, the landing obligation, compliance with environmental law, and quota allocation, as well as the urgent need to stop environmentally harmful subsidies and redirect taxpayers money towards positive actions for sustainable fisheries all in a transparent manner. Please refer to our Annex for the full response to this call for evidence.
Read full response

Response to Mid-term evaluation of the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) 2021-2027

6 Sept 2024

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our feedback on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 2014-2020 (EMFF) and its successor the European Maritime, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Fund 2021-2027 (EMFAF). In line with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), we believe that these funds must be more effectively aligned with sustainable fishing practices and the protection of marine ecosystems. Our reply outlines four main recommendations. Please refer to our Annex for the details: 1. Stop Environmentally Harmful Subsidies: Overfishing, bycatch, and habitat degradation are severely impacting marine biodiversity, with 40% of fish and shellfish populations in European seas in poor condition or being fished unsustainably. Although the EMFF and EMFAF are intended to minimize harmful fishing impacts, a significant portion of these funds has paradoxically increased fishing capacity, contradicting the CFP's goals. We urge the Commission to enforce a strict prohibition on environmentally harmful subsidies by 2027 and ensure that funds are redirected towards biodiversity restoration and sustainable fisheries management. 2. Increase Funding for Nature Protection and Restoration: International commitments call for the conservation and management of at least 30% of marine areas by 2030. The EUs Nature Restoration Law mandates that Member States restore at least 20% of land and sea areas by 2030, including 30% of damaged habitats. However, the EMFAF represents only a small share of the EU budget and lacks specific allocation for nature protection and restoration. It is essential to prioritize funding for Marine Protected Areas and fish stock recovery, alongside the establishment of highly protected areas and the restoration of overexploited stocks. 3. Targeted Funding for Small-Scale and Low-Impact Fishing practices: Small-scale fishers, who represent 75% of the EU fleet, currently receive limited EU funds. Only 20% of EMFF funds were allocated to them, while 80% went to industrial fleets, which often engage in environmentally harmful practices. Larger fleets, particularly bottom trawls and seines, benefit the most from subsidies despite their higher CO2 emissions, overcapacity, and contribution to stock depletion. Small-scale and low-impact fishers should receive increased funding under the EMFAF, with industrial fleets access to funds limited to projects that enhance fishing control measures, improve safety, increase gear selectivity, and adopt low-impact practices. 4. Improve Access for Small-Scale and Low-Impact Fishers (SSF): SSF often face barriers in accessing funding due to complex application processes, unclear options, and inadequate representation. Creating national contact points and providing local administrative support would help SSF navigate the funding process. Direct support for establishing SSF Fish Producer Organizations is essential, enabling them to secure fishing opportunities. Investments should also be encouraged in low-impact fishing gears, digital tools for resource management, and renewable energy for vessels to reduce the sectors carbon emissions. We believe that by eliminating harmful subsidies, prioritising nature protection and supporting small-scale and low-impact fishing practices, the EMFAF can better support the objectives of the CFP and the EU's sustainable development goals.
Read full response

Response to Update of State aid procedural rules, considering the EU’s international commitments, recent practice and case law

21 Jun 2024

ClientEarth welcomes this Call for evidence and is committed to support the Commission in designing a new procedure that is meaningful, balanced and pragmatic. Our general position is well-known and we refer to our previous submissions notably on time-limits (the 8 and 22 weeks in the Aarhus Regulation are adequate in practice, with the Commission often replying within 22 weeks) and context (neither the CJEU nor the ACCC found that any specificity of State aid rules set in the Treaties prevented them from finding that decisions must comply with environmental law and be reviewable). On the scope, the CJEU case law (C-594/18P) is clear that any type of state aid decision may breach environmental law, not only those adopted under 108(2) TFEU. Therefore, only a broad scope of reviewable state aid decisions would ensure full compliance with the Aarhus Convention. We also believe that the Study conducted by Milieu in 2019 (07.0203/2018/786407/SER/ENV.E.4) remains a valid reference for assessing impacts (see notably the tables at pp. 14, 28 and 94). Impacts on businesses and authorities must be assessed carefully but we are confident that the new avenue for litigation can be well managed by all stakeholders if it is based on well-working existing procedures and practices. To this end, a procedure mirroring the internal review (RIR) procedure in the Aarhus Regulation, which all stakeholders are now acquainted with, would be the most effective solution in terms of access to justice, legal certainty, balance of costs and administrative burden. In the terms used in Milieus Study, accountability of institutions and citizens confidence in the system have greatly improved since the revision of the Aarhus Regulation in 2021. We witness better awareness of the RIR procedure among NGOs. Building on this experience will be essential for RIR of state aid decisions given the technicalities of this area of law. For the Commission, we expect that the greater familiarity of dealing with RIRs between the DGs, the new online portal and outsourcing of certain parts (call for tender 624886-2023) are mitigating any associated administrative burden (see for ref. Milieu Study pp. 11 and 195). For assessing costs of compliance for businesses and impact on investments, we encourage the Commission to conduct a holistic and purposeful analysis of the market (will the possibility of a review procedure seriously deter investments that are both compliant with the law and aligned with EUs priorities?). Moreover, any potential costs must be weighed against the massive monetary and social costs of non-compliance with environmental law a 2019 Commission report estimated the cost of poor implementation of EU environmental law at around 55 billion a year (ISBN 978-92-76-00601-5). We agree speed is important in terms of legal certainty: unlawful decisions must be removed quickly from the legal order and compliant investments that are aligned with EUs priorities must go ahead. However, rather than shortening procedural time limits, we recommend accelerating the publication of decisions in the OJEU, from which the time limit to request review starts (e.g. the Hinkley Point C decision was published 7 months after adoption). Collecting information on compliance at (pre-)notification stage would be an efficient way to integrate this assessment early in the process and mitigate litigation risks. Lastly, we agree that adjustments to Council Regulation 2015/1589 and the Best Practices Code are needed to make the state aid procedure more efficient and to integrate a RIR procedure: summaries of notifications would enable the public to assess compliance early and to make targeted comments, notably in formal investigation procedures; revoking an unlawful decision must be automatic upon a positive review decision (see currently Art. 11 Regulation 2015/1589). We also hereby attach an annex to our response which references core elements for consdering amendments.
Read full response

Response to Application of the ‘do no significant harm’ principle to the Social Climate Fund and its possible future extension

28 May 2024

ClientEarth welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback. Our contribution focuses on the future development of a single DNSH guidance for the next MFF. We are generally in favor of such guidance and recommend to take the following aspects into account to make it an effective safeguard against environmentally harmful public spending: 1. The single DNSH guidance should act as a minimum requirement for all EU funds (and sectors), while leaving room for additional dedicated DNSH tools tailored at each specific fund and its governance mechanism. 2. No activity, measure or project can by principle be considered as compliant with the DNSH principle in the single DNSH guidance. Conversely, the guidance should contain outright exclusions, at measure or economic activity level, that unequivocally harm the environment. Such exclusion list applicable across EU funds creates legal certainty and reduces loopholes, while it also leaves room for a dedicated additional exclusion list for each specific EU fund. Funding fossil fuels activities or measures should irrevocably be on the general exclusions list. 3. Where relevant, the single DNSH guidance should be linked to the European Commissions methodology on environmental harmful subsidies (EHS) and clearly state that any measure or project that qualifies as an EHS cannot comply with the DNSH principle. This could also be added to the general exclusion list. 4. The application of the DNSH principle should go beyond the mere compliance with EU environmental law. It is intended to provide an additional layer of criteria to be complied with to exclude EU funds from financing potentially harmful projects or measures, as well as to improve the environmental performance of projects or measures. In practice, the added value of the principle has so far not always been unleashed, leading to inconsistencies and variations in its application. An ambitious single DNSH guidance can untap the added value of the principle. This also requires capacity building on the application of the principle amongst national authorities, stakeholders and beneficiaries. 5. Compliance with the DNSH principle should generally be an eligibility requirement, not only a horizontal principle to be taken into account, to ensure it is legally binding and enforceable. This entails that only measures or projects that can ex-ante demonstrate compliance with the DNSH principle are eligible for funding, but it should also mean that actual compliance needs to be verified at the implementation phase. A mechanism for suspension or recovery of payments in case of non-compliance needs to be provided in the single DNSH guidance. 6. The precautionary principle should be a key principle embedded in the single DNSH guidance. This implies that projects or measures that are too vaguely defined, lack crucial information or scientific evidence for a DNSH assessment cannot be funded. It also means that the cumulative and long-term impact of projects or measures and potential harmful lock-in effects should be assessed. 7. An effective DNSH principle requires a high degree of transparency of its assessment, for greater accountability. Experience across different EU funds so far has shown a lack of transparency of the DNSH assessments. The single DNSH guidance should therefore set out key transparency principles, that can be further tailored to the specific funds. 8. Objectivity and independence of DNSH assessments is equally key for a strong DNSH principle and should be embedded as a principle in the single DNSH guidance. Public consultations of stakeholders, including civil society, contribute to the objectivity and independence of the assessments and should therefore be the rule. 9. An effective application of the DNSH principle to EU funds should not lead to increased harmful public spending under national budgets. To counter that risk, it is important to also horizontally apply the DNSH principle across EU State aid policy.
Read full response

Meeting with Ditte Juul-Joergensen (Director-General Energy) and Forum Energii and

28 May 2024 · Energy Transition

Meeting with Agne Razmislaviciute-Palioniene (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius), Carmen Preising (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and

28 May 2024 · Decarbonisation process of fisheries

Meeting with Bernd Lange (Member of the European Parliament)

8 May 2024 · General exchange of views

ClientEarth warns EU chemicals agency lacks resources for new tasks

29 Mar 2024
Topic — Streamlining EU chemical safety assessments through the 'One Substance One Assessment' legislative package.
Message — ClientEarth demands that the Commission publishes a regulation to improve the agency’s resource allocation. They urge fixing flawed chemical restriction procedures to prevent delays in urgent safety assessments.123
Why — Properly funding the agency ensures that scientific assessments supporting environmental protection remain high quality.45
Impact — Industry loses because tighter assessments would end the current trend of nearly automatic exemptions.6
Read full response

ClientEarth demands industry pays for new chemical safety platform

29 Mar 2024
Topic — EU initiative to centralize chemical data and improve safety assessment transparency.
Message — They urge for civil society representation in governance and the inclusion of enforcement data. They also insist that industry funding must cover all commissioned scientific studies.123
Why — This would provide environmental lawyers with better tools to monitor chemical risks.45
Impact — Chemical companies would bear the financial burden of funding independent safety research.6
Read full response

Response to Guidance to facilitate the designation of renewables acceleration areas

23 Feb 2024

ClientEarth welcomes the Commissions initiative to provide guidance to the Member States in the mapping and designation of renewables acceleration areas. While it is pivotal for the clean energy transition that the EU become more energy-independent and resilient, safeguards for environmental protection and peoples rights must be upheld in this process. The revised Renewable Energy Directive (Directive (EU) 2023/2413) requires Member States to designate renewables acceleration areas for one or more types of renewable energy sources by 21 February 2026. Some of the clauses related to the mapping of areas necessary for the achievement of the 2030 renewable energy targets, as well as the designation of renewables acceleration areas may prove challenging for Member States to implement in a manner consistent with the EU Treaties, the Aarhus Convention and other pieces of EU legislation. The Commissions initiative aims to provide guidance to Member States to speed up the transposition and implementation of this requirement and to improve the outcome by providing the Member States with practical advice, existing good practices, digital and mapping tools that can help identify and designate renewables acceleration areas for wind and solar energy. The present document is prepared in response to the Commissions Call for Evidence and attempts to contribute to the joint undertaking of developing implementation guidance for national competent authorities in a manner that would ensure that the process of mapping and designation of renewables acceleration areas takes proper account of provisions and set case law of the Nature Directives as regards to the environmental impacts of onshore and offshore wind and solar projects, as well as an obligation to ensure effective and meaningful public participation. In this contribution, we address: - how environmental impacts of onshore and offshore wind and solar projects can be minimized, during the mapping of necessary areas and designation of renewables acceleration areas; - what the exclusion of Natura 2000 sites and other environmentally sensitive areas from renewables acceleration areas entails; - how to mitigate adverse environmental impacts from renewables acceleration areas; and - how to ensure effective and meaningful public participation during the necessary areas mapping and renewables acceleration areas designation processes. We remain at your disposal for any further assistance.
Read full response

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

19 Feb 2024 · NGOs presented to the Commissioner their Manifesto: An Ocean of Change 2024, and in particular the idea of an Ocean Deal

Meeting with Javi López (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Transport and Environment (European Federation for Transport and Environment) and European Environmental Bureau

19 Feb 2024 · Revision of the Ambient Air Quality Directives

Meeting with César Luena (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

15 Feb 2024 · Nature Restoration Law

Meeting with Pascal Canfin (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Feb 2024 · Green Deal

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur for opinion) and European Environmental Bureau

7 Feb 2024 · Air Quality Directive

Meeting with Elena Montani (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and European Environmental Bureau and Chemicals, Health and Environment Monitoring Trust

7 Feb 2024 · Implementation of EU Chemicals Strategy

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič) and European Environmental Bureau and Chemicals, Health and Environment Monitoring Trust

7 Feb 2024 · Implementation of EU Chemicals Strategy

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament)

30 Jan 2024 · Access to justice

Meeting with Maria Noichl (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion) and European Environmental Bureau

25 Jan 2024 · Soil health

Meeting with Petros Kokkalis (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

17 Jan 2024 · Air Quality

Meeting with Pascal Canfin (Member of the European Parliament) and European Environmental Bureau and

16 Nov 2023 · Green Deal

Meeting with Martin Hojsík (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and European Environmental Bureau and

15 Nov 2023 · Soil Health Law

Meeting with Beatrice Covassi (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and European Environmental Bureau and

15 Nov 2023 · Public Hearing - Soil Monitoring Law

ClientEarth calls for legally-binding targets in EU soil law

2 Nov 2023
Topic — This consultation concerns a new directive for monitoring and restoring EU soils.
Message — ClientEarth wants a legally-binding target for healthy soils by 2050 and mandatory management plans. They also request stronger rules to ensure citizens can challenge government failures in court.12
Why — Binding legislation would give environmental groups stronger legal standing to enforce conservation standards.3
Impact — Member States would face increased administrative burdens and higher costs for implementation.4
Read full response

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Climate Action Network Europe and

27 Oct 2023 · gas regulation

Meeting with Petros Kokkalis (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and European Environmental Bureau

25 Oct 2023 · Green Claims

Meeting with Malte Gallée (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

18 Oct 2023 · Green Claims Directive

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Climate Action Network Europe and Global Witness

11 Oct 2023 · gas regulation

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and WWF European Policy Programme and

4 Oct 2023 · Environmental and climate due diligence

Meeting with Martin Hojsík (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and European Environmental Bureau and

28 Sept 2023 · Soil Health Law

Meeting with Maria Arena (Member of the European Parliament)

27 Sept 2023 · Packaging

Meeting with César Luena (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

19 Sept 2023 · Nature Restoration Law

Meeting with Lara Wolters (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Frank Bold Society

18 Sept 2023 · Staff level: CSDD Directive

Meeting with Tiemo Wölken (Member of the European Parliament)

11 Sept 2023 · Air quality and compensation (staff level)

Meeting with Maria Arena (Member of the European Parliament)

19 Jul 2023 · REACH

Meeting with Anna Cavazzini (Member of the European Parliament)

13 Jul 2023 · Public Procurement

Meeting with Anna Cavazzini (Member of the European Parliament) and PowerShift - Verein fuer eine oekologisch-solidarische Energie- Weltwirtschaft e.V.

