Search Climate Insights Directory

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing groundWork, Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, the Highveld Environmental Justice Network, and the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance, opposes the Department of Environmental Affairs' (DEA) proposal to create an expert panel to address sulphur dioxide (SO2) abatement. The CER contends that Eskom and Sasol, the country's largest polluters, are using the proposal to avoid compliance with minimum emission standards (MES) and to secure 'rolling postponements'. The document argues that the necessary solution—retrofitting plants with flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) technology or decommissioning non-compliant plants—has already been established through a five-year multi-stakeholder process. Furthermore, it highlights that South African SO2 standards are significantly weaker than those in other developing and developed nations, and that the DEA has no legislative authority to weaken the MES based on industry claims of economic infeasibility.

ClientEarth proposes a blueprint for a UK environmental watchdog with binding legal powers, independent funding from parliament, and a UK-wide mandate to ensure government accountability for environmental obligations.

The briefing examines the application of penalties under the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), concluding that current enforcement practices often fail to meet the EU legal standard of being 'effective, proportionate and dissuasive'. It highlights a prevalence of 'soft' enforcement approaches and a lack of transparency regarding sanctions, which creates an uneven playing field for companies. The document recommends the adoption of credible enforcement policies, increased public access to enforcement data, and the development of harmonised guidance on determining penalty levels.

The briefing analyzes the legal instability resulting from the Brazilian Supreme Court's (STF) decisions regarding the 2012 Forest Code. It highlights contradictions in the court's treatment of the July 22, 2008, cutoff date, the Environmental Reserve Quote (CRA), and the amnesty for past environmental infractions, warning that these inconsistencies create a 'Frankenstal' code that threatens environmental outcomes.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, representing the Life After Coal/Impilo Ngaphandle Kwamalahle campaign, has raised concerns to the South African Minister of Environmental Affairs about ambiguities in greenhouse gas (GHG) and pollution prevention reporting. The campaign argues that current regulations allow for aggregated company-level reporting instead of the necessary facility-level data, which undermines the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory and South Africa's international obligations under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. They also highlight contradictions in the submission and review timelines for pollution prevention plans and call for greater public transparency of emissions data.

The report argues that South Africa's legal regime for wild animal welfare is outdated and provides little protection, as it relies on a distinction between animal welfare and biodiversity conservation. It highlights a lack of consistency across national and provincial jurisdictions and calls for urgent reforms to the permit system, increased monitoring capacity, and the creation of an integrated national permit database to prevent the exploitation of provincial loopholes.

The document identifies four critical areas for legal reform to prevent forest conversion: ensuring consistency between sectoral laws, establishing transparent land-title granting processes, formally recognizing customary land rights of local communities and indigenous peoples, and providing detailed implementation and enforcement mechanisms. It warns that legal ambiguity and a lack of stakeholder consultation lead to uncontrolled deforestation, land-tenure conflicts, and the potential for unfair evictions.

The document serves as an overview for a legal toolkit designed to help law-makers address the complexities of forest conversion laws. It identifies five key areas for legal attention: land allocation, clearing permits, timber rules, environmental protection, and community rights. The toolkit is based on an analysis of legal frameworks in nine tropical countries and focuses primarily on the regulation of large-scale projects to balance economic growth with environmental and social protections.

The document outlines the necessity of detailed, binding environmental legal tools to mitigate the impacts of forest conversion, such as biodiversity loss and climate change. It emphasizes the role of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), the importance of transparency, and the need for laws to be fit for the specific national context. Through case studies from Gabon, Ghana, Brazil, and Liberia, it illustrates how non-binding guidelines, limited agency capacity, and sustainability policies affect forest protection.

Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law organization, reported total revenue of $102,807,555 and total expenses of $78,445,477 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. The organization focuses on protecting wild places, safeguarding community health, advancing clean energy, and combating climate change through legal representation and advocacy. Its net assets increased to $170,001,650 by the end of the period. Key expenditures included $37,278,618 for salaries and wages and $61,591,037 in total program service expenses. The organization also reported activities in East Asia, Europe, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, primarily focused on energy development and human rights advocacy.

