Search Climate Insights Directory

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) has written to the Australian High Commissioner to South Africa to question the allocation of $15,431.00 from the Australian Direct Aid Program to 'MRC Resources' for the 'upgrade of existing fresh water borehole'. The CER notes that the Direct Aid Program is intended for poverty reduction and sustainable development in local communities, rather than for profit-making Australian companies like Mineral Commodities Limited (MRC), which operates mineral sands projects in South Africa. The letter highlights significant social unrest and violence associated with MRC's projects, specifically mentioning the assassination of anti-mining activist Sikhosiphi Bazooka Rhadebe on 22 March 2016 in Xolobeni. The CER seeks confirmation of the recipient's identity, the location and justification for the borehole project, the application process used, and whether the funding was monitored.

Earthjustice criticizes the Republican-led Senate for its unprecedented refusal to hold hearings or provide 'advice and consent' for a Supreme Court nominee during the final year of President Obama's term. The organization emphasizes that judicial appointments are critical for protecting environmental and public health rights, noting that the Senate's obstructionism extends to regional appeals courts as well.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, acting on behalf of groundwork and the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance, submitted a formal appeal on 1 March 2016 to the Minister of Environmental Affairs. The appeal challenges the integrated environmental authorisation issued on 5 February 2016 for the construction of the 1050MW Colenso coal-fired power station and its associated infrastructure in KwaZulu-Natal.

The document evaluates the Joint Resolution SMA/SAA No. 1/2016, which regulates the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA) in São Paulo. While it praises the move toward electronic processes and clear rules for those adhering to the PRA, it warns that the resolution may have exceeded its regulatory power by establishing penalties—such as the loss of land-use rights for consolidated areas—not explicitly provided for in federal or state law. It also highlights gaps in the regulation of Legal Reserve compensation, particularly for the Cerrado biome, and the lack of complementary norms necessary for full implementation.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) has issued an open letter to Anglo American following the company's February 2016 announcement to sell its South African coal and iron ore assets. The CER warns against a trend where large mining firms sell assets with significant environmental liabilities to smaller companies that subsequently go insolvent, leaving the state and public to bear the cost of rehabilitation. Citing cases like Harmony Gold and DRDGold, the CER argues that the transfer of mining rights constitutes administrative action requiring public participation under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA). The letter demands that Anglo American publicly disclose its intended transfers, Environmental Management Programmes, and financial provisions for rehabilitation to avoid adding to the 6,000 derelict and ownerless mines already existing in South Africa.

The National Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report 2015/16 details the activities of South Africa's Environmental Management Inspectorate (EMI). It records a total of 2,647 EMIs, with a significant increase in proactive inspections and a rise in administrative notices. The report highlights enforcement trends in 'brown' (pollution/waste), 'green' (biodiversity), and 'blue' (marine/freshwater) sectors, noting a stabilization in rhino poaching numbers. It also documents specific legal cases, legislative updates, and capacity-building efforts for inspectors and prosecutors.

This document is a manual produced by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) in December 2015 to comply with Section 51 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (PAIA). It outlines the CER's role as a non-profit law clinic, identifies the Executive Director as the head for PAIA purposes, and details the procedures, fees, and categories of records available to the public for accessing information held by the organisation.

The handbook explains the legal framework of the EU Air Quality Directive, emphasizing the enforceability of 'limit values' for pollutants like NO2 and PM10. It details how citizens and NGOs can use the Aarhus Convention's pillars—access to information, public participation, and access to justice—to challenge inadequate air quality plans and government inaction in national courts. The document also outlines the European Commission's infringement procedures and the 'Fresh Approach' to tackling systemic breaches of air quality standards across Member States.

The Federation for a Sustainable Environment (FSE), represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), filed an internal appeal to the Director General of the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) on July 21, 2015. The appeal challenges the DMR's partial refusal to grant access to records regarding the Yzermyn underground coal mine project in Mpumalanga, which the FSE requested under the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA).

The report examines how the Mesa Nacional Frente a la Minería Metálica de El Salvador (MNFM), supported by CIEL and FESPAD, used amicus curiae submissions in the Pac Rim investor-state arbitration to highlight environmental and human rights concerns. It details the legal requirements for such interventions, the strategic importance of technical legal expertise combined with community grounding, and the outcomes of the jurisdictional phase of the arbitration. The document concludes with lessons for other civil society organizations on navigating the technical nature of international investment law to protect public interest and democratic decision-making.