27 Jun 2023 · Energy Charter Treaty

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Climate Action Network Europe and Global Witness

21 Jun 2023 · gas package

Meeting with Rosa D'Amato (Member of the European Parliament) and FUNDACION OCEANA

20 Jun 2023 · Energy Transition of the fisheries sector

Meeting with Tiemo Wölken (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Jun 2023 · Industrieemissionen (Staff Level)

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Climate Action Network Europe and Global Witness

6 Jun 2023 · gas package

Meeting with Mohammed Chahim (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

3 Jun 2023 · IED

ClientEarth urges strict standards for reporting recycled plastic content

30 May 2023
Topic — New EU rules for calculating and reporting recycled content in beverage bottles.
Message — ClientEarth calls for traceable chain of custody models while banning mass balance approaches that could mislead shoppers. They demand that all company data undergoes independent third-party verification to ensure reliability. Additionally, they advocate restricting the definition of recycled plastic to post-consumer waste only.123
Why — Stricter reporting rules would strengthen legal avenues to challenge deceptive green marketing claims.45
Impact — Chemical recycling firms would lose the flexibility to allocate recycled content credits across different product lines.6
Read full response

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament) and Greenpeace European Unit and

27 Apr 2023 · follow up on deforestation file

Meeting with Jens Geier (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Global Witness

26 Apr 2023 · Exchange on the gas market directive

Meeting with João Albuquerque (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs and

25 Apr 2023 · CLP - Classification, labelling and packaging

Meeting with Mohammed Chahim (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

25 Apr 2023 · IED

ClientEarth urges EU to align air standards with WHO

10 Mar 2023
Topic — The Commission is revising air quality standards to align with health recommendations.
Message — ClientEarth requests limit values fully aligned with WHO guidelines by 2030 and stricter enforcement of air quality plans. They also call for a robust sanctions regime and guaranteed access to justice for citizens.123
Why — These changes would empower the organization to hold public authorities legally accountable for pollution.45
Impact — Public authorities would face stricter legal scrutiny and financial penalties for missing air quality targets.67
Read full response

Meeting with Karen Melchior (Member of the European Parliament) and Global Witness and Rainforest Alliance

2 Mar 2023 · Discussion of importance of multi-tier compliance obligation, clear definitions and NGO concerns in CSDDD.

Meeting with Sirpa Pietikäinen (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur for opinion)

2 Mar 2023 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

20 Feb 2023 · To explain the “Fisheries and Oceans “ package adopted during that week: CFP Communication, Marine Action Plan and Decarbonisation Initiative.

Meeting with Claude Gruffat (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

8 Feb 2023 · State Aid

Meeting with Anna Cavazzini (Member of the European Parliament, Committee chair)

8 Feb 2023 · Empowering consumers in the green transition

Meeting with Ernest Urtasun (Member of the European Parliament)

8 Feb 2023 · State aid in Green Deal Industrial Plan

Meeting with Petros Kokkalis (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

27 Jan 2023 · Ambient Air Quality directives recast

Meeting with Mohammed Chahim (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Greenpeace European Unit

24 Jan 2023 · NGO meeting IED

Meeting with Javi López (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and European Environmental Bureau and

23 Jan 2023 · Revision of the Ambient Air Quality Directives

Meeting with Milan Brglez (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

16 Jan 2023 · Water legislation

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament)

9 Jan 2023 · Due diligence

Response to Energy transition of EU fisheries and aquaculture sector

2 Dec 2022

Dear Madam/Sir, Please find enclosed the joint reply from ClientEarth, Our Fish and Transport and Environment to this call for evidence. Best regards,
Read full response

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Climate Action Network Europe and

30 Nov 2022 · gas market

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Greenpeace European Unit and

23 Nov 2022 · deforestation

Meeting with Pascal Durand (Member of the European Parliament) and Global Witness

21 Nov 2022 · CSDDD (APA only)

Meeting with Tiemo Wölken (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion) and Global Witness and Stichting World Benchmarking Alliance Foundation

9 Nov 2022 · Lieferkettengesetz

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Climate Action Network Europe and

9 Nov 2022 · gas market

Meeting with Christophe Hansen (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

7 Nov 2022 · Deforestation regulation

ClientEarth leads push for mandatory digital pesticide records

3 Nov 2022
Topic — Consultation on mandatory electronic record-keeping for plant protection product use by professionals.
Message — The coalition urges national governments to approve mandatory electronic records for pesticide use. They argue that digital data is essential for effective environmental monitoring and protecting agricultural workers.12
Why — Comprehensive digital data helps these groups monitor environmental impacts and pesticide statistics.3
Impact — Professional users lose the ability to keep simpler, less accessible handwritten records.4
Read full response

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Greenpeace European Unit and

26 Oct 2022 · deforestation

ClientEarth urges faster implementation of new chemical hazard classes

17 Oct 2022
Topic — This consultation concerns updating EU regulations on the classification and labelling of hazardous chemicals.
Message — The group urges the Commission to shorten transition periods and introduce a specific pictogram for endocrine disruptors. They request broader evidence standards to ensure robust hazard classification. They also warn against specific provisions that could weaken the level of protection.123
Why — Stricter rules would help the organization use the law to ensure higher health and environmental protection.4
Impact — Chemical manufacturers lose regulatory flexibility and face stricter requirements to label products as endocrine disruptors.56
Read full response

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Stichting BirdLife Europe and

14 Oct 2022 · Implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the preparation of the Action Plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems

Meeting with Carmen Preising (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius), Elena Montani (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and

14 Oct 2022 · Implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the preparation of the Action Plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems

Meeting with Michal Wiezik (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

12 Oct 2022 · Industrial Emissions Directive

Meeting with Sandro Gozi (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Electrolux Home Products Europe and Vinted

12 Oct 2022 · empowering consumers

ClientEarth urges ECHA to prioritize health over industry needs

10 Oct 2022
Topic — The initiative seeks to modernize the European Chemicals Agency's governance and funding structure.
Message — ClientEarth argues the agency should prioritize environmental protection and scientific excellence over industry interests. They also recommend updating expertise and tightening rules to prevent staff from joining industry lobbies.123
Why — This would ensure regulatory decisions align more closely with the NGO's environmental protection goals.4
Impact — Chemical companies and lobby groups lose influence and the ability to hire former agency staff.56
Read full response

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Climate Action Network Europe and

6 Oct 2022 · gas market

Meeting with Malte Gallée (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion) and European Environmental Bureau and Environmental Coalition on Standards

5 Oct 2022 · Empowering consumers for the green transition

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and European Environmental Bureau

23 Sept 2022 · Meeting with NGOs upon the revision of the Ambient Air Quality Directives

Meeting with Radan Kanev (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

22 Sept 2022 · IED

Meeting with Caroline Roose (Member of the European Parliament) and Stichting BirdLife Europe and

21 Sept 2022 · Loi européenne sur la restauration de la nature

Meeting with Biljana Borzan (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and European Environmental Bureau and

9 Sept 2022 · Empowering consumers for the green transition

Meeting with Sara Cerdas (Member of the European Parliament) and Fern and

6 Sept 2022 · Desflorestação

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Greenpeace European Unit and

2 Sept 2022 · deforestation

Meeting with Sara Cerdas (Member of the European Parliament) and WWF European Policy Programme and Stichting BirdLife Europe

1 Sept 2022 · Restauração da Natureza

Response to Implementing regulation on the Member States’ reporting of information foreseen in the Governance of the Energy Union

9 Aug 2022

ClientEarth welcomes the opportunity to provide targeted comments on the Commission’s proposal on new reporting requirements on NECPs. However, there are several aspects that should be improved to avoid that the NECPs potential and the Commissions’ monitoring powers be undermined. Therefore, we urge the Commission to adopt the following changes. 1. Voluntary reporting of information undermines the fundamental roles of NECP reporting; 2. Incomplete definition of information that is “mandatory if applicable”; 3. If mandatory information is not available, this should be justified; 4. Description of information to be provided in the annexes relating to national objectives, policies and measures to phase out energy subsidies, in particular for fossil fuels, should be enhanced; 5. Reporting on multilevel dialogues must be improved. Please find our extensive comments and recommendations regarding the above points in the attached briefing.
Read full response

Response to Protecting biodiversity: nature restoration targets

8 Aug 2022

ClientEarth strongly supports the Nature Restoration Regulation, as a comprehensive instrument aimed at tackling the twin biodiversity and climate crises, through restoring key habitats across the EU. This legal proposal comes at a critical time for the Union's biodiversity, which -according to the "State of Nature" report of the European Environmental Authority- is declining at a rapid rate, with the vast majority of the EU's species and habitats not being in good condition. While the legislative proposal, presented on the 22nd of June is ambitious, it can only deliver its set objectives and revert the further decline of the Union's biodiversity through effective and timely implementation. We have identified a series of elements which put at risk the potential success of the Nature Restoration Regulation, if they remain unaddressed. We urge the Parliament and Council of the EU to commit to the adoption of the Regulation without any further delays and to aim for the highest possible ambition, on par with the twin environmental crises we are undergoing. To achieve this, our suggestions would -among others- include that: -The overarching, Union-wide objective becomes enforceable through appropriate governance mechanisms, ensuring that Member States are adequately contributing to its achievement. - The general ambition of the terrestrial and marine area-based targets (namely Articles 4 and 5) is significantly strengthened, both in terms of timing of implementation and in terms of area coverage, in line with the already identified urgent restoration needs across the EU. - Restoration outcomes in the relevant areas are delivered in perpetuity and the ecological condition of those areas does not deteriorate, through appropriate means. - The relationship between existing obligations deriving from other pieces of environmental legislation, such as the Birds and Habitats Directives is clarified, to ensure their complementarity with and mutual implementation support towards the Nature Restoration Regulation. - The (currently) problematically implemented "Joint Recommendations" process of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation is properly addressed through a safeguard mechanism, to ensure that effective marine restoration measures can be adopted. In absence of such a mechanism, Member States are at a significant risk of failure to achieve the marine restoration targets of Article 5 and -subsequently- a failure to comply with their obligations set forth by the Nature Restoration Regulation, to the detriment of marine biodiversity. - The indicator-based targets to restore agricultural and forest ecosystems (Art.9(2) and Art.10)) are framed by quantified and time-bound objectives. In the current formulation, Member States only need to achieve an increasing trend at national level and can define their own satisfactory level to be achieved. A clear framework and guidance on the minimum requirements for Member States to define these satisfactory levels is needed. - The public participation provisions of the Regulation are revised, in order to comply with the relevant provisions in the Aarhus Convention. - The Regulation mandates the Commission to assess existing the availability and adequacy of EU funds for nature restoration and explore options to expand it, for instance through the establishment of a dedicated fund, pursuant to the mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework, or other means. For a more detailed reaction to the proposal, you may consult the attached joint NGO analysis.
Read full response

ClientEarth Warns Against Bypassing Nature Laws for Renewables

27 Jul 2022
Topic — EU guidance aims to speed up permitting processes for renewable energy projects.
Message — ClientEarth supports faster permitting but opposes bypassing essential environmental laws or skipping impact assessments. They urge the Commission to focus on streamlining complex administrative procedures.12
Why — Keeping current safeguards allows the group to continue using legal challenges to protect nature.3
Impact — Nature and local communities lose essential protections against irreversible environmental damage and social harm.4
Read full response

Response to Review of the de minimis aid Regulation

25 Jul 2022

Please find attached ClientEarth's response to the public consultation. It addresses the two main aspects of the consultation: the de minimis threshold and transparency. We argue that the de minimis threshold may be adjusted to the inflation but should not be raised. We also provide recommendations to amend the de minimis regulation to increase transparency and monitoring.
Read full response

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

19 Jul 2022 · To exchange views, upon NGO request, on the upcoming Action plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems, on Commission implementing act on vulnerable marine ecosystems and on European eel status

Meeting with Elena Montani (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and Green 10 and

8 Jul 2022 · Implementation of the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability and REACH revision

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and European Environmental Bureau and

8 Jul 2022 · Implementation of the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability and REACH revision

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

6 Jul 2022 · gas

Meeting with Christophe Hansen (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

6 Jul 2022 · Deforestation regulation

Meeting with Michal Wiezik (Member of the European Parliament) and Fern and Global Witness

5 Jul 2022 · Imported Deforestation Regulation

Meeting with Michal Wiezik (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

1 Jul 2022 · Industrial Emissions Directive

Meeting with Caroline Boeshertz (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and Climate Action Network Europe

30 Jun 2022 · Energy Charter Treaty (ECT)

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Climate Action Network Europe and

23 Jun 2022 · gas regulation

ClientEarth calls for binding climate targets in industrial permits

22 Jun 2022
Topic — The European Commission is updating rules to reduce pollution from large-scale industry.
Message — The group demands mandatory greenhouse gas limits and enforceable transformation plans for facilities. They seek to eliminate permitting loopholes for large-scale cattle and aquaculture operations.12
Why — Enforceable targets would give the legal NGO stronger grounds for environmental litigation.3
Impact — Industrial livestock operators would lose flexible permitting options and face higher compliance costs.4
Read full response

Meeting with Barbara Glowacka (Cabinet of Commissioner Kadri Simson) and Climate Action Network Europe

20 Jun 2022 · Energy Charter Treaty Reform

Meeting with Biljana Borzan (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Swappie

15 Jun 2022 · Empowering consumers for the green transition

Response to Guidelines on the antitrust derogation for sustainability agreements in agriculture

23 May 2022

ClientEarth is hereby providing, based on experience reported from agricultural actors (producers), specific comments, observations & suggestions for the guidance on the new sustainability exemption provided in Regulation 1309/2013, as amended by the 2023-2027 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform. Our contribution (see attached) covers aspects related to (i) agreements on prices, (ii) aggregate market share of the participants, (iii) consumer welfare and (iv) the "indispensability" condition.
Read full response

Meeting with Pierre Karleskind (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and WWF European Policy Programme and FUNDACION OCEANA

10 May 2022 · Revision de la PCP

ClientEarth urges real-time data to fight EU forest crime

6 May 2022
Topic — The consultation addresses a new framework for monitoring and planning EU forest conditions.
Message — The organization calls for a public EU-wide platform providing real-time, accessible remote sensing data to monitor forests. They argue that domestic timber harvesting requires more effective public and institutional scrutiny to prevent illegal logging.123
Why — Open data empowers the organization to use legal tools to challenge illegal logging.4
Impact — Logging operators and member states with poor management risk increased legal scrutiny.5
Read full response

Meeting with Mirzha De Manuel (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and CEE Bankwatch Network and

28 Apr 2022 · Contribution and engagement from CSOs, local authorities and social partners on Polish RRP

Meeting with Jens Geier (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Transport and Environment (European Federation for Transport and Environment) and

6 Apr 2022 · Exchange on the gas market directive

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and WWF European Policy Programme and

18 Mar 2022 · deforestation

Response to Soil Health Law – protecting, sustainably managing and restoring EU soils

16 Mar 2022

European environmental legislation is incomplete without soil policy. Failure to protect soil will hamper any efforts undertaken to achieve the objectives of the European Green Deal. An EU-wide legislative framework on soil is essential to harmonizing efforts at soil protection, addressing threats to soil functionality and health, and tackling the transboundary impact of soil degradation across Europe. Soil serves many important functions, but the continued performance of these functions depends on the health of our soil resources. Amongst others, soil health is significantly threatened by harmful chemicals. It is therefore essential for the new Soil Health Law to take into account the contamination of soil resources by hazardous chemicals, including pesticides, and to stress the need for identifying and mapping these chemicals, preventing the apparition of new ones, and significantly reducing the production and use of existing ones. The new EU legislative framework on soil health is in compliance with both the environmental integration principle (Article 11 TFEU) and the principle of subsidiarity (Article 5(3) TEU). Under the integration principle, environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the EU’s policies and activities. Environmental legislation, environmental policies, and policies or legislation derived thereof can be deemed to be fully part of the environmental protection requirements falling under Article 11 TFEU, and the Union is under a legal duty to facilitate consistency between these environmental protection requirements. Soil is certainly part of EU environmental policy, which is of shared competence between the Union and the Member States. This means that any legislative proposal on soil protection and restoration will have to be tested against the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The subsidiarity check that the Commission will carry out will be structured in accordance with the requirements under Article 5 TEU. The Commission will prove that the objectives of the Soil Health Law (a) cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and (b) "by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action”, they can be better achieved at EU level. In relation to point (a), leaving soil protection for the domestic level does not seem adequate considering that soil degradation is widespread across all Member States, most of which have not implemented and/or adopted national legal frameworks to address the issue. On point (b), factual evidence provides the strongest justification to satisfy this test. Currently, it is estimated that about 60-70% of soils in the EU are not healthy, which means that Member States have failed and that action at EU level is urgently needed. Thus, the future Soil Health Law will not be in breach of the Treaties; rather, it will be key to filling a legislative void that is causing tremendous stress to our soils. Furthermore, the new Soil Health Law will be essential to harmonize soil monitoring across the EU. The EU already has a well-functioning tool for this purpose, namely the survey known as LUCAS (Land Use/Cover Area frame statistical Survey), which is based on in-situ monitoring repeated every few years. LUCAS Soil represents the first attempt to construct a pan-European topsoil database, serving as a baseline for EU-wide soil monitoring. It has an invaluable potential for underpinning EU policies on soil, climate, biodiversity and agriculture, especially considering that soil inventories are currently very heterogeneous in the Member States. It will be essential to embed LUCAS Soil within the Soil Health Law, providing appropriate funding for its functioning, clarifying its legal basis and regulating its use. Ultimately, complementing satellite surveys and modelling with in-situ data through LUCAS Soil will be necessary to keep track of the progress made towards achieving European Green Deal targets.
Read full response

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and WWF European Policy Programme and

15 Mar 2022 · deforestation

Meeting with Marie-Pierre Vedrenne (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Institut Veblen pour les réformes économiques

9 Mar 2022 · Avenir de la politique d'investissement de l'Union européenne, Traité sur la Charte de l'Energie et système de règlement des différends

Meeting with Roberto Reig Rodrigo (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and Pesticide Action Network Europe and GLOBAL 2000, Friends of the Earth Austria

9 Mar 2022 · VTC Meeting: Revision of SUD proposal and pesticide indicators.

Meeting with Andrea Vettori (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and European Environmental Bureau and

4 Mar 2022 · EU Nature Restoration Law preparations

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and European Environmental Bureau and

4 Mar 2022 · EU Nature Restoration Law

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

22 Feb 2022 · A regular meeting with NGO to discuss various fisheries matters: 2022 TAC setting, upcoming new Commission initiatives, WTO negotiation, cetaceans by-catch in the Bay of Biscay and in the Baltic Sea, control regulation negotiations etc.

