Search Climate Insights Directory

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), acting as amicus curiae, argues that the KwaZulu-Natal High Court erred in ruling that Tendele Coal Mining (Pty) Ltd did not require a separate environmental authorisation under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) for its operations. The CER contends that an Environmental Management Programme (EMP) approved under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) is not equivalent to a NEMA authorisation. The CER further argues that the High Court's refusal of interdictory relief based on the existence of alternative remedies under section 28 of NEMA is a dangerous precedent that undermines judicial enforcement of environmental rights. Finally, the CER seeks the overturning of a costs order against the appellants, asserting it creates a chilling effect and ignores the protections for public interest litigants provided in section 32(2) of NEMA.

The brief supports the Bag Waste Act's ban on plastic carryout bags but challenges specific DEC regulations that exempt 'reusable bags' made of plastic thicker than 10 mils. Amici argue this contradicts the legislative intent to ban 'any plastic carryout bags' and is arbitrary and capricious based on evidence that thickness thresholds fail to reduce plastic waste. The brief also rejects claims that the COVID-19 pandemic justifies invalidating the Act.

The brief supports the vacatur of the easement for the Dakota Access Pipeline, asserting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers committed a serious violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to prepare a required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The authors argue that the risk of irreparable environmental harm from oil spills outweighs any economic disruption, especially given a global oil supply glut and the existing negative impacts of Bakken shale oil production on public health and Indigenous communities.

Natural Justice submitted a set of proposed amendments to the Kenya Forest Service regarding the Forests (Community Participation in Sustainable Forest Management) Rules, 2009. The organization advocates for greater transparency, the inclusion of private sector actors in forest conservation, and the mandatory participation of forest associations to align with constitutional requirements.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) provides a supplementary table of comments on the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Bill, 2017 [B14D-2017]. The document details proposed amendments to several South African environmental laws, including the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), the Protected Areas Act (NEMPAA), and the Integrated Coastal Management Act (NEMICMA), offering specific critiques and alternative wording to strengthen environmental protection and enforcement.

The commentary analyzes Case C-616/17, where the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that the EU Pesticides Regulation did not commit a manifest error of assessment regarding the precautionary principle. While the court clarified that competent authorities must conduct independent and transparent health risk assessments, the author argues that the case illustrates a systemic failure in EU law: environmental NGOs and individuals often cannot challenge EU measures directly under Article 263 TFEU and may only gain access to the CJEU by infringing laws to trigger national criminal or civil proceedings.

The author argues that the Trump-era EPA's 'Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science' rule (the 'Censored Science Rule') is an attempt to undermine mainstream science to justify deregulation. The document highlights concerns from the EPA's own Science Advisory Board (SAB) regarding the rule's potential to exclude critical human health data and its overall vagueness, which may lead to legal challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The General Court's decision in Case T-108/17 ClientEarth v Commission reinforces restrictive barriers for NGOs seeking to challenge EU environmental decisions. The court ruled that the internal review procedure under Article 12 of the Aarhus Regulation cannot result in the annulment of the underlying administrative act, only the decision on the review request itself. Furthermore, the court limited the admissibility of arguments to those explicitly raised in the initial request, preventing NGOs from adapting their claims based on the Commission's response. ClientEarth argues these restrictions violate the Aarhus Convention by denying an effective remedy for illegal EU acts.

Natural Justice submitted a set of recommendations to the County Government of Kilifi to improve the 2018 draft Air Quality Regulations. The organization argues for the inclusion of more stringent penalties, the removal of exemptions for contaminant discharge, and the requirement that the County Director of Environment (representing NEMA) be involved in notifications and monitoring to ensure transparency and compliance with national laws and the Constitution of Kenya.

The General Court of the EU ruled that the Brussels Region lacked standing to challenge the Commission's renewal of glyphosate authorisation, finding the Region was not 'directly concerned'. This contradicts a previous ruling (T-339/16) where cities were granted standing to challenge Euro 6 emissions standards. The court rejected the Region's arguments that the regulation undermined its local ban on glyphosate or forced it into specific administrative procedures, and it declined to apply the Aarhus Convention to public authorities.

The document critiques the ICSID Secretariat's draft amendments to the Arbitration Rules, stating they do not sufficiently address stakeholder concerns regarding investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). It suggests that if the Secretariat's own analysis is correct and rule amendments are insufficient for priority reforms, member states should consider amending the ICSID Convention itself.

