Search Climate Insights Directory

A joint submission by five environmental and social justice organisations to the South African Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources, asserting that the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Amendment Bill [B15-2013] does not rectify systemic failures in administrative justice. The authors argue that the Bill maintains inadequate consultation timeframes, restricts access to critical mining application data, and fails to protect the rights of rural and marginalized communities against the interests of mining companies and traditional authorities.

The submission contends that the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) lacks the human resource capacity, budget, and track record to effectively implement the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and its EIA regulations. It highlights a conflict of interest between the DMR's mandate to promote mining and its obligation to protect the environment, citing poor decision-making in sensitive areas and negligible compliance monitoring. The authors argue that transferring these powers to the DMR would be an inefficient use of public funds and potentially unconstitutional, as it impinges on provincial mandates. They recommend that the Minister of Environmental Affairs and provincial Executive Councils remain the sole authorities for issuing and enforcing environmental authorisations.

The document warns that TTIP may prioritize trade interests over public health by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could lower chemical safety standards in the U.S. and EU. It specifically contrasts the EU's hazard-based REACH regulation with the U.S.'s risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that mutual recognition would effectively erase protections for chemicals restricted in only one jurisdiction. The author also cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which could allow corporations to sue governments over public interest laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-federal or sub-regional laws. Finally, the statement suggests that a low-standard TTIP could chill the development of stringent chemical regulations in other regions, such as the BRIICS countries.

The document warns that TTIP may prioritize trade over public health by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could weaken chemical safety standards. It highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH approach and the US's risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that mutual recognition would effectively erase protections unique to one jurisdiction. The author also cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and the preemption of sub-national laws, while noting that TTIP could negatively influence chemical regulations in non-member countries like the BRIICS nations.

The Centre for Environmental Rights criticises the draft Infrastructure Development Bill for omitting references to sustainable development and imposing a strict 250-day authorisation timeline for special infrastructure projects (SIPs). The author contends that these fast-tracked processes bypass necessary scientific assessments and public consultations, potentially violating constitutional rights to a healthy environment and just administrative action. The document warns that inadequate environmental planning for projects like mines and power stations will lead to long-term state liabilities and disproportionately affect vulnerable communities.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted comments on the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill, 2012, arguing that while the application of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) to mining is welcome, the Bill fails to ensure adequate community consultation and transparency. The CER criticizes the proposed administrative penalty system for lacking an independent tribunal and warns that the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) lacks the capacity to act as the competent environmental authority. The document further advocates for the reinstatement of joint and several liability for company directors and the removal of state immunity from criminal liability.

The report examines the 'temporal scope' of the Nagoya Protocol, specifically whether access and benefit-sharing (ABS) obligations are triggered by the initial physical access to genetic resources (GRs) and traditional knowledge (TK) or by their subsequent utilisation. It argues that the European Commission's draft proposal, which limits obligations to resources accessed after the Protocol's entry into force, contradicts the ABS laws of many provider countries (such as Ethiopia, India, and South Africa) where utilisation is the trigger. The authors contend that this discrepancy will lead to legal uncertainty for EU users, who may be compliant with EU law but liable for criminal charges in provider countries, and will disincentivise provider countries from facilitating access to their biodiversity.

The document argues that the 2004 Model BIT prioritizes investor rights over public interest, specifically regarding sustainable development, environmental protection, and health and safety. The authors criticize the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism for bypassing domestic courts and lacking appellate review. They contend the model fails the 'no greater rights' standard by using broad definitions of investment and expropriation that deviate from U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Key recommendations include replacing ISDS with state-to-state dispute settlement, requiring the exhaustion of domestic remedies, and introducing general exceptions for health, safety, and environmental measures.

The document examines the tension between the operational needs of South Africa's intelligence community and the democratic imperatives of openness and accountability. It analyzes the legal frameworks governing the sector, including the 1994 White Paper on Intelligence and the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), while critiquing the proposed Protection of Information Bill for its potentially overbroad definitions of 'national interest'. The report highlights the role of the Inspector General of Intelligence in providing civilian oversight and discusses the need to narrow the mandate of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) to prevent political interference. It concludes that while intelligence is essential for state security, it must be strictly regulated by the rule of law to prevent the abuses characteristic of the apartheid era.