Meeting with Joan Canton (Cabinet of Commissioner Thierry Breton) and European Environmental Bureau and Zero Waste Europe

9 Feb 2022 · Circular economy and non-toxic plastics

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and European Environmental Bureau and Zero Waste Europe

9 Feb 2022 · Circular economy and non-toxic plastics

Meeting with Stella Kyriakides (Commissioner) and WWF European Policy Programme and

31 Jan 2022 · VTC Meeting on the framework legislation on sustainable food systems

Meeting with Antoine Colombani (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and OXFAM INTERNATIONAL EU ADVOCACY OFFICE and

26 Jan 2022 · Sustainable corporate governance and due diligence

Meeting with Roberto Reig Rodrigo (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and Pesticide Action Network Europe

21 Jan 2022 · VTC Meeting: SAIO and Pesticides

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Pesticide Action Network Europe

21 Jan 2022 · Pesticides statistics

Meeting with Ralf Kuhne (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and European Environmental Bureau and Zero Waste Europe

10 Dec 2021 · VTC meeting on Circular economy and non-toxic plastics

Meeting with Kadri Simson (Commissioner) and

3 Dec 2021 · Discussion on upcoming Hydrogen and Decarbonised Gas Markets Package (adoption foreseen for 14.12.2021)

Meeting with Marek Belka (Member of the European Parliament)

29 Nov 2021 · Meeting on the Polish Rule of Law and green transformation with Zuzanna Rudzinska-Bluszcz

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and WWF European Policy Programme

26 Nov 2021 · nature restoration legislation

Meeting with Andrea Vettori (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and WWF European Policy Programme

26 Nov 2021 · To discuss the nature restoration legislation

Response to Review of Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency

19 Nov 2021

We would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to provide comments on the Energy Efficiency Directive proposal ('recast EED'). In summary, we generally find that the recast EED is strengthening the existing framework to achieve the new EU climate ambition of cutting carbon emissions by at least 55% by 2030 and the ultimate climate neutrality objective by 2050. In particular, we welcome the inclusion of a new legal basis for the EE1st principle as it is essential for limiting our energy consumption and achieving the energy transition. Setting a higher EU energy efficiency target and make it binding is also a good step forward in achieving the EU energy and climate targets, although it must be accompanied by ambitious and binding national targets. The recast EED also includes interesting provisions to empower and protect end users as well as support a fairer transition, which is of great importance in the context of soaring energy prices. Nevertheless, the provisions of the recast EED still need to be improved. The EU should be more ambitious and send a stronger signal to Member States, regional and local authorities, grid operators, and EU citizens to tap into the full energy savings of the EU in view of achieving climate and energy efficiency targets. Please find attached our detailed recommendations. In a nutshell, we ask the Commission to make the following changes: - Mainstreaming environmental protection in the recast EED; - Removing provisions in favour of technologies using fossil-fuel, including natural gas; - Strengthening the EE1st principle as an overarching principle of the EED; - Making the EU target more ambitious and national energy efficiency target binding; - Strengthening the public procurement’s provision; - Clarifying and reinforcing the provisions on energy communities.
Read full response

Meeting with Jorge Pinto Antunes (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and WWF European Policy Programme and

9 Nov 2021 · Forestry

Response to Updating the EU Emissions Trading System

8 Nov 2021

Revising the EU Emission Trading System Directive (ETSD) and improving the proposal COM(2021) 551 are of utmost importance – but given today’s urgency of industry’s decarbonisation, the ETS needs complementary measures via the EU Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU (IED)) that is being revised in parallel. ClientEarth’s feedback focuses on crucial changes to the interactions between the ETSD and IED. The IED regulates pollution, including emissions into air, from more than 50.000 large (agro-)industrial installations. It follows an integrated approach to achieve a high level of protection of the environment taken as a whole. However, GHG emission limit values are excluded and energy efficiency standards are not mandatory for those GHG and installations covered by the ETSD (Art. 26 ETSD and Art. 9 IED). This exclusion rule hinders the full decarbonisation potential of industry from being realised. The ETSD proposal does not amend Art. 26 ETSD. Art. 8 ETSD shall be complemented by a new paragraph stating “The Commission shall review the effectiveness of synergies with Directive 2010/75/EU. Environmental and climate relevant permits should be coordinated to ensure efficient and speedier execution of measures needed to comply with EU climate and energy objectives. The Commission may submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council in the context of any future review of this Directive.” However, the time to exploit the synergies with the IED and to adjust Art. 26 ETSD accordingly is now. As already shown in the paper “Combating climate change: New IED and ETS interactions required” (March 2021, https://www.clientearth.org/latest/documents/combating-climate-change-new-ied-and-ets-interactions-required/, see attached), the situation has never been so critical in terms of climate change and the need for strong, systemic and consistent action has never been so urgent. Immediate effective action at the largest possible scale are required to translate climate targets into tangible actions. This applies even more after the adoption of the new EU Climate Law, aiming to achieve a reduction of GHG emissions by at least (!) 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 and climate neutrality by 2050. The EU is obliged to ensure consistency between, and effectiveness of, its policies and activities, taking all of its objectives into account (Art. 13 TEU, Art. 7 and 11 TFEU). The EU’s new targets require all available instruments to be used: The regulatory approach of the IED needs to complement the market-based approach of the ETS. The IED provides the necessary additional tools as it has a broad scope, provides for an integrated prevention and control system to achieve a high level of protection of the environment taken as a whole, and focuses on the technical potential of each installation. Furthermore, the paper shows that the combination of IED/ETS transposes the EU’s environmental principles, first and foremost the principle to prevent pollution, especially at the source. This corresponds to the Commission’s ‘Zero pollution hierarchy’ that puts pollution prevention first (COM(2021) 400 final). The mix of market-based and regulatory approaches is key to driving appropriate investments. The role of industrial operators in reaching EU’s objectives cannot be overstated. The Commission itself acknowledged 2019 in the European Green Deal: “[a]chieving a climate neutral and circular economy requires the full mobilisation of industry. It takes 25 years – a generation – to transform an industrial sector and all the value chains. To be ready in 2050, decisions and actions need to be taken in the next five years.” The revised ETSD and IED must translate the European and international climate targets into tangible legal measures. To set effective GHG performance standards and include mandatory energy efficiency requirements, the exclusion rule in Art. 26 ETSD must be deleted.
Read full response

Meeting with Thierry Breton (Commissioner) and

8 Nov 2021 · Sustainable Corporate Governance

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

29 Oct 2021 · To discuss with the NGOs the perspectives for the 2022 annual fishing opportunities ahead of international consultations and the December AGRIFISH Council.

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

28 Oct 2021 · NGOs presented their expectations for an ambitious reform and shared views on specific topics in the revision of the EU fisheries control system.

Response to Sustainable food system – setting up an EU framework

26 Oct 2021

ClientEarth welcomes the Sustainable Food Systems Framework Initiative and appreciates the opportunity to contribute with this feedback to the Inception Impact Assessment (IIA). As recognised in the IIA, food production is one of the largest causes of environmental depletion. Therefore, it is surprising to read in the IIA that “in some sectoral legislations, such as the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the objectives of sustainability are already the guiding principles and the transition has started at production level.” Although the scope of the Sustainable Food Systems Framework should go beyond the production level, it cannot be taken for granted that the CAP will support the shift towards sustainable food systems, and this should be reflected in the impact assessment of the framework under analysis. As for the CFP, while it has been slowly leading the sector towards a reduction of overfishing, there is still a long way to go in terms of implementation, control and enforcement. Moreover, the current development of aquaculture in the EU has not provided a sustainable alternative to overfishing to date. The Inception Impact Assessment proposes as legal bases for a legislative intervention at EU level Articles 43(2), 114, 168(5) and 192(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Despite this choice being in line with EU legislative actions in the field of food safety and environment, it could fall short when considering food health beyond food safety. Although the Treaties do not provide a specific legal basis for EU action in the field of food health, the scope of an existing provision, namely Article 168 TFEU, could be broadened. The Sustainable Food Systems Framework represents an opportunity to reassess the interpretation of the Union’s competence in this regard. The Sustainable Food Systems Framework should be shaped into an “umbrella law.” It should take the form of an EU-wide, cross-sectoral framework covering the entire food value chain, from production to consumption. To be successful, the Sustainable Food Systems Framework requires the alignment of relevant laws and policies to contribute to delivering an ambitious, just and systemic transition to environmentally-sound, fair and healthy food systems. The principle of policy coherence could be translated into law by introducing a legal obligation requiring the adaptation of other sectoral Union laws. To the greatest possible extent, the proposal for a Sustainable Food Systems Framework should already be accompanied by proposals to amend Union laws and update Union policies in view of their alignment with the objectives of the Sustainable Food Systems Framework. Of the policy options presented in the IIA, only the fourth one is suitable to achieve the objective of sustainable food systems. Indeed, it is the only policy option that provides a fully integrated strategy to achieve sustainable food systems. Currently, the general lack of interaction between and misalignment of various policies is a critical barrier towards a sustainable food system. Option 4, though, could be strengthened through the inclusion of access to justice provisions and references to fundamental rights. Indeed, improved enjoyment of fundamental rights should be at the core of the new legislation. The impact assessment is expected to cover the three pillars of sustainability – social, environmental and economic. It should consider short and long-term environmental, health and social impacts and also describe the effects of inaction. It is key to assemble diverse and relevant information to identify enabling conditions and barriers to sustainable practices. Consultations should be as inclusive as possible, allowing all interested actors at different levels, including vulnerable groups and those without technical and specific knowledge on the subject, to express their views.
Read full response

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and European Environmental Bureau and

13 Oct 2021 · Transparent and inclusive process of CAP plans

Meeting with Agnieszka Skonieczna (Cabinet of Commissioner Thierry Breton), Filomena Chirico (Cabinet of Commissioner Thierry Breton)

22 Sept 2021 · Sustainable Corporate Governance

Meeting with Diana Montero Melis (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen) and Global Witness

20 Sept 2021 · upcoming deforestation regulation and human rights (meeting organized by CAB Wojciechowski)

Meeting with Jorge Pinto Antunes (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and Global Witness

20 Sept 2021 · Human Rights and Deforestation

Meeting with Diana Montero Melis (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen), Renaud Savignat (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen) and

17 Sept 2021 · upcoming proposal on sustainable corporate governance

Response to EMFAF Implementing Regulation on financial corrections

19 Aug 2021

While we welcome the opportunity to provide feedback on this draft implementing act (IA), we expected it to clarify as much as possible the rules set out in the EMFAF regulation. As it stands, however, several grey areas remain, making this provision difficult to implement or inapplicable in the future. As for the triggering of the procedure: we consider that the interruption/suspension of a payment is a tool that can be extremely effective, capable of dissuading Member States (MS) from maintaining situations of non-compliance, or strongly encouraging them to remedy such situations, in the same way as the compliance tools provided for in Title XI of Regulation 1224/2009. It would therefore be normal for an interruption of payment to be triggered at the very moment when the Commission has identified situations of non-compliance that are sufficiently significant to open a pre-litigation procedure against a given MS, as it is not normal for a MS to receive money from European public funds to implement the CFP when there is an identified non-compliance situation concerning its implementation. We therefore encourage the Commission to refer to Title XI of Regulation 1224/2009 and to clearly specify when such a procedure may be triggered, in order to give it full effect. As for the severity criteria: Articles 42.3 and 43.3 of the EMFAF Regulation provide that interruption/suspension shall be proportionate to the "nature, severity, duration and repetition of the non-compliance". However, the draft IA gives no indication as to the possible definition and application of such criteria. While we understand that a case-by-case analysis must be carried out to take into account certain specific contextual elements, this leaves considerable room for manoeuvre in the interpretation of these criteria and their use, and undermines legal certainty. As it stands, it is impossible to know at what point the Commission will consider that a situation of non-compliance may justify the initiation of such a procedure. There is a serious risk of never being able to trigger these procedures without provoking objections that the criteria mentioned have not been fulfilled. We invite the Commission to specify in greater detail what is meant by the criteria mentioned in the EMFAF regulation, articles 42 and 43. As for the deadline for a MS to submit information on the situation of non-compliance: Articles 42.2 and 43.2 of the EMFAF Regulation provide that a MS concerned has a reasonable time to respond and submit information. This time limit is vague and needs to be specified in the IA in order to avoid lengthy procedures jeopardizing the application of the provisions of the EMFAF Regulation, since triggering the interruption or possible suspension of a payment linked to an irregularity when this payment has already been made would make this procedure ineffective or at least unnecessarily complicated (leading to calculations of reimbursements, etc). As for the transparency of the solutions implemented by the MS to remedy cases of non-compliance: Article 2 of the draft IA does not define the rules governing the resolution of a situation of non-compliance, i.e. the rules which make it possible to establish/conclude that such a situation is no longer problematic and will therefore not lead to the suspension of a payment. It is also necessary to define transparency rules regarding the publication of concrete solutions (actions and deadlines for implementation) put in place by the State targeted by an interruption procedure. As for the effective interruption/suspension of payments: we consider that this should apply to the EU contribution allocated to the EMFAF specific objectives related to the cause of the non-compliance, and not to the effects of non-compliance (e.g., environmental objectives). As for the cases of non-compliance referred to in Article 1: please find attached a document with additional suggestions to the Annex of the draft IA.
Read full response

Meeting with Annukka Ojala (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides), Roberto Reig Rodrigo (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and

22 Jul 2021 · VTC meeting on Framework legislation for sustainable food systems

Response to Revision of Non-Financial Reporting Directive

14 Jul 2021

ClientEarth welcomes the review of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) which intends to provide more robust provisions to tackle the poor quality of sustainability disclosures. Reporting requirements under the NFRD have resulted up to now in the disclosure of limited information for investors and other stakeholders including civil society organisations. The amendments on the matters set out below show that the proposal for the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD, or ‘the proposal’) is moving forward to ensure better corporate sustainability reporting. However, some aspects could be strengthened. Please find attached our complete feedback
Read full response

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

13 Jul 2021 · To exchange views with the ‘’blue’’ NGOs on the upcoming Action Plan on sustainable fisheries and protection of marine resources, annual exercise of fixing total allowable catches and ongoing WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies.