The document presents the texts of the Cooperation and Investment Facilitation Agreements between Brazil and Mozambique and between Brazil and Angola. Both agreements aim to foster reciprocal investments through institutional governance, including the creation of a Joint Committee and Focal Points (Ombudsmen) to facilitate investment and prevent disputes. They establish frameworks for information exchange, corporate social responsibility, and the protection of investments against expropriation, while emphasizing the preservation of legislative autonomy and public policy space.

The statement criticizes the South African government for granting air quality standard postponements to Eskom, Sasol, and Engen on 24 February 2014. It asserts that these postponements effectively legalize toxic air, contradicting Section 24 of the constitution and a 1995 promise by President Mandela. The document highlights the severe health impacts of Eskom's pollution, estimating 20,000 premature deaths and an economic cost of R230 billion, while arguing that industries have had sufficient time since 2004 to implement pollution control technologies.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) sent an urgent letter to the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) on 23 February 2015, requesting confirmation and documentation regarding a mining right allegedly granted to Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (AAV) within the Mabola Protected Environment.

The document examines the legal basis for public participation in the imposition of administrative fines under section 24G of NEMA. It concludes that while such determinations likely do not constitute 'administrative action' affecting I&APs under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), the failure to allow I&APs to be heard may still be considered irrational and unlawful under the Constitution and the principle of legality.

The document argues that the UK is falling behind global standards in environmental law enforcement and advocates for systemic legal reforms to increase citizen access to justice and the use of strategic litigation to protect the environment.

The document critiques the 'green growth' paradigm and the financialization of nature, specifically the creation of markets for ecosystem services. It argues that these mechanisms, such as biodiversity offsets and carbon credits, do not stop environmental degradation but instead provide corporations with a 'social license to destroy' by allowing them to compensate for damage in one area by protecting another. The report highlights the negative impacts on Indigenous territories, the failure of existing offset programs in the EU and Australia, and the risk of 'devaluation' when economic priorities shift, as seen in Costa Rica. It concludes that these financial tools are instruments for capital accumulation and cost reduction rather than genuine ecological protection.

The report argues that conservation initiatives frequently violate the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, despite an increasing international legal consensus on their protections. It asserts that responsibility for upholding these rights extends beyond states to include international organisations, businesses, and NGOs. The authors analyse a vast array of international instruments and find that while normative trends are moving toward greater recognition of rights, enforcement and redress remain significant challenges. The document concludes by suggesting the creation of core standards, stakeholder guidance, and potentially a dedicated global grievance mechanism or 'Roundtable on Ethical Conservation' to ensure just conservation practices.

The document examines the challenges Indigenous Peoples and local communities face when seeking redress for human rights violations linked to conservation, such as the eviction of the Endorois in Kenya. It categorizes redress mechanisms into state-based (national courts, NHRIs) and non-state-based (UN systems, regional human rights courts, financial institution accountability mechanisms, and corporate mechanisms). While state-based systems can issue binding decisions, they are often inaccessible due to discrimination and lack of recognition of collective rights. Non-state judicial mechanisms often have high procedural hurdles, such as the exhaustion of domestic remedies, while non-judicial mechanisms frequently lack enforcement power. The author suggests exploring a 'Roundtable for Ethical Conservation' as a specialized mechanism to ensure compliance with human rights standards.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) expresses concern that TTIP's focus on reducing 'non-tariff' barriers will lead to a 'chilling effect' on environmental and health legislation. CIEL specifically warns that regulatory coherence mechanisms, such as the proposed Regulatory Cooperation Council, could prioritize trade impacts over public safety and impede the ability of U.S. states and EU member states to enact stronger standards. The document highlights a profound divergence in toxic chemical regulation, arguing that U.S. efforts to target EU laws as 'technical barriers to trade'—including those regarding endocrine disruptors and nanomaterials—threaten to lower global safety standards through harmonization or mutual recognition.

The document argues that TTIP's focus on removing 'non-tariff' barriers through regulatory cooperation may lead to a roll-back of existing environmental and health laws. It highlights concerns over the proposed Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC), the use of cost-benefit analyses that prioritize trade, and the potential for undue corporate influence in lawmaking processes.