Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of health and environmental experts calls on West Midlands mayoral candidates to implement Clean Air Zones and invest in sustainable transport to address widespread air pollution. The letter highlights that legal pollution limits are exceeded in every local authority in the region, contributing to cardiovascular disease and asthma, and urges candidates to support a new national Clean Air Act.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) has called on Anglo American to act transparently in the sale of three operational and four closed coal mines to Seriti Resources. The CER argues that the trend of large mining companies selling assets with significant environmental liabilities to smaller companies often leads to a failure to comply with rehabilitation obligations. The CER requests that Anglo American publicly disclose mining licences, environmental management programmes, social and labour plans, and assessments of environmental liability and financial provision for rehabilitation to ensure these obligations are not ultimately shifted to the South African state and public.

The Centre for Environmental Rights informs the South African Department of Environmental Affairs that a court ruling now requires climate change impact assessments (CCIA) as part of environmental impact assessments (EIA) for coal-fired power stations. The document outlines the minimum requirements for a CCIA, warns that existing authorizations without such assessments may be legally vulnerable, and urges the Department to establish formal guidelines for conducting these assessments.

Earthjustice argues that the U.S. Senate's use of the 'nuclear option' to override minority opposition for Judge Neil Gorsuch's confirmation sets a dangerous precedent. The organization claims this politicization of the Supreme Court threatens the independence of the judiciary and could negatively impact future legal efforts to protect clean air, clean water, and equal protection from environmental hazards.

The document is an open letter from ClientEarth and several environmental NGOs to the First Vice-President of the European Commission. It highlights a March 17, 2017, finding by the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) that the EU failed to provide adequate access to justice for individuals and NGOs in environmental matters, specifically breaching Article 9(3)(4) of the Aarhus Convention. The authors argue that while Member States and businesses can defend their interests, no individual or NGO has been granted legal standing before the Court of Justice of the EU to challenge institutional decisions on environmental issues, except for document disclosure refusals. To remedy this, the letter proposes that the European Commission amend Regulation 1367/2006 and that the European Court of Justice revise its interpretation of standing criteria under Article 263 TFEU to ensure environmental NGOs are considered to have "direct and individual concern" regarding acts impacting the environment.

ClientEarth argues that the European Commission has improperly withheld conformity checking studies by applying a general presumption of confidentiality to documents that do not meet the legal criteria for such an exception. The complaint asserts that the Commission failed to conduct individual assessments of requested documents, particularly those related to EU Pilot cases and preliminary assessments, in violation of case C-612/13 P and the Aarhus Regulation. Additionally, ClientEarth claims the Commission is neglecting its duty to actively and systematically disseminate environmental information to the public.

Environmental organisations are challenging the Minister of Environmental Affairs' decision to permit commercial mining in the Mabola Protected Environment, arguing it sets a dangerous precedent. They demand that the Minister adhere to constitutional rights, environmental management principles under NEMA, and procedural fairness requirements under PAJA for all current and future applications to conduct commercial activities in protected areas.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted a formal statement to the Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme Local Municipality challenging a land use application for Portion 1 of the Farm Yzermyn 96 HT. The CER argues that the application for rezoning is legally flawed because no town-planning scheme exists for the area, and that the process has failed to meet statutory requirements for public notice and inspection.

The policy brief identifies a 'normative vacuum' and legal inconsistencies that hinder the conversion of environmental fines into preservation and recovery services in Brazil. It highlights that while Decree 6.514/2008 allows for such conversion, a lack of procedural rules and technical capacity at Ibama prevents its application. The authors specifically argue that Article 42 of the 2012 Forest Code contains a drafting error that makes its fine conversion program legally impossible to implement as written.

Friends of the Earth (U.S.) argues that Donald Trump's presidency endangers the foundations of American democracy and the U.S. Constitution. The organization pledges to fight attacks on laws protecting air, water, and food supplies, while supporting public protests and congressional resistance to the new administration.

The report finds that a significant portion of Peruvian timber exports are high-risk or illegal, despite being accompanied by official Transport Guides (GTF). Analysis of 2015 export data reveals that exporters strategically direct 'green-listed' (low-risk) timber to strictly regulated markets like the US and EU, while sending 'red-listed' (high-risk) timber to markets with weaker regulations, such as China and Mexico. The study highlights a shift toward using Native Community permits and Local Forests to launder illegal wood, noting that 66% of analyzed GTFs were either not supervised or lacked critical traceability data like the harvest year (zafra).