Meeting with Thierry Breton (Commissioner) and

24 Jun 2021 · Discussions on the implementation of the chemicals strategy for sustainability.

Meeting with Camilla Bursi (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and European Environmental Bureau and

8 Jun 2021 · Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability and restriction roadmap

Response to Revision of EU legislation on hazard classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals

1 Jun 2021

We welcome both the opportunity to comment on the Roadmap and the progress the Commission has made in the much-needed reform of CLP, the keystone of the generic risk approach in EU law. B. Problem the initiative aims to tackle We agree with the problems identified, but regret that the current, serious issues with self-identification are not explicitly mentioned or highlighted. Likewise, the pace of the harmonised classification must be a point of focus. C. Objective and Policy options The list of measures is presented as indicative, and the level of ambition is presented as being open for reflection. Yet the list contains actions – such as the introduction of new hazard classes for endocrine disruptors or a mandate for the Commission to initiative CLH – that have already been promised in the Chemicals Strategy. Similarly, the level of ambition has also already been set by the Strategy: “the existing EU chemicals policy must evolve and respond more rapidly and effectively to the challenges posed by hazardous chemicals”. The Better Regulation toolbox is clear on the fact that: -“Impact assessments are a tool to help the three institutions reach well-informed decisions and not a substitute for political decisions within the democratic decision-making process. IIA must not lead to undue delays in the law-making process” - “An IA should be carried out only when it is useful” Tool #8 (“Format of the IA Report”) of the Better Regulation toolbox makes clear what it means for an IA to be useful – or not – by listing the questions that an IA must answer. These questions reveal the core purpose of an impact assessment: clarification of the scope of an issue, assessment of the need for action at EU level and comparison of several options to inform the political decision on which action to favour. Once the problem has been identified, the need for action at EU level agreed upon and the action decided, an impact assessment is not necessary. This is the case for the core promises of the Chemicals Strategy on CLP, including the creation of new hazard classes and of a new mandate for the Commission. There can be no compromise on the commitment to: • Amend CLP to give the Commission the mandate to initiate harmonised classification (action 36, CSS Annex) • Introduce new hazard classes for endocrine disruptors, PBTs/vPvBs (in a way that includes carbon-free chemicals that may have persistent properties) and persistent and mobile substances • Improve the management of environmental toxicity by considering aspects other than aquatic toxicity • Consider the creation of new hazard classes for neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity In addition, the non-REACH refit made it clear that the following measures are necessary: Accurate Self-Classifications: • Amend CLP to grant ECHA the authority to control self-classifications and enforce the rules on self-classifications. • Make the coordination of self-classifications mandatory, similar to the REACH OSOR principle. • Amend CLP to grant ECHA the power to publish and share the identity of registrants in order to avoid duplications and divergences in the classification of the same substance. • Make self-classification a quasi-automatic trigger for CLH. C. Preliminary assessment of expected impacts Do not give quantitative data and methods a dominant role over qualitative data. The latter is equally important and often more suited to the valuation of environmental and health benefits. Other remarks We ask the Commission to clarify as soon as possible the exact timeline as well as the procedure for the next steps. Full transparency on the supporting studies is also needed.
Read full response

Response to Revision of EU legislation on registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals

1 Jun 2021

A. Context, Problem definition We fully support the analysis of issues related to the knowledge gaps, combination effects, communication in the supply chain, evaluation, and enforcement. However it is both surprising and problematic that the description of the current issues with authorisation does not account for the problems that are the direct consequences of the incorrect interpretation of REACH. Should have been recognised for example the weak application of conformity and compliance tests including the acceptance of applications with crucial data gaps, failure to ask for substitution plan every time an alternative is available, failure to ask for a socio-economic assessment only for the socio-economic route, etc. Prolonged discussions and delays in decision-making would not have happened if the ECHA Committees, then the Commission and the Member States, had correctly drawn the consequences of the burden of proof placed by REACH on the applicant. Concerning restriction, we support the analysis offered by the Commission, but would like to highlight the need to lighten the load for restriction of non-classified substances as well. B. Objective and Policy options The roadmap includes a list of measures that it calls “a range of possible measures” that “will be considered”. Yet the list contains actions – such as the expansion of information requirements, the introduction of a mixture assessment factor, the introduction of an audit capacity, the introduction of the capacity for ECHA to revoke registration numbers– that have already been promised in the Chemicals Strategy. Any action promised by the Chemical Strategy must not be treated as an option to be considered, but as a deliverable to achieve with a high level of ambition. In that regard, it is incorrect for the IIA to treat in a similar way the extension of the amendment of the information requirements, which was promised without discretion and is already on-going, and the reform of the authorisation and restriction processes which was mentioned in the CSS without specifics. For the former, the decision is taken and an impact assessment is not necessary. Tool #8 (“Format of the IA Report”) of the Better Regulation toolbox makes clear what it means for an IA to be useful – or not – by listing the questions that an IA must answer. These questions reveal the core purpose of an impact assessment: clarification of the scope of an issue, assessment of the need for action at EU level and comparison of several options to inform the political decision on which action to favour. Once the problem has been identified, the need for action at EU level agreed upon and the action decided, an impact assessment is not necessary. This is the case for the specific promises of the Chemicals Strategy on REACH reform. For the latter, options need indeed to be developed and compared. On authorisation, we agree with the fact that the authorisation process must be better articulated with the restriction process and other relevant regulation. However, we fully oppose any action that would kill the only tool that can help breaking the information asymmetry between public authorities and chemical manufacturers and users. As showed by the practice, the lack of information on use is one of the major barriers to targeted chemical regulation. Once adapted and simplified to ensure an effective use of resources, and under the condition that the Commission starts complying with the text, the authorisation process can become a precious tool in situation of data scarcity. Action promised in the CSS missing from the roadmap: The following actions must be added to the work plan: - Giving to PMT, vPvM and EDC their own SVHC criteria to avoid the hurdle of having to prove an equivalent concern under Article 57. - zero tolerance to non-compliance: a re-defined, wider completeness check and requiring regular, mandatory registration updates. - PMT and vPvB must be covered in the expanded Article 68.2.
Read full response

Meeting with Camilla Bursi (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and European Environmental Bureau and

1 Jun 2021 · Restoration law

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis), Caroline Boeshertz (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and

27 May 2021 · Due diligence

Response to Action plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems

13 May 2021

ClientEarth welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the Roadmap for the development of the action plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems (the Action Plan), which the Commission is due to propose by the end of 2021. Importance of DG Environment’s involvement in the Action Plan: ClientEarth welcomes the fact that responsibility for this initiative will be shared between DG MARE and DG ENV. A fundamental objective of the Action Plan should be to ensure that all EU fishing activities are fully consistent with EU environmental laws and policies, including the Birds and Habitats Directives and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. As such, the full involvement of DG ENV at all stages of the development and implementation of the Action Plan will be indispensable to ensuring its success. Part B – What does the initiative aim to achieve and how: The Roadmap contains minimal reference to the role of the Action Plan in tackling the climate crisis. In our view, a central pillar of the Action Plan should be to address the threat that overfishing and destructive fishing practices pose to the critical role of the ocean in regulating the climate and acting as a carbon sink. The Action Plan should help to lay the groundwork for a just transition to low-impact, localised and climate-proof fisheries. ClientEarth recommends that the Action Plan be updated to better frame how the climate crisis will be addressed. Part C - Consultation of Citizens and Stakeholders: The Roadmap does not provide for a full public consultation on the Action Plan. Given its stated purpose “to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine ecosystems”, ClientEarth considers that the Action Plan is a “plan or programme relating to the environment” within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention). The lack of public consultation on the Action Plan therefore represents a clear failure to comply with the public participation requirement set out under Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention. The lack of public consultation is also a direct breach of EU law, namely Article 9 of the Aarhus Regulation 1367/2006), which implements the Aarhus public participation requirements in relation to EU institutions. As the Action Plan amounts to a “general environmental action programme”, it falls within the definition of ‘plan or programme relating to the environment’ for purpose of Article 9 of the Aarhus Regulation. The Roadmap states that “the initiative will be prepared on the basis of a consultation of Member States, Advisory Councils and Commission’s expert groups, complemented with an online targeted consultation of stakeholders”. However, this does not constitute an “appropriate practical and/or other provisions for the public to participate … within a transparent and fair framework, having provided the necessary information to the public”, as required by Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention. The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee has specifically held that the inclusion only of certain representatives and stakeholders “in a closed advisory group cannot be considered as public participation under the Convention”, since the “public concerned” for the purpose of Article 7 “must include both NGOs and individual members of the public” (ACCC/C/2010/51 (Romania), para. 109). In order to remedy this non-compliance, the Commission should amend the Roadmap to provide for adequate public participation, including a prior public consultation where all EU citizens will have the opportunity to contribute to the development of the Action Plan. If, despite the above, the Commission refuses to carry out a public consultation, ClientEarth requests that it be included in the online targeted consultation of stakeholders for the purpose of inputting on the Action Plan.
Read full response

Meeting with Eglantine Cujo (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and WWF European Policy Programme and

7 May 2021 · Discussion about Commission's legislative proposal on deforestation and forest degradation

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis), Caroline Boeshertz (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and

7 May 2021 · Deforestation

Response to Protecting the environment in the EU’s seas and oceans

6 May 2021

ClientEarth welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the Roadmap for the review of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Our feedback here primarily addresses the Roadmap itself – we will be providing substantive commentary for the purpose of the MSFD review during the full consultation scheduled for the end of Q2 2021. The MSFD provides a vital framework for enabling EU seas to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES), including by requiring Member States to put into practice the ecosystem-based approach to managing human activities. However, despite having been in place for more than 10 years, the main objectives of the MSFD have not been met, in particular the need to achieve GES by 2020. The primary goal and scope of the MSFD review should therefore be to address how to reach GES in EU seas as soon as possible. The development of the Roadmap should also be informed by the need to achieve this goal. As to the Roadmap itself, ClientEarth provides the following feedback: A. Context, Evaluation, Problem definition and Subsidiarity Check In the subsection Evaluation > Coherence: • “To what extent is the MSFD coherent with other EU environmental policies, especially water, pollution and waste control, biodiversity and nature protection?” - ClientEarth proposes adding climate change, and the Common Fisheries Policy. • “To what extent is the Directive coherent and mainstreamed into other EU legal instruments addressing specific activities/pressures, like fisheries,…” ClientEarth proposing adding the exploitation of raw materials and seabed mining. B. Objectives and Policy Options One of the stated aims of this initiative is to enable a “sustainable use of EU seas and oceans in line with the EU environmental agenda under the European Green Deal.” ClientEarth proposes the word “use" be changed to “management”, as “use” may not always be the most appropriate means of achieving good environmental status. D. Evidence base, Data collection and Better Regulation Instruments In the “Consultation Strategy” section, “Citizens and stakeholders will be consulted in particular (a) on the main topics and issues to be covered by the evaluation and prioritised for the subsequent impact assessment…” – ClientEarth proposes that the word “main” be deleted.
Read full response

Meeting with Antoine Colombani (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and

4 May 2021 · Energy Taxation Directive and fisheries

Meeting with Diana Montero Melis (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen) and WWF European Policy Programme and

30 Apr 2021 · upcoming regulation on deforestation

Meeting with Jorge Pinto Antunes (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and WWF European Policy Programme and

29 Apr 2021 · Deforestation and forest degradation.

Meeting with Diana Montero Melis (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen) and Conservation International Europe and Wildlife Conservation Society European Union office

29 Apr 2021 · Forest Partnerships

Response to Guidance on REDII forest biomass sustainability criteria

28 Apr 2021

ClientEarth's feedback on the draft Implementing Regulation on establishing operational guidance on the evidence for demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria for forest biomass laid down in Article 29 of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 is attached hereto.
Read full response

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and European Environmental Bureau and

23 Apr 2021 · Discussion on CAP

Response to Modification of the General Block Exemption Regulation for the Green Deal and the Industrial and Digital Strategies

4 Apr 2021

ClientEarth welcomes the revision of the GBER to align it with the European Green Deal and the Industrial Strategy. The ongoing revision of the different State aid instruments is the right time to align these rules with environmental and climate protection objectives. The GBER has proved to be a relevant instrument to facilitate the grant of aid by public authorities and help the Commission focus on novel, complex cases or those involving high amounts of aid. To fully align with the Green Deal, only those aid measures that are supporting activities complying with the Union’s decarbonisation objectives should be exempted from notification. Aid to high-efficient cogeneration, district heating or cooling and energy infrastructure (in assisted areas or not) shall fall within the scope of the GBER only when they fully rely on sustainable renewable energy sources. When that is not the case, notably when these activities rely on fossil fuels, the aid measures should be found incompatible with the internal market or at least, put to an ex ante scrutiny of the Commission in order to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the measures comply with EU environmental law, the decarbonisation and Green Deal objectives. The same goes for support to unsustainable activities such as forest-biomass and small hydropower. Conversely, new categories of aid could be included in the GBER in order to support the green transition, especially aid for energy storage and sustainable batteries, aid for zero exhaust emissions vehicles and charging infrastructure, as well as dedicated support for energy communities. The GBER needs to be future-proof and accurate in five or six years. This implies both immediately addressing any current flaws; and anticipating the development of upcoming innovative technologies and solutions, including their market potential and their impact on the Union’s energy systems and environmental and climate protection objectives. It means giving legal certainty to operators and Member States, as well as all stakeholders, that the design of aid measures will support the green transition and be exempted from notification only when it is right. Our attached response focusses on energy and environmental protection measures. We underline that providing concrete and detailed input on many of these measures is challenging in light of the concomitant revision of the State aid rules, the GBER and State aid guidelines for environmental protection and energy (EEAG) mainly, and of relevant energy legislation expected to set new sustainability standards or thresholds of greenhouse gas emissions, amongst other things. We first outline general recommendations to implement the Green Deal and climate objectives into the GBER. Second, we identify areas for reform and propose the changes needed regarding several aid measures for environmental protection and local infrastructure. Third, we propose the introduction of new aid categories in the GBER. Attachment: ClientEarth's Feedback to the roadmap on the revision of the General Block Exemption Regulation.
Read full response

Response to Statistics on Agricultural Input and Output

31 Mar 2021

See contribution attached. First, ClientEarth supports and welcomes the very positive developments in the Proposal, which tighten the obligations of Member States to provide to Eurostat precise and comparable data on the sale and use of pesticides in the EU. We highlight also other benefits of the Proposal that need to be integrated (I). However, several provisions raise serious concerns: provisions offering many undefined opportunities for derogations or exemptions to Member States, provisions foreseeing implementing acts for important decisions, provisions lacking on access to the data and important gaps in the scope (II).
Read full response

Meeting with Diana Montero Melis (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen), Renaud Savignat (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen) and

22 Mar 2021 · corporate due diligence

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and European Coalition for Corporate Justice and

15 Mar 2021 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Zero Waste Europe

23 Feb 2021 · Implementation of the EU Plastics Strategy and single use plastics

Meeting with Rozalina Petrova (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and Zero Waste Europe

23 Feb 2021 · Implementation of the EU Plastics Strategy and single use plastics

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

12 Feb 2021 · To discuss different blue/marine related issues, in particular bycatch emergency measures, EU-UK negotiations and implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy.

