Search Climate Insights Directory

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) issued this formal response on 16 August 2018 to a memorandum of grievances from The Voice Community Representative Council regarding legal challenges against a proposed coal mine by Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd. CER clarifies its role as a non-profit law clinic representing eight civil society organisations, denies representing local farmers or specific agencies, and outlines the environmental and socio-economic risks associated with the proposed mine in a protected area.

This document is a formal response from a land development applicant, submitted by Peter Dacomb of The Practice Group, to the Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme Local Municipality. The response addresses various objections and letters of support regarding an application to change the land use of Portion 1 of the farm Yzermyn 96 HT from agricultural to mining and related purposes under the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013 (SPLUMA) and the 2016 Municipal By-law.

This document is a responding statement submitted by Jones & Wagener (on behalf of Kuyasa Mining and KiPower) to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). It addresses an appeal by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) against the granting of an integrated environmental authorisation for a 600MW coal-fired independent power plant near Delmas, Mpumalanga. The statement denies allegations that the project violates NEMA principles or environmental laws, arguing that the project aligns with the Department of Energy's Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and employs Circulating Fluidised Bed (CFB) technology to mitigate pollutants.

This document is a responding statement submitted by Newshelf 1282 (Pty) Ltd (the Second Respondent) on behalf of the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg (the Appellant). It addresses an appeal against the environmental authorisation (EA) granted by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) for the construction of the 1200MW coal-fired Thabametsi power station.

This document is a legal response submitted by NN Attorneys on behalf of Newshelf (the Second Respondent) on 10 June 2015, addressing an appeal against the Environmental Authorisation (EA) granted for the Thabametsi coal-fired power station project in South Africa. The response defends the project's compliance with the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and other regulations, arguing that the project is essential for national base-load energy security and that its environmental and health impacts have been sufficiently assessed and mitigated.

This document is a responding statement submitted by Atha Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd. (AAV) to the Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs. It responds to an appeal filed by eight environmental and social organizations against the granting of an Environmental Authorization for the proposed Yzermyn Underground Coal Mine (YUCM) in the Magisterial District of Wakkerstroom, Mpumalanga Province.

This document is a written response from the Third Respondent, ACWA Power Station Khanyisa Thermal Power Station (RF) (Pty) Ltd, to an appeal filed by GroundWork. The appeal challenged the decision by the Nkangala District Municipality (NDM) to transfer a provisional atmospheric emissions licence (PAEL) from Anglo Operations (Pty) Ltd to ACWA for the Khanyisa Project, a coal-fired power station near eMalahleni.

This document is an affidavit deposed by Moegamat Ishaam Abader, Acting Director-General of the National Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, responding to the submissions of Mr. Boyd, a United Nations Special Rapporteur admitted as an amicus curiae in a High Court of South Africa case. Abader argues that Mr. Boyd's affidavit is biased, relies on inadmissible hearsay evidence, and fails to distinguish between binding 'hard law' and non-binding 'soft law' in international environmental law. The affidavit asserts that South African courts must balance environmental protection with the constitutional mandate for sustainable development and socio-economic progress, and that the state's obligations are to be realised progressively within available resources.

This document is a written response from Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (the Second Respondent) to a substituted appeal submitted on 1 December 2017. The appeal, lodged by the Endangered Wildlife Trust, the Federation for a Sustainable Environment, and Mpumalanga Landbou/Agriculture, challenges the Director-General of the Department of Water and Sanitation's decision to grant a water use licence for the Yzermyn Project. Atha-Africa argues that the Appellants rely on outdated reports and a misunderstanding of the precautionary principle, asserting that the project's environmental impacts are localised, manageable through mitigation, and balanced by significant socio-economic benefits.

This responding statement, submitted by the Centre for Environmental Rights on behalf of BirdLife South Africa, argues that a mining right granted to William Patrick Bower Pty Ltd (WPB) should be set aside. The document contends that WPB's replying submission was filed late and introduced new, unauthorized mine layout plans and hydrogeochemical data that were not available to the decision-maker at the time of the grant. BirdLife South Africa further asserts that the mining area contains endangered ecosystems and irreplaceable biodiversity, contradicting claims made by WPB.

This document is a formal response from Eskom to a request for information submitted by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA). The request, identified as PAIA QUERY 10637, concerns generation atmospheric emissions license compliance and decommissioning. Eskom agrees to provide access to several identified records but denies access to others or severs specific parts of records based on the Promotion of Information Act (Act 2 of 2000).

Eskom's formal response to an appeal by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) regarding the Atmospheric Emission Licence (AEL) of the Hendrina Power Station. Eskom argues that the requested variations to the AEL would make the station unable to operate from 2020 and maintains that the current postponements of Minimum Emission Standards (MES) are lawful and necessary due to the station's age and resource constraints.

This document is a formal response from Eskom to an appeal filed by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) regarding the Atmospheric Emission Licence (AEL) of the Komati Power Station. Eskom argues that the requested variations to the AEL would make the station's operation untenable from 2020 onwards and maintains that its application for a postponement of Minimum Emission Standards (MES) was lawful and technically justified.

This document is a formal response from Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd to the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) regarding a request for information under the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (PAIA). The response details which records related to the Kendal power station compliance notice and general maintenance/decommissioning plans are granted, refused, or do not exist.

This responding statement, submitted by groundWork, argues against an appeal by Karpowership SA (PTY) Ltd regarding the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment's (DFFE) June 23, 2021, decision to refuse Environmental Authorisation (EA) for a gas-to-power project at the Port of Ngqura. groundWork contends that the project is neither necessary nor desirable, citing significant environmental risks, inadequate public participation, and the existence of more sustainable energy alternatives.

This document is a legal response submitted by ACWA Power Khanyisa Thermal Power Station (RF) (Pty) Ltd (ACWA) to the Minister of Environmental Affairs. ACWA objects to a condonation application by the NGO Groundwork, which seeks to appeal the integrated environmental authorisation for the Khanyisa Thermal Power Station. ACWA argues that Groundwork's notice of intention to appeal was filed excessively late and that the legal justifications provided—specifically the reliance on the Thabametsi judgment regarding climate change assessments—are legally unsound.

This document is a response filed by UX Inc. on behalf of William Patrick Bower (Pty) Ltd (WPB) to an appeal lodged by Birdlife South Africa against the granting of a mining right. WPB argues that the appeal is out of time, that Birdlife South Africa lacks standing, and that the environmental concerns raised are based on outdated data and ignore the fragmented state of the land due to historical farming.