ClientEarth criticizes the European Commission's Roadmap for the REFIT Evaluation of pesticides legislation, claiming it overemphasizes implementation costs over benefits and fails to incorporate the precautionary principle. The organization highlights inconsistencies between this roadmap and other chemical legislation evaluations, specifically regarding risk management terminology and endocrine disruptor 'cut-off' criteria, and argues that separating the evaluation of pesticide use (Directive 2009/128) from pesticide placement (Regulation 1107/2009) makes the process incomplete.

The report identifies significant gaps in the EU's implementation of the Nagoya Protocol, which differs from provider countries' laws by triggering obligations at the point of physical access rather than utilization. This creates legal uncertainty and allows for the potential misappropriation of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, particularly through an 'import loophole' where products developed outside the EU are sold within it. The authors suggest that provider countries should strengthen their national laws and Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT) to protect their resources and the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.

The President and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Carroll Muffett, reports that ExxonMobil issued a personal subpoena to him on November 9, 2016. Muffett characterizes this action as part of a broader "campaign of intimidation" intended to "harass, intimidate, and silence" those exposing the oil industry's history of climate denial. The statement argues that oil companies should be held accountable for fraud if they "misrepresented or concealed material facts about their products from consumers, investors, and the public in the name of profit."

ClientEarth contends that the European Commission is attempting to unlawfully modify the derogation mechanism for endocrine disruptors in pesticides. The organization argues that the approval mechanism is an 'essential element' of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, meaning it can only be changed by co-legislators through the ordinary legislative procedure, not by the Commission via delegated powers under Article 290 TFEU. Furthermore, ClientEarth asserts that the Commission's proposed shift toward a risk-analysis-based approach is less protective of human health and the environment than the existing system of limiting exposure to negligible levels.

The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) has found that the European Union fails to comply with the Aarhus Convention because neither the Aarhus Regulation nor the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) provides adequate access to justice for the public. The ACCC identified that the 'Plaumann test' and strict 'individual concern' criteria effectively preclude NGOs and private individuals from challenging EU institutional decisions. Furthermore, the ACCC found that Regulation (EC) No. 1367/2006 (the Aarhus Regulation) is too narrow, as it limits internal review to 'administrative acts' of 'individual scope' rather than all acts and omissions that contravene environmental law. The ACCC recommends that the EU amend the Aarhus Regulation and that the ECJ interpret EU law to provide effective judicial remedies for members of the public.

The report argues that for the Energy Union Governance System to be credible, indicators must be rooted in law and serve both ex-ante planning and ex-post monitoring functions. It recommends a two-tier system of mandatory key indicators and supporting auxiliary indicators, integrated into National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs). The author suggests that these indicators should trigger a differentiated response mechanism, ranging from non-binding Country-Specific Recommendations for minor deviations to mandatory corrective action plans and punitive measures for serious failures to meet binding targets. To ensure objectivity, the report proposes strengthening the role of independent expert bodies, such as the European Environment Agency (EEA), and utilizing a public scoreboard to increase transparency and accountability.

The briefing advocates for a binding UN treaty to end the impunity of transnational corporations (TNCs) in Africa. It details systemic environmental degradation and human rights abuses by companies like Shell in Nigeria, Vale in Mozambique, and ArcelorMittal in South Africa, arguing that national legal systems are often insufficient to provide justice and reparations.

The report examines the catastrophic environmental and human rights impacts of transnational oil companies, specifically Shell, in Nigeria's Niger Delta. It details the persistence of gas flaring and oil spills, the resulting destruction of rural livelihoods, and the systemic barriers—such as high legal costs, burden of proof, and judicial delays—that prevent victims from accessing justice in Nigerian courts. Through case studies, it demonstrates how corporations use legal stalling and jurisdictional challenges to evade accountability, concluding that a legally binding global treaty and an international environmental court are necessary to protect human rights and the environment.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted recommendations to the Department of Environmental Affairs to amend the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA): National Appeal Regulations, 2014. The CER argues that the current regulations may violate the right to just administrative action under the Constitution and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (PAJA), specifically regarding restrictive timeframes and procedural fairness for interested and affected parties (I&APs).