Response to Revision of EU rules on food contact materials

29 Jan 2021

We thank the Commission for the opportunity to provide comments on this initiative. We applaud DG SANTE’s manifest commitment to the goals of the Green Deal as set, in particular, in the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability and the Circular Economy Action Plan. We agree with the problems listed in the Inception Impact Assessment, and welcome a majority of the solutions proposed. However, we note that most of the problems identified are symptoms rather than the root causes of the lack of safety in Food Contact Materials (FCM). DG SANTE needs to rectify this in the next step, because treating the symptoms can only be a short-term solution. We list in the attached document the root causes of the FCM Regulation’s failures. As the issues are structural, only Option 2 described in the Roadmap – a full overhaul of the regulatory framework – can solve them. We also offer high-level recommendations on the way forward.
Read full response

Meeting with Aliénor Margerit (Cabinet of Commissioner Paolo Gentiloni)

21 Jan 2021 · CE position on fuel subsidies

Meeting with Florika Fink-Hooijer (Director-General Environment)

19 Jan 2021 · green transition, compliance with the rule of law and necessary conditionality within the recovery plan

Meeting with Kitti Nyitrai (Cabinet of Commissioner Kadri Simson) and Climate Action Network Europe and

14 Jan 2021 · TEN-E

Response to Revision of EU Ambient Air Quality legislation

13 Jan 2021

ClientEarth welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the start of this important initiative to revise and strengthen the Ambient Air Quality Directives. Please find attached our feedback.
Read full response

Response to State aid rules for Research, Development and Innovation

12 Jan 2021

ClientEarth and Ziegler State Aid & Antitrust (ZAAT)'s contribution to the roadmap focusses on the alignment of theR&D&I Framework with the Green Deal objectives as well as with Article 11 TFEU, in particular. Environmental protection requirements must be streamlined across all State aid rules and practice. To this end, the R&D&I Framework must ensure that only those R&D&I activities that do no harm the environment and climate, or Green Deal objectives, can receive aid. The R&D&I Framework should also support, potentially with the allocaiton of a "green bonus", R&D&I activities that go beyond the new standards set by the Green Deal, as ClientEarth already advocated for in its contribution to the call on the alignement of competition law with the Green Deal (our contribution of 20 November 2020). We annex our proposed amendments to the R&D&I Framework.
Read full response

Response to Improving environmental protection through criminal law

22 Dec 2020

Please find attached ClientEarth's contribution to the roadmap on ECD in attachement.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Communication on important projects of common European interest

21 Dec 2020

ClientEarth welcomes the initiative to revise the Communication on Important Projects of Common European Interest (“IPCEI Communication”) based on the results of the Fitness Check of the State aid rules, to support the Commission’s priorities such as the European Green Deal and the plan for the post-COVID-19 recovery of the European economy. Even though innovation and technological development in the Union can happen and be supported by aid in multiple manners and at various scales, the IPCEI regime can help particularly innovative projects to develop, especially at early stages. The combination of support from several Member States in order to create wide spillover effects (that should, we recommend, include environmental benefits as informed by sound, up to date science) to the ultimate benefit of Union citizens, must be encouraged in principle. The IPCEI Communication must be in line with new laws and policies that are now driving the Union’s action, that are notably the European Green Deal and its various implementing or derived policies , as well as relevant legislation such as that stemming from the Clean Energy Package for energy-related projects. This implies that projects should only qualify as Important Projects in the Common European Interest and be eligible to aid under the IPCEI Communication if: - the projects comply with their environmental law obligations – and any other legal obligations they are subject to; - the projects are sustainable , “do no harm” to the environment, climate or human heath, and go well beyond the Union Standards ; - the Energy Efficiency First principle has been duly implemented by the notifying Member States; - wide and net environmental spillover effects and benefits for society that go beyond socio-economic considerations have been clearly identified; - projects in the fossil fuel sector, that use fossil fuels or are otherwise polluting are excluded from the notion of IPCEIs. As ClientEarth repeatedly advocates, an increased environmental protection and efforts to combat climate change, require support to those measures that have the potential to protect the environment as well as the end of support to polluting and harmful activities. Our contribution in annex first addresses some general questions regarding the roadmap and then focusses on the eligibility and compatibility criteria, mainly for aid to energy infrastructure projects. Indeed, despite the fact that aid to energy infrastructure projects has thus far not been granted under the IPCEI Communication, it does fall within its scope of application. Such is especially the case for projects listed as Projects of Common Interest (“PCIs”) under the TEN-E Regulation as well as potential hydrogen IPCEIs. The possible unsustainability of certain of those projects calls for a better alignment of eligibility and compatibility assessment criteria with the European Green Deal.
Read full response

Meeting with Carmen Preising (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and Stichting BirdLife Europe and Seas At Risk

14 Dec 2020 · Fisheries related matters

Response to New EU Soil Strategy - healthy soil for a healthy life

10 Dec 2020

ClientEarth welcomes the “New Soil Strategy – healthy soil for a healthy life.” Soils are essential for food security and water purification, as well as for biodiversity and climate change mitigation. Pressures on European soils are increasing, with the risk of jeopardising the services provided by properly functioning, healthy soils. Soil is addressed in many EU policy instruments, but there is no a specific soil protection legislation in place at European level. There is a lack of EU-wide binding policy targets for soil health as well as gaps in the protection offered, as some threats to soil – i.e. compaction, salinization and soil sealing – are not addressed in existing European legislation. Soil threats and soil functions are closely linked because each soil threat leads to decreased functions of soil. Thus, to maintain soil functions, soil threats must be addressed. In ClientEarth’s view, it is crucial that the New Soil Strategy identifies reduction targets for all soil threats to maintain and improve soil functions in the future. These targets should, as a follow-up step, be translated into a new legislative framework (i.e. a new directive on soil) or, at least, integrated in existing legislation. We consider that this new legislative framework on soil should: i) highlight the importance of soil functions; ii) address all existing threats to soil; iii) define harmonised indicators and monitoring parameters on soil quality; and iv) set binding and time-bound targets to restore and protect soil. The New Soil Strategy must be coherent with EU international commitments related to soil, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and contribute to the European Green Deal (EGD) objectives. The New Soil Strategy must also be coherent with the policy initiatives under the EGD, including the Farm to Fork Strategy, the Biodiversity Strategy and the Circular Economy Action Plan. We highlight the need for consistency between ongoing initiatives. As there are several instruments that are expected to be adopted in the near future, consistent policy development is essential between the New Soil Strategy, the Zero Pollution Action Plan, the Chemical Strategy for Sustainability, the EU Nature Restoration Plan, the Strategy for a Sustainable Built Environment, the 8th Environment Action Programme and the Climate Law. Soil protection will need to be further integrated in other policy areas, such as agriculture, if the goals of this strategy are to be met. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a key tool to address soil health. However, current negotiations on the post-2020 CAP have failed to integrate the EGD’s agro-related targets into the CAP and have substantially decreased the ambition of its so-called “green architecture.” This translates into a lack of binding targets for the EU agricultural sector on e.g. reduction of nutrients and reduction of pesticides, as well as into the risk that the CAP budget supports agricultural activities, which are detrimental to soil protection. For the elaboration of these and other aspects of the initiative, the Commission is invited to consider the attached NGO position paper.
Read full response

Meeting with Joan Canton (Cabinet of Commissioner Thierry Breton)

10 Dec 2020 · Chemicals Strategy

Response to Access to Justice in Environmental matters

9 Dec 2020

Delivery of the Green Deal depends on the implementation and enforcement of EU environmental law by EU institutions. To ensure compliance in practice, the EU needs strong mechanisms that allow civil society to hold EU institutions to account when they fail to deliver for the environment and human health. Presently, there are no effective means for the public to seek judicial review of EU acts that breach environmental law. We therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal to amend the Aarhus Regulation as a first step in remedying this situation. However, it needs to be significantly improved by the co-legislators. As it stands, it fails to ensure meaningful accountability of the EU institutions, the EU’s compliance with its international law commitments under the Aarhus Convention and effective delivery of the Green Deal. It is widely accepted that the internal review mechanism contained in the Aarhus Regulation does not work because the definition of the acts that can be subject to review is too narrow. Since its adoption, the vast majority of the almost 50 NGO requests for internal review brought to the Commission were rejected as inadmissible and never assessed by the EU courts. For instance, the following Commission decisions are currently excluded from internal review: • Decision to approve active substances that can be used in pesticides, such as glyphosate, which has been labelled as “probably carcinogenic”; • Decision to approve the list of new fossil fuel energy infrastructure projects (the so-called PCI list); • State aid decisions that fuel climate change; • Decisions regulating real time emissions tests for motor vehicles; • Decisions setting the total allowable catches of fish stocks in EU waters. Rather than ensuring that these acts can be subject to review in the future, it is unclear whether the Commission’s proposal would remedy or maintain this situation. This is unacceptable. When EU bodies do not respect the laws made by the European Parliament and the Council, it must be unequivocally clear that the public can hold them to account. This is also a matter of international law. The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee found the EU to be in violation of the access to justice provisions in the Convention. Unless it is improved, the EU will continue to be in breach of the Aarhus Convention. The co-legislators need to amend the following aspect of the Commission’s proposal to remedy this situation: 1. Make acts that entail “implementing measures” and all acts that produce legal effects subject to internal review (Art 2.1g). The proposal’s definition of what constitutes an “administrative act” contains unjustified and unclear exclusions which could insulate many, if not most, acts of the EU bodies which contravene environmental law from review. This would undermine the benefit of the amendment. 2. Make State aid decisions subject to internal review (Art 2.2). The CJEU has explicitly confirmed that the Commission needs to ensure that its State aid decisions only authorise projects that comply with EU environmental law. NGOs must therefore be able to request an internal review if there is evidence that the Commission may have failed to do so. 3. Introduce cost protection and effective court review (Art 12). The proposal does not give NGOs cost protection when they lose in front of the Court, nor does it ensure that the Court will look at all of the substantive and procedural claims that an NGO may bring forward. Both of these issues are barriers to obtaining effective court remedies that need to be addressed in this amendment process. Last but not least, the EU has formally sought the Compliance Committee’s advice on whether the proposal would address its non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention, which is due to be delivered in December 2020. We call on the co-legislators to take the Committee’s advice into due account. A more detailed analysis and suggestions for amendments are contained in the attachment.
Read full response

Response to Green Recovery for the Blue Economy (tentative)

7 Dec 2020

Dear Madam/Sir, Please find enclosed ClientEarth's response to the Commission roadmap: Maritime sector - a green post-COVID future. Best regards,
Read full response

Response to EU Forest Strategy

4 Dec 2020

ClientEarth has identified a number of issues that should be taken into account during further development of the Forest Strategy: 1. FMPs- The Roadmap lists sustainable forest management among the problems that the initiative aims to tackle. From a biodiversity perspective and, based on our experience, in some of the EU member states, for example Romania, forest management is conducted in a superficial manner. It means that in many instances forest management plans (FMPs) are adopted but they are implemented incorrectly. This includes instances where FMPs are in force often years before appropriate assessment procedures are even initiated. Another important issue is that FMPs lack transparency as they tend not to be disclosed to the interested public. What needs to be highlighted is that the mere fact of having adopted an FMP is not enough. Forest management should include timely environmental assessment and access to information without which FMPs will be superficial and ineffective. 2. Forest Information- According to the Roadmap, the Strategy will strive to decrease the loss of forest coverage. We would like to highlight the important role environmental remote-sensing data could play in achieving this goal. Such data, covering all EU forests, if analysed and being made publicly available, preferably on an EU platform such as the Forest Information System for Europe, would allow for more comprehensive monitoring and a quick compliance verification with existing and upcoming EU nature and climate legislation. We recognise the need, resulting from our experience, for increasing the quality, accessibility and harmonisation of data on forests at EU level, with a special emphasis on remote-sensing data on forests in protected areas; we call on the Commission to set a clear objective to tackle this need in the 2030 Forest Strategy. 3. EUTR/FLEGT- Based on the wording of the Roadmap, it is not clear that the Strategy is planned to be coherent with the EUTR and FLEGT Regulation. This is unfortunate as such coherence is key to ensure that the Strategy covers the entire forest cycle, and promotes the numerous ecological and socioeconomic services which forests provide (and thus covers land use and logging). The Strategy should be an instrument to coordinate all forest-related activities within the EU. As intended back in 2014, the Strategy should seek to coherently manage and better understand forests as well as focus on forests from a global perspective, including the conservation of non-EU forests. These goals cannot be achieved without appropriate coherence with the EUTR and FLEGT Regulation that apply to both operators who import timber from third countries and also who harvest wood within the EU, thereby constituting the core tools against illegal logging in the EU and beyond. 4. FRCs & LULUCF- The Commission’s 2018 Report on the Forest Strategy pointed to the effects of LULUCF in a global context as key priorities the Strategy should address. Considering this, measures within the Strategy should fully complement climate change and biodiversity laws and policy and also take into account the dislocation effects of EU consumption patterns of forest-risk commodities (i.e. agriculture, palm oil, timber and others) and how measures, such as mandatory due diligence, could be applied to forest-risk supply chains. 5. Biomass- The EU should actively counter the false perception that biomass is carbon-neutral. Scientific studies have proven that burning wood for energy will actually increase global temperatures and that the demand for biomass drives deforestation and biodiversity loss (attached file). The demand for biomass can also incentivize illegal logging (attached file). For these reasons, any use of biomass (including replacing carbon-intensive materials with wood) should comply with strict sustainability requirements, taking into account the full carbon lifecycle and the limited supply of truly-sustainable feedstocks
Read full response

Meeting with Didier Reynders (Commissioner) and

4 Dec 2020 · Substainable corporate governance

Response to Protecting biodiversity: nature restoration targets

2 Dec 2020

ClientEarth welcomes the EU Nature Restoration Plan of the EU Biodiversity Strategy and fully endorses the development of ambitious legally binding nature restoration targets, as the only adequate policy response to the alarming results of the EEA’s State of Nature Report and the CBD’s Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. ClientEarth will presently underscore the importance of legally binding intervention and touch upon some of the proposed instrument’s core characteristics. i) Need for legally binding action Considering the transboundary effects of climate change, water pollution, soil degradation and minimization of pollination, it can be deduced that the proposed action can only be achieved by coordinated, legally binding EU action for the following reasons: a) Inadequacy of voluntary measures to restore degraded ecosystems, as shown during the implementation period of the previous Biodiversity Strategy, when the uptake of restoration measures by few Member States maintained the steady rate of degradation of several EU ecosystems. A similar reality unfolded globally, where wide discrepancy among CBD Parties´ performance led to a failure to meet Aichi Target 15 b) Need for streamlined and mutually supportive regulatory approaches due to: •the transboundary nature and effects of the subject matter •the urgency of the biodiversity crisis •the will to amplify benefits deriving from nature restoration •the disadvantages of divergence among Member States’ restoration legislation, namely: oUneven and inequitable distribution of the restoration burden oRisk to obstruct the achievement of other items of the EU Biodiversity Strategy c) Existing legal gaps, namely: •No Member States’ obligation to develop and implement restoration plans •No legally binding restoration definitions and methodologies •Limited scope of existing restoration obligations (eg Art 6(1) and 6(2) of the Habitats Directive) •Failure by Member States to adhere to restoration obligations in a timely manner (an omission detrimental to the rapidly declining protected species and ecosystems) •No restoration obligation for species and ecosystems not included in the Birds and Habitats Directives’ Annexes, despite their intrinsic value and multiple benefits, for example, for pollination, carbon sequestration and ecosystem resilience d) Data gaps on the state and trends of EU biodiversity, which would be significantly decreased through legislation making mapping, monitoring and assessment of ecosystems condition obligatory for Member States, thus complementing other monitoring efforts and facilitating more accurate science-based policymaking endeavours. ii) Core characteristics •Objectives: Improvement of ecosystem health and function (central), carbon sequestration and disaster risk resilience (complementary) •Targets: Quantifiable, to ensure that progress can be tracked and restoration plans’ suitability can be assessed •Scale of restoration: Landscape level, addressing degradation of ecosystems, species and habitats •Permanency: Obligation of permanent management change of restored areas •Governance: Provisions on the form of restoration plans and on management of restored areas •Monitoring, reporting and review: Provisions on restoration plans, ecological state and legal status of restored areas •Systemic integration to the environmental EU acquis: Safeguards in place to ensure that the legislation supports the implementation of existing EU legislation and does not undermine it •Cross-sectoral relevance of restoration: Targets should become an implementation tool of the Common Agricultural Policy, the Soil Strategy and the European Green Deal ClientEarth also prompts the Commission to actively engage civil society organizations at all stages of the process, as they can provide invaluable technical, scientific and political expertise. For the elaboration of these and other aspects of the initiative, the Commission is invited to consider the attached NGO position paper
Read full response

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

25 Nov 2020 · Implementation of the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Zero Waste Europe

17 Nov 2020 · circular plastics economy and single-use plastics

Meeting with Wolfgang Burtscher (Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and Pesticide Action Network Europe

