Search Climate Insights Directory

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted comments on November 9, 2015, regarding draft regulations for determining administrative fines under section 22A of the National: Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (AQA). The CER argues that the draft regulations lack consistency with other environmental fine mechanisms and fail to provide for public participation, proposing specific amendments to the fine calculation and the inclusion of aggravating factors.

The document analyzes Brazil's Cooperation and Investment Facilitation Agreements (CIFAs), contrasting them with traditional bilateral investment treaties by emphasizing cooperation and state-state dispute settlement over investor-state arbitration.

The brief, submitted by Consumers Union of United States, Inc., Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, and Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, Inc., supports the denial of a preliminary injunction against Vermont's Act 120. It contends that GE food labeling is a global norm, adopted by over 60 countries and sanctioned by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The authors argue that the law serves substantial state interests, including public health and environmental protection, and that compliance costs—specifically through nationwide relabeling—are minimal, one-time expenses that do not constitute irreparable harm.

The City of Houston, Harris County Attorney, and Air Alliance Houston argue that the district court abused its discretion by denying civil penalties and injunctive relief despite finding nearly one hundred actionable Clean Air Act violations at Exxon's Baytown complex. The brief contends that the court misapplied the 'seriousness' and 'economic benefit' factors of the Act, ignoring the public health risks of ozone and carcinogens in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area. It further argues that the court's narrow interpretation of 'repeated' violations allows polluters to evade liability by frequently changing numeric emission limits.

The document evaluates the 2014 IKS Bill, praising its sui generis approach to protecting indigenous knowledge while urging stronger definitions of 'commercial utilisation' and 'indigenous community' to better protect vulnerable groups like the San and Khoi. It recommends aligning the Bill's objectives with the duties of the National Indigenous Knowledge Systems Office (NIKSO) and ensuring that the right to refuse access to knowledge is upheld.

The document examines the legal basis for public participation in the imposition of administrative fines under section 24G of NEMA. It concludes that while such determinations likely do not constitute 'administrative action' affecting I&APs under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), the failure to allow I&APs to be heard may still be considered irrational and unlawful under the Constitution and the principle of legality.

The Berne Declaration and Natural Justice argue that the proposed Implementing Act contains significant gaps in monitoring user compliance, particularly when users and commercializers are different entities or operate outside the EU. They criticize the draft's allowance for subjective confidentiality claims and call for greater transparency in the register of collections and recognized best practices, alongside clear remedial steps for providers when compliance fails.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted written comments on December 1, 2014, regarding the Draft Regulations for financial provision for the rehabilitation, closure, and post-closure of mining operations in South Africa. While the CER views the draft as a "welcome improvement" over previous systems, it argues that the regulations are too narrow in scope, lack sufficient definitions for 'rehabilitation' and 'specialist', and contain loopholes regarding trust deeds and the duration of 'care and maintenance' periods.

Earthjustice warns that the White House OMB's review of the EPA's coal ash rule may lead to the substantive weakening of the regulation due to industry lobbying, citing a 2010 instance where a proposed rule to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste was eviscerated.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations published in August 2014. The CER argues that the proposed timeframes for assessments and decision-making are insufficient and potentially unconstitutional, and that the regulations fail to adequately address climate change impacts, the inefficiencies of the basic assessment process, and the need for clear guidance on biodiversity offsets to ensure 'no net loss' to the environment.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several environmental justice organisations, submitted comments on the draft National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory System (NAEIS) Reporting Regulations. The CER argues that the draft regulations contain overly broad confidentiality restrictions that hinder public access to emissions data, contradicting international best practices and South African constitutional and statutory principles.

The document provides legal commentary on the dispute between Pac Rim Cayman LLC and the Republic of El Salvador, asserting that the state's regulatory framework for mining is a necessary tool to prevent human rights infringements and environmental damage. It emphasizes that the 'public interest' must be defined through environmental democracy and access rights, as outlined in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration. The brief further details the social conflict and violence, including murders of environmental defenders, resulting from Pac Rim's activities in the Cabañas department.

The document is a legal submission to the ICSID tribunal in the case of Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. Republic of El Salvador. It argues that the state's refusal to grant a mining concession is a legitimate exercise of its duty to protect human rights and the environment, particularly in a region with high population density and water scarcity. The brief emphasizes that environmental impact assessments and community consultations are essential legal requirements, not mere formalities, and that the 'public interest' must be defined through environmental democracy and the rights of access to information and participation. Furthermore, it documents a pattern of violence and attacks against environmental defenders in the Cabañas Department, which it links to the social conflict generated by Pac Rim's presence.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted comments to the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources regarding the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill, 2013. The CER criticizes the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) for failing to meaningfully consult civil society and mining-affected communities, identifies numerous drafting errors in the Bill, and provides detailed legal objections to proposed changes concerning environmental authorizations, penalty regimes, and the granting of mining rights.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) submits proposed revisions to the UNCITRAL draft rules on transparency in investor-State arbitration. The submission focuses on expanding the scope of application to existing treaties, mandating the public disclosure of a wide range of case documents, establishing public hearings as the default rule, and tightening the criteria for confidentiality and 'integrity of the process' exceptions to prevent broad tribunal discretion from undermining transparency.

The document argues that the Peruvian state violated international human rights law by granting mining concessions in the Tiquillaca district without prior consultation with the Arboleda and other indigenous peoples. It asserts that under the American Convention on Human Rights and ILO Convention 169, such consultations must occur during the earliest planning stages and, for large-scale projects, require free, prior, and informed consent. The authors contend that the failure to consult renders the concessions null and void, requiring the judiciary to review them to ensure the survival and territorial rights of the affected communities.

The brief, filed by a coalition of physicians, scientists, and environmental advocates, contends that the natural gas industry systematically suppresses public health data through federal exemptions, state laws, and confidential legal settlements. It argues that the public interest in understanding the health risks of hydraulic fracturing—such as water contamination and air pollution—outweighs the private interests of gas companies in maintaining secrecy. The authors specifically highlight the Hallowich family's experience with deteriorating health due to nearby gas operations and urge the court to reverse a lower court's decision to seal the case records.

The Constitutional Court ruled that the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) does not override the Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO), meaning mining rights holders must still comply with land use zoning requirements. The court clarified that the MPRDA and LUPO serve different purposes—mining governance and land use regulation, respectively—and that their overlap does not constitute an impermissible intrusion of local government into national spheres. Additionally, the court refused to grant a declaratory order on the conflict between the MPRDA and the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), dismissing the cross-appeal on the grounds that it lacked a chance of success.

The document analyzes the Austrian Model Investment Treaty, noting that while it introduces innovations to protect public welfare and limit 'treaty shopping,' it retains problematic features such as an expansive umbrella clause, a vague Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) standard, and a lack of transparency in investor-state dispute settlement.

The brief, submitted by member organizations of La Mesa Nacional Frente a la Minería Metálica de El Salvador, contends that Pac Rim's claims do not constitute a 'legal dispute' or a 'measure' under the ICSID Convention and CAFTA. It argues that the conflict is a political disagreement over metals mining policy driven by organic community opposition, rather than a legal dispute with the state. The brief further alleges that Pac Rim abused the legal process by strategically reincorporating in the United States to gain CAFTA benefits and seeks to use international arbitration to bypass domestic democratic processes and community resistance.