Search Climate Insights Directory

The Mineral Resources Development Bill 2025 (MRDB) seeks to amend South Africa's mining laws to boost the economy, speed up project approvals, and regulate artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM). While the government aims to increase local mineral processing ('beneficiation') and create jobs, the document highlights significant risks for rural communities, including the lack of a right to give or deny consent to projects and the absence of strict penalties for companies that fail to meet Social and Labour Plan (SLP) commitments.

A community guide regarding a gas exploration application by Motuoane Energy (Pty) Ltd in the Free State province of South Africa.

Main Street 1549 (Pty) Ltd proposes 'downscaled and non-intrusive' surveys in Blocks 9 and 11B/12B, located between Mossel Bay and Gqeberha, to support potential oil and gas development in the Outeniqua region. The activities include seabed mapping, sampling, and the use of underwater robots, requiring a 500 m2 exclusion zone around survey vessels. The document warns of potential negative impacts on marine life, including whales and dolphins, and the livelihoods of local fishing and tourism sectors. It also notes that the project is unlikely to create significant local employment. Public comments on the Draft Scoping Report are requested by 3 April 2025, as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment process managed by SLR Consulting (South Africa).

The document outlines proposed survey activities by Main Street 1549 (Pty) Ltd in Blocks 9 and 11B/12B off the southern coast of South Africa. It describes the technical nature of the surveys—including bathymetry, sonar, and ROV use—and the potential negative impacts on marine biodiversity, local livelihoods (fishing, tourism, and shipping), and cultural heritage. The pamphlet serves as a call for public participation, detailing a schedule of community meetings in March 2025 and the process for submitting formal objections or comments to SLR Consulting by 3 April 2025.

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' designed by polluters to maintain profitable systems of capitalism and neocolonialism. It explains how carbon credits are generated through nature-based solutions (NBS) and technological fixes, which often lead to land grabbing and the violation of indigenous rights. The guide provides a framework for communities to identify 'red flags' in contracts, exercise their right to say no, and employ strategies of international solidarity to oppose the commodification of nature.

The document argues that carbon markets are a continuation of colonial and capitalist systems that allow major polluters to avoid reducing emissions through 'greenwashing'. It explains how carbon credits are generated—often through flawed calculations in nature-based solutions or technological fixes—and details the risks to communities, including land grabbing and the violation of indigenous rights. The guide provides practical advice for communities to identify predatory contracts, exercise their right to say no, and seek alternatives like community forest management and agroecology.

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' that allow major polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases through 'greenwashing' while causing harm to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It describes how carbon credits are generated from projects—including nature-based solutions and technological patches—and warns that these often lead to land grabbing, human rights violations, and the failure to actually reduce global emissions. The guide provides a framework for communities to identify predatory contracts, demand Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), and organize international solidarity to oppose the financialization of nature.

The document serves as a prevention manual for forest communities, specifically in equatorial regions of Asia, Africa, and the Americas, to avoid signing REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and similar conservation contracts. It argues that these projects often use deceptive language and long-term commitments (30 to 80 years) to strip communities of their land rights, prohibit traditional agricultural and forestry activities, and transfer biodiversity benefits to private companies. The guide advocates for community-led forest management, the legal recognition of territorial titles, and public policies that support traditional conservation practices instead of market-based carbon offsets.

The document warns forest communities in tropical regions about the dangers of signing REDD and forest conservation contracts, which it argues can lead to 'deterritorialization' and loss of autonomy. It details how these contracts often use technical language to hide restrictive obligations, such as banning traditional agriculture and wood use, while granting companies extensive access to biodiversity and carbon credits for long periods (30 to 80 years). The guide advocates for the recognition of indigenous land rights and the implementation of public policies that support collective, non-market-based community forest management as a more effective way to preserve biodiversity and prevent deforestation.

The guide warns forest communities against signing REDD and forest conservation contracts, which it argues are often designed to strip local people of their land rights and sovereignty. It highlights how these contracts, often written in technical jargon and spanning 30 to 80 years, impose strict prohibitions on farming and timber use, potentially forcing communities to abandon their territories. The document advocates for community-based forest management and the recognition of traditional land rights as more effective and just alternatives to market-based carbon schemes.