9 Nov 2020 · IPM under the new CAP

Response to EU Action Plan Towards a Zero Pollution Ambition for air, water and soil

29 Oct 2020

Please find attached ClientEarth's feedback on the consultation
Read full response

Response to Review of Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency

21 Sept 2020

We welcome the European Commission (EC)’s proposal on the combined evaluation roadmap/inception impact assessment for the revision of the EU Energy Efficiency Directive (EED). Energy efficiency (EE) is a key means to limit climate change, ensure energy security while improving air quality and creating jobs. However, the current legal framework is too weak and not all Member States (MS) properly implement the existing EED (see Progress in the Implementation of the EU EED through the Lens of the National Annual Reports. Energies 2019, 12, 1107). The EU will therefore miss its 2020 EE target. To reach the new EU climate ambition of at least 55% of greenhouse gases emission reduction by 2030, ClientEarth therefore calls for the introduction of non-regulatory measures (policy option 2) and the revision of the EED (policy option 3). This will require a strong EE legal framework, with various monitoring and enforcement tools as well as binding targets and financial support. First, although the EE First principle has been recognised as a guiding principle for EU energy policy, Art. 1 §1 EED only states that the EED shall contribute to this principle. We therefore call on the EC to strengthen this principle to ensure that the EU and MS will apply it properly in their investment and planning decisions in accordance with the definition set out in the Governance Regulation. Second, achieving a higher climate ambition target will require strengthened and ambitious EU and national target frameworks. We advocate for reinforced and binding EU and national EE targets as allowed by Art. 194 TFEU. Then, Art. 7 energy saving obligation is the cornerstone of the EED to deliver EE targets. Under this provision, MS have to fulfil a minimum amount of energy savings with national EE policies and measures. However, under the 2014-2020 period, some MS are likely to fail to meet their obligations (see Coalition for Energy Saving, EED Article 7, National progress and outlook on the energy savings obligation, July 2020). This calls for a strengthening follow-up and monitoring mechanism that will allow MS and the EC to identify potential breaches to Art. 7 and take corrective actions before target deadlines expire. The EC should also provide more guidance on how to fulfil transparent, correct and complete reporting under Art. 7. By using their purchasing power to choose high EE products, services and buildings pursuant to Art. 6, public authorities could significantly contribute to EE targets. The EED revision should therefore extend the scope of Art. 6 to decentralised bodies and aim at improving its implementation. In particular, we suggest that the EC remove legal obstacles to it and reassess the necessity of the conditions on the purchase of high-efficient products. The EC could also communicate better on how to apply Art. 6 and MS provide information and active support to public authorities for implementing this article. We also call for a strengthened Art. 8 e.g. this article should require mandatory recommendations provided for in energy audits. In addition of that, Art. 14 needs to be adapted within a comprehensive approach combining energy savings, fossil fuels phase-out and renewables use. This should take into account the EU Green deal objectives and other initiatives such as the Renovation Wave. In particular, the EED revision should reconsider the role of cogeneration in light with the 2050 climate-neutrality objective. We also recommend the EC to consider revising Art. 15 to improve its effectiveness in light of the conclusions of the assessment undertaken following Art. 24(13) EED. Finally, given the EED importance in contributing to the climate and energy targets, the EC should support the implementation of the EED with the EU MFF.
Read full response

Meeting with Charlina Vitcheva (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and WWF European Policy Programme and

16 Sept 2020 · Workings of the Advisory Councils

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

23 Jul 2020 · To discuss the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, especially with relation with endocrine disruptors.

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

16 Jul 2020 · To discuss the fishing opportunities exercise for 2021, in particular for the Baltic Sea, as well as issues related to the Biodiversity Strategy.

Meeting with Annukka Ojala (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides), Roberto Reig Rodrigo (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and

25 Jun 2020 · VC-meeting on Farm to Fork Strategy and Pesticides.

Response to Chemicals strategy for sustainability

20 Jun 2020

Actions to change the current trends and practices in the manufacture and consumption of chemicals are to the health, biodiversity, farm to fork and circular economy objectives of the Green Deal what the actions to reduce CO2 emissions are to the EU’s climate objectives. Chemical manufacturers and users need to engage in what needs to be the biggest revolution since the REACH Regulation. EU law needs to create the conditions for the chemical industry into changing from a barrier to an enabler of the Green Deal, the Chemical Strategy needs to commit the EU institutions and States to: 1) Align Chemicals Strategy and laws with EU values •Prioritise the protection of the most vulnerable population inside and outside the EU, by adopting a definition and adjusting the current approach to risk management and assessment •Limit the production and use of harmful chemicals to what is essential for society in line with the hierarchy of chemical management (see Annex I) 2) Reinforce business and governmental accountability with transparency •Ensure the transparency of decision-making processes, including the votes of Member States in comitology •Ensure transparency on chemicals, by aligning with the reform of transparency under the General Food Law in all sectors and increasing the collection and dissemination of data on function and presence/location •Ensure that transparency serves the key decision-makers – investors, actors in the value chain, public authorities and the public. •Address the legal, technical and practical barriers to access to environmental information to create an EU chemical dataspace 3) Ban all non-essential uses of endocrine disruptors and persistent chemicals •Amend the identification systems set up in EU law so that they are able to capture EDC and persistent chemicals – broaden CLP and REACH candidate list, increase data requirements in pre-marketing risk and hazard assessment systems •Adopt a coherent and fit policy on how to restrict their uses – generic risk assessment with full ban for non-essential uses and consumer products •Act now to restrict the use of already known and suspected EDCs and very persistent chemicals with REACH restrictions 4) Accelerate the pace of the identification and restriction of harmful chemicals •Make EU chemical and product regulations responsive to early warnings, by systematically using the precautionary principle, creating the best early warning mechanism in the world and refining the revision triggers of existing authorisations to use harmful chemicals •Improve the identification systems set up in EU law – improve the functioning of CLP and REACH identification systems •Use effective and efficient regulatory tools – expand the use of generic risk assessments, cut off for harmful substances, systematically use grouping, improve the linkages between upstream and downstream regulations and limit the use of impact assessments/RMOA 5) Promote a change of mindset in chemical manufacturers and users •Protect the frontrunners, by excluding the laggards from the market and protect frontrunners against international •Define Green Chemistry and use this definition in the context of the future due diligence, sustainable taxonomy and non-financial information regulations as well as in the future framework for products/materials promoting safe by design approaches •Apply strict condition to the granting of public funding for chemical users and manufacturers 6) Expand and strengthen monitoring, control and enforcement •Harmonise the tools used by companies and public authorities to prove and check compliance with EU law •Harmonise the sanctions for non-compliance, by transferring the competence to adopt sanctions at EU level, making cases of compliance or non-compliance public and further align/coordinate the national systems Please see the attached paper for a detailed list of the actions needed to achieve each of these objectives and a hierarchy of chemical management
Read full response

Meeting with Frans Timmermans (Executive Vice-President) and European Environmental Bureau and

16 Jun 2020 · European Green Deal, new circular economy action plan and the circular plastics economy

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

11 Jun 2020 · To exchange views on the negotiations on the future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund

Response to EU rules on industrial emissions - revision

21 Apr 2020

ClientEarth supports the EEB's position on this inception impact assessment, as well as its submissions to the IED fitness check roadmap and targeted consultation. We made our own submissions on issues of access to information, public participation and access to justice as part of the fitness check (https://www.documents.clientearth.org/library/download-info/ied-fitness-check-response-aarhus-issues/). We do not repeat these points here. We endorse the Commission's statement of problems (Section A), and also broadly agree with the Commission's statement of objectives and policy options (Section B), save that: (1) a new Regulation (imposing clearer, more precise and unconditional obligations) is more appropriate than a revised Directive, and (2) a new approach of promoting the industrial activity with the least negative environmental impact for the provision of a given product / service is required, to pursue the Green Deal's decarbonisation and zero pollution objectives. Additional systemic legal issues that we wish to highlight: Decarbonisation: Article 9(1) prevents Member States including limits on greenhouse gases in integrated permits, yet doing so would complement rather than undermine the ETS market-based approach. Article 9(2) renders BAT-AEELs optional. In addition to revising the IED to focus on promoting the lowest environmental impact technologies, any BAT-AEELs should have binding force. In the context of the Green Deal's decarbonisation agenda, Member States should be permitted and required to use all tools at their disposal to drive decarbonisation. EIA coherence: Permit reviews should be accompanied by updated assessments of installations' environmental, climate and health impacts. Detailed guidelines should be adopted for conduct of derogation procedures (e.g. for cost benefit assessment under Article 15(4)), which should be subject to assessment procedures equivalent to EIA. All impact assessments should consider transboundary and climate impacts, as well as the possibility of using a less environmentally harmful alternative technology for the provision of a given product / service. Aarhus rights: The IED suffers major deficiencies with respect to implementing the Aarhus Convention, and should be revised, e.g.: Access to information: require Member States to establish a comprehensive online register of information concerning IED installations. This should include all information specifically referred to in Article 24 and Annex IV, and ideally also the correspondence between operators and permitting authorities with respect to their IED permits. The register should be centralised at EU level, or at least within the Member State (rather than within multiple national / regional registries). Public participation: the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee found IED not to comply with Aarhus Convention requirements, and recommends that the EU establishes "a legally binding framework to ensure that, when a public authority in a Member State of the Party concerned reconsiders or updates permit conditions pursuant to national laws implementing article 21(3), (4), and (5)(b) and (c) of the IED, or the corresponding provisions of any legislation that supersedes the IED, the provisions of article 6(2)-(9) [Aarhus Convention] will be applied" (advance findings published 30 March 2020 in case ACCC/C/2014/121). Access to justice: Revise Article 25 to ensure that the public can challenge omissions by the environmental authorities, such as failure to take enforcement action e(current scope of Article 25 is limited and hard to rely on in national law). Penalties: Revise Article 79 to specify penalties that are genuinely effective, proportionate and dissuasive, rather than allowing the current highly variable approach to penalties that leads to market distortions. Establish Mechanisms for the public to ensure that these penalties are imposed where Member States unable or unwilling to take appropriate action.
Read full response

Response to Access to Justice in Environmental matters

3 Apr 2020

ClientEarth welcomes the publication of this Roadmap. As we have emphasized in the response to previous consultations, we firmly believe that the amendment of the Aarhus Regulation (Regulation 1367/2006) is the only way for the European institutions, other than the CJEU, to significantly improve access to justice concerning acts of the EU institutions and to bring the European Union in compliance with its obligations under international law, specifically the Aarhus Convention. We appreciate that the Roadmap clearly acknowledges this point and that it sets a clear timeline and procedure to achieve this amendment. It will be crucial that the amendment covers all the important aspects that currently prevent the effective functioning of the Regulation. We are including with this consultation response a document that explains in detail the elements that we consider most crucial (Annex 1) as well as a proposal for concrete wording for an amendment of the Regulation (Annex 2). To summarize the most important changes, it will first be necessary to expand the scope of the internal review procedure to cover all relevant EU acts. Specifically: (1) Internal review for all non-legislative regulatory acts: This is reflected in the Roadmap, which is very welcome. At the same time, it is absolutely crucial that there should be no new restrictions. In particular acts must become challengeable whether or not they entail implementing measures. (2) Clarify that all acts “contravening environmental law” are administrative acts. This change is already reflected in the Roadmap which is also very welcome. (3) Clarify that all acts that are “legally binding” are administrative acts. The requirement that acts have “external and legally binding effects” has caused considerable confusion in the past. As confirmed by the Aarhus Compliance Committee, a number of RIRs related to acts that clearly had the potential to contravene EU environmental law have been declared inadmissible on this basis. (4) Make state aid decisions susceptible to internal review: As confirmed by the Aarhus Compliance Committee, there is no general exclusion under the Aarhus Convention for acts adopted by an “administrative review body”. While the exclusion of decisions taken in infringement proceedings, Ombudsman and OLAF proceedings is justifiable, the exclusion of state aid decisions is not. In addition, there are two important aspects that risk undermining the general functioning of the internal review mechanism: (5) Costs must not be prohibitively expensive: Recent experience shows that applicants under Art 263 TFEU are sometimes ordered to pay exorbitant costs incurred by the defendant or an intervener relating chiefly to external legal representation. This potential cost exposure can develop into a serious deterrent if left unregulated. (6) Ensure effective review: As confirmed by the Aarhus Compliance Committee, effective review implies a review of the challenged act/omission itself, rather than of a reply issued by the institution to an internal review request. Amendments should therefore give the Court full powers to consider the underlying decision as part of its review and, where necessary, to amend the internal review decision. The above amendments are needed to ensure that the internal review mechanism becomes effective and can support the Green Deal. In addition, we call on the Commission to adopt a Proposal for a Directive on access to justice in the Member States and to dedicate more funds to bring infringement proceedings wherever Member States fail to respect access to justice rights (see Annex 3). Non-binding measures will not suffice. Finally, we note that due to the absence of an impact assessment, there is one less opportunity to participate in the legislative procedure. Accordingly, we request the Commission to conduct a public consultation once the Proposal is published, as is currently being done for the Proposal for a European Climate Law.
Read full response

Response to Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism

1 Apr 2020

ClientEarth and Ember welcome the European Commission’s initiative to propose a CBAM. This summary is expanded upon in Ember’s attached report; and ClientEarth’s and Ember’s joint attached briefing, both of which form part of our submission. Scope of the CBAM The main objective of the CBAM is to fight climate change by tackling carbon leakage. The measure will be more effective if it captures leakage of GHGs such as methane. Therefore, we suggest replacing the term “carbon” with a broader term such as “emissions” or “GHG”. Existing and new methodologies should evolve where possible to capture GHGs. The CBAM should seek ways to overcome administrative burden and include measures that guarantee “ancillary verifications, controls and audits of installations in third countries” per the roadmap. The CBAM should be assessed: • As an alternative to the measures in the ETS that aim to address carbon leakage. Hence, it may nullify the need free allowances and indirect cost compensation if designed so as to ensure a level playing field between EU industries and their non-EU counterparts in relation to the price of carbon-intensive goods imported to the EU. • To ensure compatibility with the Energy Taxation Directive under revision. • In light of the New Industrial Strategy for Europe and the announced White Paper on an Instrument on Foreign Subsidies, as well as the update of the Industrial Emissions Directive. A CBAM can be compatible with WTO rules, for example Article II.2 or Article III.2 of the GATT. In any case, the CBAM could be justified under Article XX of the GATT exemption, and more specifically for the reasons described in paragraphs b (allowing measures for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health) and/or g (allowing measures for the conservation of exhaustible natural resources). As the CBAM objective is to combat climate change rather than to favour EU domestic products and services over foreign ones, it can be designed in a way not to constitute an arbitrary or unjustified discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. Application The measure should apply in the following areas of the energy sector: • Trade of electricity through interconnectors Electricity imported to the EU from non-EU countries through interconnectors is not subject to carbon pricing, and is often sourced from carbon-intensive power plants (e.g. Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia, Turkey, Morocco, Ukraine). Research by Ember shows that carbon leakage in electricity is already occurring, and a CBAM could be the only effective way to avoid this leakage. • Fossil fuel imports to the EU The EU’s importing of coal, fossil gas, LNG and oil involves significant risk of leakage given the emissions intensity of extracting, processing, storing and transporting those materials. Such emissions may not be properly accounted for due to lack of adequate legal climate frameworks, and so could cause GHG leakage. The Commission should ensure the CBAM properly accounts for the emissions involved in these imports. Form The roadmap and Ember in its report suggest several options for the mechanism. The choice of the most suitable and effective form should be based on compatibility with WTO rules, timing of the mechanism, adaptability and effectiveness. Legal basis and instrument As the main purpose of the measure is to combat climate change, Article 192 of the TFEU seems to provide a more suitable legal basis than Article 207. To safeguard a higher level of harmonisation and coordination in a complex area, a regulation is preferred over a directive. Final remarks The CBAM will link to various areas of EU policy and legislation. We strongly recommend the CBAM is adopted through a transparent, close and meaningful cooperation with DG TAXUD with DGs CLIMA, TRADE, ENER, COMP and ENV. Finally, ClientEarth and Ember should be included in the specialised audience, which will participate in the more technical consultation. Clie
Read full response

