IMPLICATIONS OF THE JUDGMENT IN EARTHLIFE AFRICA JOHANNESBURG V MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND OTHERS CASE NO 65662/16

A letter from the Centre for Environmental Rights to the South African Department of Environmental Affairs regarding the legal implications of the North Gauteng High Court judgment in Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others (the Thabametsi case).

• The North Gauteng High Court ruled in the Thabametsi case that a climate change impact assessment (CCIA) is a required component of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the Thabametsi power station. This decision establishes that under section 24O of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (NEMA), climate change impacts are relevant factors that must be considered during an EIA.
• The court specified that a CCIA must be based on a "professionally researched climate change impact report" and must evaluate three minimum factors: the quantification of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across the power station's lifetime (construction, operation, and decommissioning), the station's resilience to climate change (including effects of extreme weather, rising temperatures, and diminishing water supply), and the methods to remedy, mitigate, or avoid these impacts.
• The Centre for Environmental Rights asserts that this judgment applies to all future proposed coal-fired power stations, including those within the Coal Baseload Independent Power Producers Programme (CBIPPPP), and any other activities with potentially significant climate change impacts.
• The Centre for Environmental Rights argues that allowing previously authorised projects to proceed without a CCIA would violate the environmental right in section 24 of the Constitution and the NEMA duty of care, potentially leading to legal challenges.
• The Centre for Environmental Rights urges the Department of Environmental Affairs to adopt guidelines for conducting CCIAs. They propose that these assessments should include indirect and full life-cycle emissions, cumulative emissions, the social and environmental cost of GHG emissions, the vulnerability of the project location, and a recommendation against the project if impacts cannot be substantially mitigated.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2017). IMPLICATIONS OF THE JUDGMENT IN EARTHLIFE AFRICA JOHANNESBURG V MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND OTHERS CASE NO 65662/16. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/CER-letter-to-DEA-13-April-2017.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. IMPLICATIONS OF THE JUDGMENT IN EARTHLIFE AFRICA JOHANNESBURG V MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND OTHERS CASE NO 65662/16. 2017. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/CER-letter-to-DEA-13-April-2017.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=IMPLICATIONS OF THE JUDGMENT IN EARTHLIFE AFRICA JOHANNESBURG V MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND OTHERS CASE NO 65662/16 |date=13 April 2017 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/CER-letter-to-DEA-13-April-2017.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{centreforenvironmentalrights2017implications, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{IMPLICATIONS OF THE JUDGMENT IN EARTHLIFE AFRICA JOHANNESBURG V MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND OTHERS CASE NO 65662/16}}, publisher = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2017}, month = apr, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/CER-letter-to-DEA-13-April-2017.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }