Search Climate Insights Directory

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) argues that current proposed fracking regulations in South Africa are inadequate because they rely on industry standards and are housed under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) rather than comprehensive environmental laws. The document advocates for a regulatory regime based on the Constitution and the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), calling for a specialised inter-departmental unit to oversee authorisations and enforcement. Key recommendations include mandatory baseline environmental measurements, public disclosure of fracking fluid chemicals, a prohibition on using potable water, and the implementation of 'green completions' to eliminate gas venting and flaring. The CER emphasizes that fracking should only be permitted if it can be proven to contribute to sustainable development without causing irreparable harm to water resources or disadvantaged communities.

The report evaluates a new audit methodology designed to assess how countries implement clusters of related multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). Testing in Estonia and Tanzania focused on four biodiversity-related MEAs: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Ramsar Convention, CITES, and the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). The methodology uses 15 categories to score implementation as strong, moderate, or weak. In Estonia, implementation was generally high, with 'Cross-border cooperation' being the strongest area. In Tanzania, overall effectiveness was moderate, with a strong legal framework but weaknesses in enforcement and monitoring. The report concludes that the methodology is a useful, relatively easy-to-apply tool for both national governments and international secretariats to identify implementation gaps and streamline reporting.

The Centre for Environmental Rights argues that South Africa's proposed fracking regulations are flawed because they rely on industry standards rather than a comprehensive legal framework. The document recommends that fracking be regulated under a suite of environmental laws (NEMA, NWA, NEMWA, NEMAQA) rather than just the MPRDA, and suggests the creation of a specialised inter-departmental unit for monitoring and enforcement. Key requirements include mandatory baseline measurements for water and air quality, public disclosure of fracking fluid chemicals, a prohibition on using potable water, and significant financial guarantees for rehabilitation.

The document examines the distribution of benefits from forest resources in Ghana, highlighting a disconnect between constitutional mandates and actual practice. While the 1992 Constitution establishes a specific revenue-sharing formula for Stool and Skin lands, the Forestry Commission often retains significant portions of revenue (such as 50% of stumpage fees and contract area rent) without clear legal backing. The briefing also details various benefit-sharing mechanisms for naturally occurring and planted trees, and reviews international instruments like the African Charter and the Convention on Biological Diversity that support community rights to resource benefits.

The document examines the legal protections for access to information in Ghana's forest sector, noting a gap between constitutional rights and operational enforcement. It details specific obligations of the Forestry Commission and the goals of the 2012 Forest and Wildlife Policy, while reviewing international instruments like the African Charter and the EU-Ghana VPA.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) warns that TTIP may hinder public health and safety goals by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could lower chemical safety standards. The document highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH approach and the US's risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that trade-driven 'regulatory coherence' often results in a 'lowest-common denominator' outcome. It further cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which could allow corporations to sue governments over environmental laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-national regulations in the US and EU. Finally, it suggests that a US-EU agreement could negatively influence the development of chemical regulations in other regions, such as the BRIICS countries.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), on behalf of several environmental organizations, warns the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance that TTIP may prioritize trade interests over public health. The document highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH regulation and the U.S.'s risk-based Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), arguing that harmonization or mutual recognition could lead to a 'lowest-common denominator' approach to chemical safety. It specifically opposes investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which it claims allow corporations to sue governments over public interest laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-federal laws in the U.S. and national laws in EU member states. Finally, it suggests that a restrictive TTIP could discourage other nations, particularly BRIICS countries, from adopting more stringent chemical safety standards.

The Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2013 aims to strengthen wildlife law enforcement in India and align national legislation with CITES obligations. However, critics argue that the bill lacks accountability mechanisms for Gram Sabha consultations in Scheduled Areas and that increased penalties for crimes in tiger reserves may paradoxically lower conviction rates. Further concerns are raised regarding the potential for bureaucratic interference in scientific research and the disproportionate criminalization of minor permit violations.

The submission contends that the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) lacks the human resource capacity, budget, and track record to effectively implement the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and its EIA regulations. It highlights a conflict of interest between the DMR's mandate to promote mining and its obligation to protect the environment, citing poor decision-making in sensitive areas and negligible compliance monitoring. The authors argue that transferring these powers to the DMR would be an inefficient use of public funds and potentially unconstitutional, as it impinges on provincial mandates. They recommend that the Minister of Environmental Affairs and provincial Executive Councils remain the sole authorities for issuing and enforcing environmental authorisations.