Response to Farm to Fork Strategy

16 Mar 2020

ClientEarth welcomes the initiative of the European Commission to support the transition towards sustainable food systems through the Farm to Fork Strategy and appreciates the opportunity to provide its views in this Roadmap. This response will: (1) Raise a procedural point, emphasising that a public consultation process must be conducted prior to the adoption of the Farm to Fork Strategy. (2) Identify, across different policy areas, gaps and weaknesses that, if not addressed, will jeopardise the success of the Farm to Fork Strategy. On the first point, the Roadmap states that the “[t]he overall objective of the strategy is to accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system that should have a neutral or positive environmental impact, is capable to adapt to climate change and at the same time contributes to climate change mitigation, ensures food security and creates a food environment which makes healthy diets the easy choice for EU citizens”. ClientEarth considers that the Farm to Fork Strategy represents a plan or programme relating to the environment, therefore requiring public or stakeholder consultation prior to its adoption, pursuant to Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention. However, the Roadmap envisages that “[c]onsultations with a wide range of stakeholders and citizens will take place after the publication of the Strategy in the context of the elaboration of individual initiatives proposed”. ClientEarth appreciates the effort by the Commission to act promptly but this cannot justify the failure to provide public participation in environmental decision-making: a proper public participation procedure must take place prior to the adoption of the Farm to Fork Strategy. On the second point, ClientEarth would like to emphasise the following elements on which EU action is needed to achieve the objectives of the European Green Deal: • Fully aligning the Common Agricultural Policy and the EGD through quantifiable and time-bound targets, accompanied by a robust system of monitoring, as well as supporting farmers in the transition towards sustainable agricultural practices through adequate “advisory services”; • Ending overfishing, addressing destructive fishing and reducing unsustainable fish consumption. • Promoting environmentally-responsible aquaculture; • When it comes to the seafood supply chain, encouraging business leadership towards the implementation of responsible practices, ensuring clear and consistent labelling, properly implementing the CMO Regulation, and promoting sea to plate traceability; • Adopting a Zero-pollution Action Plan for air, water and soil in the context of agriculture, filling the gaps in the existing legislation on air pollution from agriculture emissions. It is also essential that the Farm to Fork Strategy initiates a transition for the EU livestock farming in the direction that will reduce the ammonia and methane pollution; • Delivering food without harmful chemical residues, including leakage from food contact materials. The Commission is expected to deliver a new legislation on food contact materials, integrating the progress made on identifying harmful chemicals adopted under other EU legislations, including REACH; • Reducing use and dependency on agro-chemicals not only setting an ambitious target in this sense but also improving the implementation of the Plant Protection Products Regulation and of the Sustainable Use Directive; • Ensuring that the Farm to Fork Strategy takes into account, complements, and crucially does not undermine efforts to urgently and radically upscale efforts to protect and restore biodiversity, including those in the Biodiversity Strategy; • Aligning the Farm to Fork Strategy with the Circular Economy Action Plan and ensuring that measures are implemented to reduce the reliance on single-plastics in the agricultural, fishing and food sectors. Please, refer to the attached file for further details on the raised issues.
Read full response

Response to Illegal logging – evaluation of EU rules (fitness check)

28 Feb 2020

ClientEarth considers that both the EUTR & FLEGT Regulation have contributed to more legality and transparency in the global timber supply chain and have made progress towards achieving the objectives of the FLEGT Action Plan. This Fitness Check is a good opportunity to assess the remaining challenges of the Regulations: the application of a more harmonised and effective enforcement/penalty scheme, limitations in the product scope of the EUTR, and coherence with other existing legislative and non-legislative measures as well as commitments under international agreements. Throughout the fitness check, it is important to bear in mind the environmental and sustainable development objectives on which the interventions are based. Focus Period: while acknowledging the intended emphasis on implementation in the last 3 years, this should be done in light of the whole period since the interventions entered into force. Guiding evaluation questions We suggest the following: 1.Add questions to establish what is the current situation: • How has the situation evolved since the intervention began (both since application and latest evaluation)? • Are the rationale and objectives of the interventions still relevant? • What are the appropriate points of comparison against which to judge changes? • What progress was reached over time? Have there been problems related to the implementation and application of the Regulations? • What is the current situation for different stakeholders (based on practical experience) and how are they affected by the interventions? 2.Effectiveness Effectiveness of MS enforcement regimes should be included: • To what extent have MS complied with rules of adopting and implementing penalties that are “proportionate, effective and dissuasive” for the interventions? Also, the following aspects should be included in the guiding questions: • Should stronger obligations be placed on MS to act on substantiated concerns? • How have the interventions been implemented by MS? How are Competent Authorities cooperating on implementation/enforcement? • Has the scale of checks in MS been sufficient to ensure adequate enforcement? • To what extent have MS complied with their own plans for checks on operators and traders within the intervention? • Have the interventions helped to create a “level playing field” for operators? Have they ensured more traceability on the timber market generally? • Does the framework of the interventions guarantee a full functioning due diligence system for operators and the independence of monitoring authorities? • To what extent has the intervention been effective in guaranteeing functioning verification schemes in risk assessment and risk mitigation? • Has the intervention been effective in regulating the placing on the market of domestic EU timber as well as imported timber? 3.Efficiency It is essential that these guiding questions draw attention to benefits of the interventions and not just costs: • How are the costs of the intervention justified, given the achieved effects? Are these costs proportionate? • What factors are influencing any particular discrepancies? • How does the intervention fit with the international regulatory scheme in the area of timber? What other factors influence the costs and benefits? • How have the costs of implementation of the intervention been adapted/tailored to capacities of all operators (including SMEs)? 4.Coherence • On the second question, add “deforestation, agriculture and environmental crime” as primary guiding objectives. • On the third question, add the following question: Could it be supported by developments in trade agreements as to include reviews on sustainable management of forests? • Add one additional question: Is the intervention coherent with the EU’s international obligations? 5.European Added Value Add the following question: How has the intervention influenced other EUTR-like legislation developed in non-EU jurisdictions?
Read full response

Response to Revision of Non-Financial Reporting Directive

27 Feb 2020

ClientEarth welcomes the consultation and recommends that the Commission adopts the third proposed option: Revise and strengthen the provisions of the NFRD. Please see attached a document with further details supporting our position.
Read full response

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

21 Feb 2020 · Sustainable food systems

Response to Climate Law

6 Feb 2020

ClientEarth Roadmap consultation response – summary ClientEarth welcomes the Commission’s initiative to write into law the goal in the European Green Deal of climate neutrality by 2050. We assume here that the European Climate Law (ECL) will not deal directly with elements of the European Green Deal beyond those aiming at climate action. We consider that: 1. The ECL’s interactions with wider elements of the European Green Deal (and beyond) may be significant and need to be carefully considered. 2. For the ECL to be effective it can be ‘lean’ – however it must put in place the key means of ensuring delivery of the new Union-wide 2050 target. Our feedback is summarised below. Further context is provided in the accompanying document. 1. Wider impact of the ECL • The maintenance of a coherent legal landscape is essential. The fragmentation of laws (leading to loopholes) and the inadvertent creation of legal conflicts between different policy areas or instruments must be avoided, now and in future. • The ECL must ensure that all sectors play their part in delivering climate neutrality. The reformed Common Agricultural Policy is an example of an important legal and policy development that must be designed to be consistent with the ECL. • The ECL must not, however, over-ride other important environmental concerns, eg. through the prioritisation of bioenergy – which, aside from bringing climate concerns, has worsened air quality and has the potential to undermine the restoration of biodiverse forests. • The international impact of the ECL will be significant. Care needs to be taken to ensure that GHG emissions are not effectively ‘offshored’ – meaning that consumption emissions should be monitored and reduced – and that the EU’s external relations, including trade negotiations, are conducted in a manner consistent with the need for global climate neutrality. 2. The European Climate Law • The ECL must be a regulation, based on Article 192(1) TFEU alone. • The ECL must institute emissions targets not only for 2050 but also intermediate emissions targets (in 2030 and 2040 at least) that are consistent with the trajectory to climate neutrality in 2050. All GHG targets must have equivalent political and legal status. 5-yearly targets or carbon budgets will be needed to ensure decision-makers experience a sufficient consistent pull on policymaking. • All ‘secondary’ targets must be consistent with the overall GHG targets, but their ambition not limited by them. • Any targets concerning GHG removal must be designed with great caution and robustly regulated. • Mainstreaming (ensuring ongoing consistency with emissions targets) must actively constrain decision-making. Emissions targets are in reality achieved or missed by actions taken years earlier, and new legal duties in the ECL must be focused at this earlier point in time. • To this end, the Governance Regulation must be utilised in new ways. For the purposes of the ECL, progress assessments must be based on the comparison of Union and Member State projected emissions with emissions targets (as reported under the Governance Regulation). The ECL must then require that policy decisions cannot be made insofar as they are not consistent with bringing projected emissions into (or at least, towards) compliance with those targets. • Mainstreaming must extend to Union funding and financial policies, including the use of investments and subsidies. Funds might be withheld as a means of remedying failures to comply with the ECL or supporting legal instruments. • Commitments to transparency and access to justice are essential for maintaining the effectiveness and legitimacy of the transition, alongside new enforcement opportunities at EU and MS level. • An independent EU-level expert body may be valuable to the above ends, as well as in advising on targets and ensuring their continuing overall consistency.
Read full response

Response to A new Circular Economy Action Plan

20 Jan 2020

ClientEarth welcomes the adoption of the European Commission’s New Circular Economy Action Plan. Given its importance and impact on nature, the economy and human health, we consider a full consultation of the Action Plan to be essential and hope the Commission revises its decision not to hold one. Please see attached a document with our main asks.
Read full response

Response to EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy

20 Jan 2020

Part C - Consultation of Citizens and Stakeholders The Roadmap states that the biodiversity strategy will include “EU Commitments and measures to address the main causes of biodiversity loss in the EU. These could include quantified objectives and measures”. ClientEarth considers that the strategy therefore represents a plan or programme relating to the environment. However, the Roadmap does not envisage any public or stakeholder consultation on the biodiversity strategy prior to its adoption. This would represent a clear failure to comply with Article 7 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention). The process of “invited targeted stakeholder input on possible 2030 EU biodiversity objectives and measures via the Coordination Group for Biodiversity and Nature” which took place in the autumn of 2019 is not a substitute for a public consultation with “appropriate practical and/or other provisions for the public to participate … within a transparent and fair framework, having provided the necessary information to the public”, as required by Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention. There has been no attempt to provide opportunities for public participation. We understand the Commission’s desire to publish its strategy without delay, but the selected timeline is entirely of the Commission’s making. It is not an excuse for failure to provide public participation in environmental decision making. ClientEarth considers that a proper public participation procedure must be conducted prior to the adoption of any biodiversity strategy. Part B - What does the initiative aim to achieve and how The Roadmap states that the biodiversity strategy will include “EU Commitments and measures to address the main causes of biodiversity loss in the EU. ClientEarth considers that this should be amended to include the EUs impact outside of the EU. EU consumption of commodities associated with deforestation demonstrate that the EU represents a share between 7 and 10% of global deforestation (European Commission, 2013. The impact of EU consumption on deforestation: Comprehensive analysis of the impact of EU consumption on deforestation. Final report) At indent 1 the Roadmap states that the Strategy will “put forward EU commitments and measures to address the main causes of biodiversity loss in the EU. These could include quantified objectives and measures to”. ClientEarth considers that the Strategy must include quantified objectives and measures as listed, and propose that the word “could” be altered to “will” in the above section. At indent 2 the Roadmap states that the measures may include those which “restore damaged ecosystems, including carbon-rich ecosystems, to good ecological status and enhance the flow of essential services that they provide”. ClientEarth propose that good ecological status should be a goal even where ecosystems do not provide essential services. At indent 3 the Roadmap goes on to state that measures may include those to “promote the sustainable use of forest, agriculture, marine, freshwater and urban ecosystems”. ClientEarth propose the word “use" be changed to “manage” as use may not always be the most appropriate means of achieving good ecological condition. At indent 4 the Roadmap states that measures may include those which “fully integrate biodiversity considerations into other EU policies and address EU impacts on global biodiversity”. ClientEarth propose changing the word “other” to “all” as it is essential that all EU policies fully integrate impacts on global biodiversity.
Read full response

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

17 Jan 2020 · The role of agriculture in the Green Deal

Meeting with Anthony Agotha (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and WWF European Policy Programme and

20 Nov 2019 · Exchange of views on sustainability, climate change and maritime issues

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

14 Nov 2019 · discussion on Sustainable Development and agriculture

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and WWF European Policy Programme and

3 Jul 2019 · discussion on EU action on fighting deforestation

Meeting with Joao Aguiar Machado (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries)

21 May 2019 · + other NGOs: Workings of the Advisory Councils

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Friends of the Earth Europe and

7 May 2019 · discussion on Struma Motorway, Bulgaria and Kresna Gorge case

Response to Stepping up EU Action against Deforestation and Forest Degradation

11 Jan 2019

ClientEarth welcomes the Roadmap as an acknowledgement that the Commission needs to amplify its action to address deforestation and forest degradation. However, we are concerned about the proposed reliance on existing policies and tools to step up EU action, as the Roadmap does not expressly recommend filling gaps in the existing framework with new and targeted policy actions / new regulatory measures. Calls for an initiative from the Commission to take action against deforestation have always been strong and have not been restricted to relying only on the existing EU framework. In July 2018, the EP asked the Commission to launch a thorough impact assessment with the purpose of establishing an EU Action Plan on deforestation and forest degradation that includes concrete and coherent regulatory measures. The Roadmap points out that the problem of deforestation is compounded by poor forest governance including unclear land ownership and poor laws and enforcement in many producer countries. While this is true, other challenges should also be mentioned in the Roadmap, e.g.: i. Illegal deforestation and risk of illegalities. Research indicates that nearly half of all recent tropical deforestation is the result of illegal clearing for commercial agriculture. This is relevant because companies putting forest risk commodities on the EU market should be held responsible for trading products which are legal and sustainable. ii. Lack of demand side measures. Unlike the timber sector, there are no regulatory measures to restrict access of unsustainable and illegal forest risk commodities to the EU market. This gap is also contributing to the current deforestation rate. Furthermore, the Roadmap should explicitly identify the actors on the demand side that could address deforestation. The role of the private sector of supplying commodities that may be associated with deforestation is generally known and recognised. However, it is also essential to point out the role of financial institutions that continue to offer financial services to companies to expand their production, although it may be associated with deforestation. The Roadmap could also be more explicit regarding the possible actions already included and explore the feasibility of further actions: Regarding the possible actions already included in the Roadmap (non-exhaustive list): i. Partnerships with producer countries in the tropical domain: It is essential that the EU provides financial and technical support to producer countries that want to address deforestation and forest degradation. Regarding land governance the Roadmap should go one step further and offer support for development of robust land use plans and better recognition of land tenure rights of local communities and indigenous people. ii. The Roadmap could also explore how to promote sustainable and transparent supply chains for sustainably produced commodities e.g (options described in the 2018 feasibility study): • Through the FLEGT Action Plan and its VPAs: land allocation and conversion timber could be integrated better, • A new regulation to minimise the risks of illegal and unsustainable forest risk commodities entering companies’ supply chain and being placed in the EU market, e.g. a due diligence obligation for operators putting forest-risk commodities on the EU market Regarding the feasibility of further actions (non-exhaustive list): i. EU trade policy: ClientEarth encourages the Commission to specify in this Roadmap that specific attention will be given to uphold EU commitments on deforestation, particularly in the Trade and Sustainable Development Chapters of future Free Trade Agreements. ii. Continue to support actions to address illegal logging by improving the implementation of the FLEGT Action Plan, notably : • Continue to encourage MS to enforce the EU Timber Regulation better by allocating more human and financial resources • Continue to encourage VPA implementation
Read full response