The document argues that Advocate General Bot's opinion on CETA's investment court system (ICS) is flawed and overly politicized, contradicting established European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law. It contends that the ICS undermines the EU's judicial autonomy and fails to account for the 'regulatory chill' that investor protection mechanisms can impose on public interest measures.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled in Cordella and Others v. Italy that the Italian government violated the rights of residents in Taranto by failing to address toxic emissions from the Ilva steel plant and failing to provide an effective legal remedy for environmental decontamination.

The CJEU ruled on 13 December (2018) that cities such as Brussels, Paris, and Madrid have standing under Article 263 TFEU to challenge EU regulations if those regulations prevent them from exercising their regulatory powers. In this case, the cities successfully challenged the 'conformity factor' in Commission Regulation 2016/646, which had relaxed the Euro 6 emissions standard. The court found that the regulation restricted the cities' ability to ban vehicles that met the relaxed standard but exceeded stricter emission limits. This decision is framed as a landmark for access to justice, potentially allowing cities to act as environmental watchdogs and challenge other EU measures, such as the authorization of glyphosate.

The High Court of South Africa dismissed an application by the Global Environmental Trust and others to stop Tendele Coal Mining's operations, ruling that the company's environmental management programme served as sufficient authorisation and that other required permits for waste and land use were not applicable under the circumstances.

The submission by Alburnus Maior, ICDER, and Greenpeace Romania contends that Gabriel Resources Ltd. failed to conduct adequate due diligence on the feasibility of its gold mining project in Roșia Montană and ignored the rights of local communities. The authors argue the company violated the right to adequate housing through coercive land acquisition and failed to obtain necessary urban, archaeological, and environmental permits required by Romanian and EU law. They further claim the company attempted to bypass these legal requirements through a proposed 'special law' and engaged in misconduct to silence critics. Consequently, the submission argues the tribunal lacks jurisdiction under the Achmea precedent regarding EU law and that the company's unlawful conduct disqualifies its investment from protection under the Canada-Romania BIT.

The submission by Alburnus Maior, ICDER, and Greenpeace Romania contends that Gabriel Resources Ltd. failed to conduct adequate due diligence on the feasibility of its Roșia Montană gold mine and ignored the rights of local communities. The authors argue the company violated the right to adequate housing through coercive land acquisition and failed to obtain necessary urban, archaeological, and environmental permits required by Romanian and EU law. They further claim the company attempted to bypass these legal requirements via a proposed 'special law' and used intimidation and misleading media campaigns to silence opposition. Legally, the submission asserts that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction because the dispute necessitates the interpretation of EU law, citing the Achmea precedent, and that the company's unlawful conduct disqualifies its activities as a protected investment under the Canada-Romania BIT.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing the Life After Coal/Impilo Ngaphandle Kwamalahle Campaign, submitted detailed comments on the Climate Change Bill, 2018. The CER argues that the Bill focuses too heavily on government bureaucracy and fails to address the urgency of the climate crisis or provide sufficient mechanisms for holding emitters accountable. Key recommendations include setting a strict, legally binding emissions trajectory aligned with the Paris Agreement, ensuring full public disclosure of carbon budgets and GHG reports, and establishing independent oversight and appeals bodies.

The brief supports petitioners in Jam v. International Finance Corporation, contending that applying a restrictive theory of immunity under the IOIA would enhance the accountability of international organizations and complement existing non-judicial accountability mechanisms without causing a flood of litigation.

The brief contends that the environmental impact analysis (ANDAL) for the PLTU Celukan Bawang expansion in Bali is legally insufficient under Law no. 32/2009 because it omits a comprehensive climate change assessment. The authors argue that such assessments must include the project's direct and life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, the project's vulnerability to climate-driven sea level rise and storm surges, and how climate change exacerbates the project's local environmental harms. Drawing on international legal precedents from South Africa, Australia, and the United States, as well as guidance from the European Union and Canada, the brief asserts that climate considerations are essential for meeting Indonesia's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and Paris Agreement commitments. Specifically, the expansion is projected to release over 200 million tons of CO2 over 30 years and faces physical risks due to its low-lying coastal location and the degradation of protective coral reefs.