The document warns that TTIP may prioritize trade interests over public health by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could lower chemical safety standards in the U.S. and EU. It specifically contrasts the EU's hazard-based REACH regulation with the U.S.'s risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that mutual recognition would effectively erase protections for chemicals restricted in only one jurisdiction. The author also cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which could allow corporations to sue governments over public interest laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-federal or sub-regional laws. Finally, the statement suggests that a low-standard TTIP could chill the development of stringent chemical regulations in other regions, such as the BRIICS countries.

The document warns that TTIP may prioritize trade over public health by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could weaken chemical safety standards. It highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH approach and the US's risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that mutual recognition would effectively erase protections unique to one jurisdiction. The author also cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and the preemption of sub-national laws, while noting that TTIP could negatively influence chemical regulations in non-member countries like the BRIICS nations.

The Centre for Environmental Rights criticises the draft Infrastructure Development Bill for omitting references to sustainable development and imposing a strict 250-day authorisation timeline for special infrastructure projects (SIPs). The author contends that these fast-tracked processes bypass necessary scientific assessments and public consultations, potentially violating constitutional rights to a healthy environment and just administrative action. The document warns that inadequate environmental planning for projects like mines and power stations will lead to long-term state liabilities and disproportionately affect vulnerable communities.

The document highlights a 'historic vacancy crisis' in the U.S. federal courts, focusing on the D.C. Circuit where four of 11 seats remain vacant due to political obstruction. It argues that these vacancies obstruct the judiciary's ability to enforce landmark environmental statutes such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. The text specifically cites the blocked nomination of Caitlin Halligan and the court's role in cases such as the EPA's veto of the Spruce No. 1 mountaintop removal coal mine in West Virginia.

The document examines how Bolivia's indigenous populations use traditional knowledge for weather forecasting and resource management to adapt to climate change, while highlighting the risks of this knowledge disappearing. It assesses the Law of Mother Earth as a tool for protecting natural resources but notes its lack of enforcement mechanisms. The brief recommends fostering partnerships between scientists and indigenous knowledge holders to improve adaptive strategies and calls for increased indigenous participation in national and international climate policy.

The document lists criminal offences and penalties for mining activities under several South African legislative frameworks, including the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act, the National Environmental Management Act, the National Water Act, and the Mine Health and Safety Act. It details specific violations such as operating without environmental authorisations, polluting water resources, and failing to ensure employee safety, alongside the corresponding fines and imprisonment terms.

The report details a meeting in Bangalore where partners discussed using Biocultural Community Protocols (BCPs) to empower communities in South Asia, specifically analyzing their utility under India's Biodiversity Act, 2002 and Forest Rights Act, 2006.

The report details WWF-South Africa's Graduate Development Programme, which provides structured internships for graduates and matriculants to transition into the environmental sector. Between 2011 and 2013, the programme created 55 internship opportunities, utilizing a network of mentors and partner organisations to enhance professional capacity in areas such as marine resource management, freshwater conservation, and environmental law. It also highlights the 'Groen Sebenza' initiative, a partnership with the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) to create jobs for ecosystems management.

The document examines the conflict between Uganda's constitutional property rights and the practical application of land acquisition laws in the oil sector. It highlights systemic failures in compensation processes, the inadequacy of current legislation, and the vulnerability of grassroots landowners facing displacement for oil-related infrastructure.

The CER evaluates the draft NWRS2 against its previous 'Stop Treading Water' report, supporting goals to improve Department of Water Affairs (DWA) stability and the establishment of Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs). However, it criticizes the draft for lacking specific timeframes and financial details, failing to afford legal status to Catchment Management Forums (CMFs), and omitting necessary reforms for the Water Tribunal. The CER specifically warns that proposed revisions to the 'Reserve' for economic development may complicate its implementation and threaten ecosystems.

The authors critique the Green Economy (GE) for its anthropocentric, market-based approach that treats nature as 'natural capital' and argues that such a framework is incompatible with the goal of protecting the intrinsic rights of Nature. They contrast the GE's reliance on economic valuation and Payments for Environmental Services (PES) with a bio-centric perspective that recognizes nature's right to exist independently of human utility. The paper highlights Ecuador as a pioneer in constitutionalizing the rights of Nature and proposes practical global measures, including the strict protection of 10% of all ecoregions and a transition to 100% organic food production.