Response to Towards a more comprehensive EU framework on endocrine disruptors

18 Jul 2018

We welcome the Roadmap as a recognition that the Commission needs to propose a strategy and new regulatory action on endocrine disruptors. We also welcome the recognition, in the roadmap, of the existence of critical windows of exposure for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and of the need to manage cocktail effects, considering that both will require an adaptation of EU chemicals regulations. However, we are concerned both by the celebratory tone employed by the Commission to describe the existing regulatory framework’s capacity to address the challenge of EDCs and, correlatively, by the absence of real commitments to fill the current gaps in environmental and health protection. We invite the Commission to seize the opportunity of the Roadmap and the Communication which will follow to adopt the indispensable and long awaited updated EU strategy on EDC. The strategy needs to contain commitments going beyond what is already done or planned, in line with what is required by the 2013 EP resolution, the 2016 Council conclusion and the EDC-free coalition’s 8 demands for an EU strategy. Detailed comments attached.
Read full response

Response to EU implementation of the Aarhus Convention in the area of access to justice in environmental matters

29 May 2018

Amendment of the Aarhus Regulation is the only means available to the EU legislature to bring the EU into compliance with its international law obligations. On 17 March 2017, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) found the EU to be in violation of the Aarhus Convention by failing to provide members of the public with access to the EU courts. The findings of the ACCC are unequivocal: the EU fails to comply with the Convention and is recommended to amend the Aarhus Regulation (or adopt new legislation) in the absence of a change in jurisprudence of the CJEU.The lack of agreement on the findings at the last Meeting of the Parties was due to the unprecedented clash provoked by the EU’s attempt to block endorsement of the ACCC’s decision. However, some of the other State parties were strongly opposed to the EU’s argumentation. The decision was therefore postponed. During the meeting, a number of States voiced concern that the EU was seeking to obtain a special status under the Treaty, a status that is justified neither legally nor politically. By now, the EU Member States have also realized the disastrous precedent set and that the EU cannot exempt itself from international law obligations, as demonstrated by the intent of the Council to make an official request based on Article 241 TFEU to the Commission asking them to adopt a legislative proposal.The European Parliament and the EESC have also called upon the Commission to comply with the findings of the ACCC and to revise the Aarhus Regulation.The Commission seems to be the only one hesitating as to the way to bring about compliance. Rather than being “already complete” as stated in the Roadmap, the EU system of remedies suffers from considerable shortcomings. As recognized already in the first ACCC’s findings in 2011, the preliminary reference system under Article 267 TFEU does not meet the requirements of Article 9(3) of the Convention. Over the last years, the CJEU has further consolidated its case law in claims brought by NGOs, thereby clarifying that members of the public have no standing under Article 263 TFEU to challenge acts and omissions of EU institutions that are not addressed directly to them. The Aarhus Regulation is the only remaining avenue for the public but it remains unduly restrictive in its current form. Since the adoption of the Aarhus Regulation in 2006, members of the public have attempted to request the internal review of a range of acts of the EU institutions. However, to this day only 7 out of 35 requests were declared admissible. Almost all of these requests were denied on the basis of the requirement that an ‘administrative act’ must be of “individual scope”, “adopted under environmental law” and “have legally binding and external effects”.The Compliance Committee found that all of these requirements, as well as other aspects of the Regulation, fail to comply with the Convention.The situation is therefore clear: (1) The EU is a party to the Aarhus Convention in its own right; it therefore constitutes an integral part of the EU legal order. (2) The EU is in non-compliance with the Convention and therefore violates international law and primary EU law. (3) Based on one of the fundamental principles of the international legal order (article 27 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties), the EU cannot avoid performing its obligations by invoking its internal law. (4) The only option open to the Commission to remedy this violation of international law is to propose an amendment of the Aarhus Regulation.There is no need to conduct a further assessment of “how access to justice works”. For over 10 years, the Commission has been presented with legal analyses, an abundance of specific case examples and statistics on access to justice. Nonetheless, the Commission has delayed remedying this issue, even contrary to calls by international bodies and its fellow institutions. The time for studies is over – it is time to amend the Aarhus regulation
Read full response

Response to Improving the emissions legislation for Light Duty Vehicles

5 Apr 2018

ClientEarth welcomes the Commission’s intention to increase transparency around vehicle testing, but is disappointed that, in several other aspects, the proposal falls short of the level of ambition needed to ensure strong and reliable RDE and WLTP testing. (a) Transparency The confidentiality requirement in the current version of Article 5, paragraph 11, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 is unlawful for breach of binding access to information rules in environmental matters. ClientEarth is pursuing an action before the General Court of the European Union (Case T-677/17), seeking the partial annulment of the provision. ClientEarth, therefore, welcomes the proposal to amend the provision and delete the confidentiality requirement to bring it into compliance with transparency rules. ClientEarth welcomes also the steps to make the ISC process more transparent, providing for the publication of a package on Testing Transparency. However, the Transparency List in Appendix 5 should be amended to include information not only on CO2 emissions, but also on emissions of pollutants (including NOx). Furthermore, the requirement in point 5.2 of Annex II that the test results may only be disclosed to the public after the publication by the granting type approval authority (GTAA) of the annual report should deleted, because such limitation on the right of access to the test results is contrary to binding transparency rules. (b) Independent third parties tests Third parties tests are an essential safeguard – without third parties scrutiny in the US, the Volkswagen scandal would have not been discovered. It is disappointing that the proposal does not allow in-service conformity (ISC) tests by independent third parties. (c) Compulsory annual ISC checks by GTAA ClientEarth supports the introduction of such compulsory checks. However, the proposed level of 5% of PEMS families tested every year per manufacturer is too low and should be raised to at least 20%. It is essential that, initially, more cars are tested to identify all outstanding issues. The volume can be progressively lowered once the ISC results show consistent compliance with emission regulations across families and different testing conditions. (d) Fuel consumption meters ClientEarth welcomes the proposal to make fuel consumption meters compulsory. Robust and accurate fuel consumption meters are essential to address the growing gap between the officially declared fuel consumption values and on road performance. The proposal should, however, be improved in order to extend the obligation to use meters on all powertrain technologies and to provide access to data by third parties. (e) NOx Conformity Factor ClientEarth is extremely disappointed by the proposal to reduce the PEMS NOx margin from 0.5 to only 0.43, even if the Commission's own analysis shows that the margin of uncertainty is as low as 0.24. The Euro 6 Regulation grants the Commission the power to adopt implementing measures only to amend non-essential aspects of the basic regulation. The exercise of such implementing power should be based on sound technical evidence, not on political reasons. The decision to apply a conformity factor of 0.43 (higher than the margin of uncertainty of 0.24 resulting from the Commission’s analysis) represents a political decision to alter the NOx emission limit laid down in the Euro 6 Regulation. As such, the 0.43 margin exceeds the scope of the Commission’s implementing powers.
Read full response

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner) and

23 Jan 2018 · common fisheries policy, multi-annual plans and fisheries control regulation

Response to Reducing marine litter: action on single use plastics and fishing gear

12 Jan 2018

Overarching comments ClientEarth agrees that we need urgent action on plastics pollution. In that context, the framing of this inception impact assessment (IIA) as relating to ‘marine litter’ rather than ‘plastics pollution’ is unhelpful because: • It ignores the non-visual aspects of plastics pollution (including those relating to SUP and fishing gear), which go far beyond beach litter. • It implies that clean-up and recycling alone will be sufficient to solve this problem. Relatedly, the IIA does not place sufficient emphasis on the need to reduce the overall production of plastics. This is equally as, if not more, important than the integration of plastics into the Circular Economy (CE). Section A. While action to address pollution and clean-up of SUP/fishing gear once in circulation is important, actions targeted higher up the plastics value chain are also urgently needed. For example, we need to prevent pre-production pellet, flake and powder loss. As the EC will know, several large new polymer production plants (PPPs) are planned in the EU. This substantial increase in polymer production will result in the manufacture of more plastic products, including SUPs and fishing gear. It is hard to see how the demand for plastic products will decrease when polymer production is increasing. The EC needs to consider options for tighter regulation of PPPs (e.g. through review of the BREF for PPPs) as a policy intervention. The IIA’s examples of regulatory failures indicate an incorrect perception that this issue can be solved by implementation of clean-up and anti-littering legislation/policies alone. The IIA also fails to fully commit to regulatory solutions, stating that EU level action may be desirable. The reality is that a new, EU-level legislative instrument designed to tackle plastics pollution is urgently needed. As a point of fact, there is no reference for the figures relating to SUP pollution. Other publications, such as a report from Eunomia dated June 2017 (http://www.seas-at-risk.org/images/pdf/publications/SeasAtRiskSummarysingleUseplasticandthemarineenvironment.compressed.pdf) refer to different, lower figures (Eunomia estimates that SUP make up on average 49% of beach litter). Section B. In terms of objectives and policy options, again the IIA focuses too narrowly on integration of plastics into the CE. We need a stricter approach that recognises plastics as pollutants and reduces overall plastics production. For example, the EC should legislate to: • Phase-out: (i) unnecessary SUPs; and (ii) the most environmentally damaging plastic polymer types, combinations and formats (e.g. those that are intrinsically toxic such as PVC and those that for various reasons cannot currently be recycled). • Incentivise companies to replace the phased-out plastics with materials derived from renewable sources or biomass, e.g. through tax breaks. • Disincentivise companies from continuing to use plastics not subject to phase-out but nonetheless derived from fossil fuel sources, e.g. through extended producer responsibility obligations. • Introduce design standards for plastic products, to ensure that they can always be recycled. To achieve this, the EC must also incentivise companies to carry out research and development. Additionally, as the IIA acknowledges, improvement of waste management and sorting facilities is needed. Voluntary commitments can complement a regulatory approach, but cannot replace it. Section C. ‘Unintended consequences’ associated with potentially sustainable alternatives to plastics certainly need to be explored and assessed. It is optimistic for the EC to say there will be no additional administrative burden associated with this strategy. Better enforcement of existing legislation and the creation of new legislation and/or policy are central to the strategy. This will naturally require the deployment of additional resources.
Read full response

Meeting with Andras Inotai (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella) and WWF European Policy Programme and

11 Jan 2018 · Fisheries Control Regulation

Response to Evaluation of Food Contact Materials (FCM)

19 Dec 2017

See document attached
Read full response

Meeting with Andras Inotai (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella) and Stichting BirdLife Europe and

24 Nov 2017 · implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy

Response to Fisheries Control System

30 Oct 2017

Dear Madam/Sir, Please find enclosed a joint NGOs feedback to the Inception Impact Assessment published by the European Commission on the EU Fisheries Control System. Best regards, Elisabeth Druel
Read full response

Meeting with Xavier Prats Monné (Director-General Health and Food Safety) and Chemicals, Health and Environment Monitoring Trust and Health & Environment Alliance

11 Oct 2017 · Discussion on Food Contact Materials

Response to Fitness check of the EU Ambient Air Quality Directives

23 Aug 2017

Section A1: This section describes the Directives as setting air quality standards and the need to ensure adequate monitoring and assessment, but fails to mention the requirement to meet those standards and the requirement to identify and implement the most effective emission reduction measures at local, national and Community level in order to protect human health and the environment. This should be explicitly stated. Section A2: When considering whether costs are disproportionate, in line with the principles of Better Regulation, the fitness check must take into account the public health and social costs of air pollution, and not simply the regulatory costs of the implementation of the Directives. It should also be acknowledged that WHO guidelines are due to be reviewed in the short term and that there is a chance that those guidelines will become more stringent. Section B1: It should be noted that Directive 2008/50/EC seeks to ensure protection against harmful effects on vegetation and ecosystems, not only on ecosystems services. This is arguably a wider definition. Section C2: As above, when considering efficiency, the public health and social costs of air pollution should also be taken into account. In addition, we recommend that examining the question of whether access to justice for citizens has been effectively provided in respect of these Directives. Section D3: When drawing examples from national and regional administrative courts it should be noted that there are some jurisdictions where such cases are challenging to bring because of problems with access to justice. The absence of a case before a national or regional administrative court does not necessarily indicate that the Directives have been effectively transposed or applied. Secondly, a number of cases exist before national or regional administrative courts and tribunals which have not yet reached a formal judgment. These examples of ongoing cases should also be taken into account to inform the evaluation.
Read full response

Meeting with Vytenis Andriukaitis (Commissioner) and

12 Jul 2017 · Neonicotinoids

Response to Commission Delegated Regulation amending Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/242 on the ACs.

7 Jun 2017

ClientEarth's response to the Commission's draft delegated regulation can be found in the attached document.
Read full response

Meeting with Rolf Carsten Bermig (Cabinet of Commissioner Elżbieta Bieńkowska) and European Environmental Bureau and Chemicals, Health and Environment Monitoring Trust

30 Mar 2017 · Reach Evaluation

Response to Real-Driving Emissions in the EURO 6 regulation on emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (RDE3)

7 Dec 2016

ClientEarth welcomes the Commission’s proposal on the 3rd RDE package as a timely step in the right direction to tackle particulate emissions from Gasoline Direct Injection cars and strengthen the RDE test procedure. Minimising road transport pollution is essential to improving air quality and citizens’ health. ClientEarth considers the current text of the proposed 3rd RDE package to be the minimum acceptable to be effective. If there is any further weakening of the text during discussions in TCMV on the 20th December, ClientEarth and many other stakeholders, including possibly the European Parliament; will have legitimate concerns as to the suitability of the new regulation and whether we should seek to have it rejected. In particular, it is essential that the level of ambition of the current text is maintained or improved as regards the following topics: (a) implementation timetable; (b) transparency; and (c) testing loopholes. (a) Implementation timetable The extension of RDE to measure PN emissions must be implemented without delay under the proposed timetable, i.e. 2017 for new types and 2018 for all new vehicles. Any slippage of either of these dates is unacceptable The conformity factors should be reviewed annually. (b) Transparency ClientEarth welcomes the Commission’s proposal to publish the results of the PEMS tests and the Declared Maximum RDE Values in a database. Any weakening of these important provisions will seriously undermine the right of the public to have access to RDE information. There are orders of magnitude difference in emissions for vehicles and drivers and NGOs should be provided with this information. However, the text of the proposal should be improved, making also the Extended Documentation Package (Annex I, Appendix 3a) publicly available. The current text provides that such package “shall remain strictly confidential” (Article 1, para. (3)). As the Extended Documentation Package contains information on emissions into the environment (see Appendix 3(a), points (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i)), this confidentiality provision is in breach of Article 4(4)(d) of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters and of Article 4(2) second sub-paragraph of Directive 2003/4/EC. (c) Testing loopholes The approach used to account for higher cold-start emissions (point 27 in annex 2) should be replaced with a more accurate weighting process of their fair share in an average urban trip. Furthermore, the possibility to use an up to 30s idling period between the engine start and the first movement of the vehicle (point 25 in annex 2) is a loophole to severely underestimate cold-start emissions of gasoline engines, and should be closed. As regards regeneration events, ClientEarth asks the TCMV to remove the possibility to use Engine Control Unit (ECU) data for detection of such evens to ensure RDE results cannot be manipulated by carmakers (point 19 of annex 2). The exhaust temperature should be used instead. We welcome recital 17 that allows updates of Ki factors to be closer to real-world situations, but the Commission should establish a public database with more realistic values from independent tests. ClientEarth believes that the above changes will ensure that the on-road emissions tests are robust and accurately represent vehicles’ performance on the road.
Read full response

Meeting with Peter Van Kemseke (Cabinet of Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič)

21 Mar 2016 · Energy Union governance, next steps.

Meeting with Joao Aguiar Machado (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and WWF European Policy Programme and

10 Nov 2015 · Implementation of CFP / fighting against IUU

Meeting with Pierre Schellekens (Cabinet of Vice-President Miguel Arias Cañete)

19 Oct 2015 · Climate and Energy Governance

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner) and WWF European Policy Programme and

22 Sept 2015 · Common Fisheries Policy

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner) and WWF European Policy Programme and

23 Jun 2015 · Ocean Governance

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner) and WWF European Policy Programme and

4 Feb 2015 · Blue and green growth, Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Marine litter, Aquaculture, Seabed mining

Meeting with Silvia Bartolini (Cabinet of Vice-President Miguel Arias Cañete)

22 Jan 2015 · 2030 Governance and Energy Union

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner) and

4 Dec 2014 · Implementation of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy, Ocean Governance, Deep Sea Access