The memorandum, submitted by a coalition including Natural Justice, opposes amendments to the EMCA that would change the appointment of the National Environment Tribunal (NET) Chairperson from nomination by the Judicial Service Commission to election by Tribunal members. It further argues that removing automatic stay orders for environmental appeals under Section 129 would lead to irreparable environmental degradation and place an unfair financial burden on appellants.

The document critiques the European Commission's proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court, asserting that it merely rebrands the controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system without addressing its substantive flaws. It argues that ISDS allows corporations to challenge public interest laws—including those related to health, environment, and human rights—through biased tribunals, often resulting in massive taxpayer-funded payouts. The report claims the proposed court would further institutionalize this imbalance, undermine national judiciaries, and create a parallel legal system accessible only to foreign investors. It concludes by advocating for the termination of bilateral investment treaties and the adoption of a UN treaty to regulate transnational corporations.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and other partners advocate for updating the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) to better address pollution and toxic chemical exposure. They highlight the severe health impacts of pollution, including 7,700 premature deaths annually from poor air quality, and emphasize the disproportionate burden on vulnerable populations such as children and Indigenous communities. The statement supports legislative changes to recognize the right to a healthy environment, implement binding air and water quality standards, and increase transparency in product labelling.

The brief contends that a stable climate system is a necessary precondition for the exercise of fundamental rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property. It supports this position by citing international agreements, including the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC, as well as jurisprudence from foreign courts and U.S. state constitutions that link environmental health to human rights.

The document argues that the European Commission exceeded its legal mandate by proposing a clause that would exempt chemicals intended to act as endocrine disruptors from the ban established by the 2009 Pesticides Regulation. ClientEarth asserts that the Commission is using the process of defining scientific criteria as a 'Trojan horse' to weaken environmental and health protections for economic reasons, thereby violating the balance of power between EU institutions.

The document identifies five key risks in Ghana's forest conversion laws, including legal uncertainty regarding mining in reserves, the criminalization of smallholders due to complex licensing, and a lack of coordinated land-use planning. It argues that these gaps facilitate illegal deforestation and community rights violations. To address this, ClientEarth recommends clarifying the legal status of forest reserves, implementing the Land Use and Spatial Planning Act 2016, simplifying smallholder registration, and increasing the resources and transparency of enforcement agencies like the Forestry Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The report identifies systemic failures in English fisheries enforcement, including a lack of proactive surveillance, low prosecution rates, and insufficient fines that fail to deter IUU fishing. It highlights breaches of EU law regarding the maintenance of a public register of infringements and the misapplication of the points system for serious infringements. Furthermore, it notes a legal gap where environmental damage to European Marine Sites cannot be prosecuted unless a specific local byelaw exists, and argues that the current emphasis on reducing regulatory burdens for business undermines the robust inspection required by EU mandates.

The report argues that the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Bill jeopardises the UK's environment and legal system by transferring excessive power to Government Ministers and failing to guarantee the retention of all EU environmental laws and governance functions. It identifies three primary risks: a democratic deficit caused by broad ministerial powers and inadequate scrutiny; a reduction in environmental protection due to the loss of overarching principles and incomplete transposition of Directives; and a governance gap resulting from the absence of independent replacements for EU institutions. The authors recommend that retained EU law only be modified by Acts of Parliament, that environmental principles be explicitly retained, and that new, independent governance mechanisms be established through primary legislation.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) criticizes the proposed Multilateral Investment Court (MIC), stating that its focus on institutional reform does not resolve the systemic issues of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). CIEL argues that the MIC would continue to elevate investor rights over human rights, labor, and environmental laws while excluding civil society and governments from bringing claims. The document advocates for a broader multilateral approach to trade and investment based on sustainability and public good, suggesting that any court should refuse jurisdiction to law-breaking investors and deny claims against public interest measures.

A coalition of medical experts and environmental organizations calls on Liverpool City Region mayoral candidates to prioritize public health by ensuring the region meets legal air pollution limits by 2020 through the use of Clean Air Zones and increased investment in sustainable transport.