The report warns that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) risks conflating 'counterfeit' medicines with patent infringements. This conflation could lead to the criminalization of legitimate patent disputes and the use of border seizures to block generic drugs produced under compulsory licenses or through parallel importing, ultimately hindering access to essential medicines. The author advocates for a clear distinction between therapeutically harmful counterfeits and IP-related disputes, suggesting that public health is best served by strengthening regulatory safety authorities rather than expanding IP enforcement.

The paper examines the 'democratic deficit' in international dispute settlement, focusing on the World Trade Organization (WTO) and investor-state arbitration. It argues that these processes often lack transparency and public participation despite their significant impact on domestic public policy, human rights, and the environment. While the WTO has made some progress in publishing reports and accepting amicus curiae briefs, it still maintains confidential submissions and closed hearings. Investor-state arbitration is described as even more secretive, often based on private commercial models where the public may not even know a proceeding has begun. The author calls for reforms to these rules to ensure that decisions affecting the public are subject to public scrutiny.

The document critiques the revised draft provisions of the WIPO IGC for failing to sufficiently address the role of the intellectual property system in the misappropriation of traditional knowledge. It argues that general protections are inadequate and that effective prevention requires concrete, legally binding international measures, such as mandatory disclosure requirements in patent applications and stricter patentability criteria. The briefing also evaluates different legal vehicles for international implementation, asserting that while 'soft law' approaches may be complementary, only a binding instrument can effectively address misappropriation in 'user countries'. Finally, it conditions the renewal of the IGC mandate on a commitment to tangible intellectual property-related outcomes and parallel progress in other international fora.

A coalition of environmental and health organizations rejected the EPA's February 25, 2004, draft amendments to FIFRA, arguing the bill fails to adequately implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). The groups contend the draft ignores health-based standards, fails to align domestic regulation with international POPs listings, and lacks a transparent public comment process. They further argue that the administration is using the bill to advance a "fringe constitutional theory" regarding the non-delegation of power to international bodies.

A coalition of environmental organizations urges the U.S. Congress to oppose CAFTA, asserting that its investor rules allow foreign companies to challenge environmental laws in international tribunals and that its environmental safeguards are insufficient to support sustainable development in Central America.

Stephen Porter of CIEL argues that UNCTAD should critically assess the benefits of investor-protection regimes, support developing countries facing pressure in bilateral trade and investment negotiations, and more aggressively promote alternative energy and environmental impact assessments in its development models.

The briefing examines how the push for water privatization by the World Bank and IMF, alongside the constraints of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), undermines the ability of national governments to protect access to water as a human right. It highlights the 'lock-in' effect of these international legal frameworks, which can penalize states for adopting social or environmental regulations. The document recommends that governments carefully assess the impact of these agreements on marginalized populations and explicitly exclude sensitive sectors like water from trade commitments to ensure sustainable development.

The authors argue that the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore FTAs grant foreign investors substantive rights exceeding those of domestic investors under U.S. law, particularly regarding expropriation and minimum standard of treatment. They highlight the lack of a general environmental exception in the investment chapters and express concern that the investor-state dispute mechanism undermines the rule of law and national security while lacking citizen enforcement mechanisms.

Environmental organizations are urging the U.S. government to restrict the 'General Treatment' provision in the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement to avoid granting foreign investors rights that exceed those of domestic investors under U.S. law. They specifically argue against the use of 'fair and equitable' or 'reasonableness' standards, which they claim would allow arbitral panels to subjectively second-guess democratic government actions. The petitioners recommend limiting the provision to 'full protection and security' and 'denial of procedural justice,' while requiring an environmental exception modeled on GATT Article XX and the exhaustion of domestic remedies before claims are brought.

The report critiques a 2002 White House proposal to alter federal land management laws. It argues that while the bill is framed as wildfire prevention, it seeks to exempt projects from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), limit judicial review, eliminate administrative appeals, and introduce "stewardship contracting" to benefit the timber industry.

The International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) and its participating organizations are calling on Canada to resist a $100 million claim from Crompton Corporation under NAFTA Chapter 11. The claim follows Crompton's agreement to stop using lindane, a persistent organic pollutant, in canola seed treatments. The groups argue that lindane is a dangerous neurotoxicant and endocrine disruptor that contaminates the Arctic and human breast milk. They contend that NAFTA's investment rules are being used to undermine legitimate public health regulations and urge the renegotiation of Chapter 11 to protect the sovereign right of governments to regulate toxic substances.