Search Climate Insights Directory

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) provided joint submissions on 18 July 2012 regarding the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Bill, 2012. The document offers a detailed critique of proposed amendments to the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), the Biodiversity Act, and the Air Quality Act, focusing on environmental governance, criminal liability, and the rights of traditional communities.

This toolkit, produced by the Centre for Environmental Rights as part of the Life After Coal campaign, provides guidance for the public to engage with and submit comments on South Africa's draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2023. The document critiques the draft IRP for favoring fossil fuels (coal and gas) over a least-cost renewable energy pathway, failing to adequately address air quality and health impacts, and utilizing outdated data regarding grid capacity and plant decommissioning.

This document consists of a series of panel reports, official letters, and motivations regarding the declaration of protected environments in Mpumalanga, South Africa, and the subsequent conflict with mining interests held by Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (AAV). It details the administrative process of declaring the Mabola Protected Environment (MPE), the expansion of the Kwamandlangampisi Protected Environment (KPE), and the declaration of the Tafelkop Nature Reserve (TPNR), while addressing objections from local communities and AAV regarding socio-economic impacts and mining rights.

This report by the Centre for Environmental Rights details the proposed amendments to the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (MPRDA) as introduced by the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill [B15-2013]. It includes an introduction explaining why the President of South Africa referred the Bill back to Parliament for reconsideration due to constitutional concerns, followed by a comprehensive side-by-side comparison of the original Act and the proposed changes.

This document contains the Respondent's Heads of Argument filed by the Centre for Environmental Rights on behalf of the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA) in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The case concerns an appeal by ArcelorMittal South Africa Limited (AMSA) against a High Court judgment that ordered AMSA to provide VEJA with environmental records—specifically an Environmental Master Plan for its Vanderbijlpark site and records regarding the closure and rehabilitation of its Vaal Disposal site in Vereeniging—under the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (PAIA).

This report by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) identifies systemic failures in South Africa's water governance and provides a strategic framework for civil society to intervene. It highlights critical gaps in the implementation of the National Water Act (NWA), the failure to roll out catchment management institutions, and severe capacity constraints within the Department of Water Affairs (DWA). The document recommends a combination of legal advocacy, institutional reform, and the introduction of administrative penalties to improve compliance and ensure the progressive realisation of constitutional rights to water.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes the need to rebalance the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) from a sustainable development perspective. It examines the outcomes of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, specifically regarding public health, the relationship between TRIPS and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the protection of traditional knowledge, while highlighting the interlinkages between the TRIPS Council and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submitted comments to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) arguing that proposed trade liberalization in the forest product sector could exacerbate forest degradation and loss. CIEL contends that the current U.S. environmental review process is inadequate and calls for the administration to halt negotiations until a comprehensive assessment, guided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), is completed. The document emphasizes that trade liberalization can intensify negative impacts if countries lack robust forest protection frameworks, and suggests that developed nations provide technical and financial assistance to developing ones to establish sustainable management systems.

This briefing from the Center for International Environmental Law discusses the conceptual and legal framework of community-based property rights (CBPRs), distinguishing them from Western property concepts and state-led decentralization. It argues that the legal recognition of CBPRs is a necessary condition for environmental justice and sustainable development, particularly for indigenous peoples in the Global South.

This research paper analyzes the public participation and transparency frameworks of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol. It identifies significant gaps in the 'Marrakech Accords' regarding how stakeholders are informed and involved in project development, noting that most information becomes public only after key decisions are made. The authors argue that the current rules lack standardized environmental impact assessment (EIA) requirements and provide no formal mechanism for stakeholders to seek redress or trigger project reviews, recommending the creation of a 'Good Practice Manual for Public Consultation and Disclosure' and a watchdog mechanism similar to those used by the World Bank Group.

This policy brief by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues for the inclusion of trade-related measures as core obligations in a proposed international treaty to end plastic pollution. It highlights the scale of global plastics trade, examines how previous Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) have used trade provisions to achieve environmental goals, and proposes specific trade mechanisms—such as bans, permits, and reporting requirements—to ensure the efficacy of the plastics treaty.

This submission by Amnesty International and the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that climate change causes widespread human rights violations and that affected individuals and communities are entitled to effective remedies and reparations under international law. The document critiques current UNFCCC mechanisms for being voluntary and excluding compensation, while proposing human rights- and equity-based frameworks for addressing loss and damage.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law argues that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) limits the regulatory authority of EU Member States by imposing strict standards on domestic licensing processes, potentially allowing Canadian companies to challenge environmental and social protections through international arbitration.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law argues that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada undermines the ability of EU Member States to regulate pesticides. It contends that CETA's focus on regulatory harmonization, its requirement for scientific evidence over the precautionary principle, and its dispute resolution mechanisms create financial and procedural barriers that discourage Member States from enacting protective health and environmental measures.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law examines how the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) may undermine the ability of EU Member States to regulate industrial pollution, specifically within the chemical manufacturing sector, by allowing companies to challenge subjective or evolving licensing requirements before international arbitration tribunals.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes the state of chemical regulation in the United States, arguing that the primary federal law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), is fundamentally ineffective and overdue for reform. While federal political polarization hinders national legislative change, the author identifies a shift driven by state-level initiatives, international regulatory trends (specifically the EU's REACH), and proactive business leadership.

This policy brief by the Center for International Environmental Law argues against the adoption of the "substantial equivalence" test as an international standard for GMO labeling by the Codex Committee on Food Labeling. The authors contend that this approach is scientifically inadequate and that its adoption would allow the World Trade Organization (WTO) to challenge and potentially strike down more stringent national labeling laws, particularly those based on consumer right-to-know or ethical and religious concerns.

This report summarizes a workshop held during COP19 as part of the Many Strong Voices (MSV) Programme. The dialogue focused on the challenges of climate-induced community-based relocation, specifically in the Arctic and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), emphasizing the need for participatory decision-making, international finance, and the protection of human rights and cultural identity.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) analyzes the European Commission's October 2020 "Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability." The document evaluates the Strategy's potential to create a "toxic-free environment" and provides recommendations for the EU to lead global chemicals management by strengthening international standards, eliminating double standards in exports, and implementing rigorous internal regulations on hazardous substances.

This report examines the governance of Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), focusing on the evolution of public access to information, participation in decision-making, and the establishment of accountability mechanisms. The authors argue that while MDBs have moved toward greater transparency due to external pressure, these processes remain largely ad hoc and inconsistent, lacking a systematic framework for citizen-based rights.