Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines the status of Indigenous Territories and Community Conserved Areas (TICCAs) in Bolivia, highlighting the gap between the country's advanced constitutional protections for indigenous peoples and the actual implementation of state policies. It details the legal evolution from the 1953 Agrarian Reform to the 2009 Constitution, which recognizes Bolivia as a Plurinational State. The report identifies significant threats to biodiversity and indigenous governance, including the expansion of the agricultural frontier, large-scale extractivist projects (mining and hydrocarbons), and the government's failure to conduct prior informed consultation. Through case studies of the TIPNIS and Kaa-Iya, it illustrates conflicts over infrastructure projects and the erosion of co-management agreements between the state and indigenous organizations.

The report examines the tension between India's centralized conservation laws, such as the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972, and the rights of forest-dependent communities. It highlights the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (FRA) as a critical tool for securing community tenure and management rights. The document details various types of CCAs, including sacred groves and community-managed forests, while criticizing the 'ecodevelopment' model and the lack of legal recognition for marine and wetland conservation initiatives. It concludes with recommendations for legal reforms to prioritize site-specific, decentralized governance and the recognition of customary laws.

The briefing proposes the concept of 'life-cycle characteristics' to allow public procurement authorities to legally account for non-physical product attributes, such as fair trade or sustainable sourcing, during the bidding process. It argues that the European Commission's current proposal is insufficient to eliminate legal uncertainty regarding whether social factors and specific production processes can be used as technical specifications. Drawing on case law like the North Holland case, the document asserts that social and environmental impacts should be treated equally and linked to the subject matter of the contract across all stages of a product's life cycle.

The brief, filed by a coalition of physicians, scientists, and environmental advocates, contends that the natural gas industry systematically suppresses public health data through federal exemptions, state laws, and confidential legal settlements. It argues that the public interest in understanding the health risks of hydraulic fracturing—such as water contamination and air pollution—outweighs the private interests of gas companies in maintaining secrecy. The authors specifically highlight the Hallowich family's experience with deteriorating health due to nearby gas operations and urge the court to reverse a lower court's decision to seal the case records.

The statement argues for the creation of a special procedure within the UN Human Rights Council to manage the intersection of human rights, environmental crises, and climate change, noting that over 140 states have already incorporated environmental rights into their constitutions.

The document examines the historical evolution of the link between human rights and the environment across UN conferences and argues that the Rio+20 process, specifically its 'Zero Draft' outcome document, fails to adequately operationalize this linkage. It suggests that a rights-based approach is essential to prevent the 'green economy' theme from eclipsing social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. The brief recommends that Rio+20 explicitly recognize the right to a healthy environment, integrate this right into the mandates of new environmental organizations or the Ombudsman for Future Generations, and pursue a global or regional treaty to elaborate on the procedural rights of access to information, public participation, and access to justice as outlined in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) argues that the South African Weather Service Amendment Bill, 2011, introduces problematic penalties for issuing air pollution-related warnings without permission. CER contends this could criminalise independent air quality monitoring and contradict existing protections in the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA). They propose removing the 'air pollution-related warning' offence and explicitly aligning the Weather Service's objectives with the Constitution and NEMA.

The Constitutional Court ruled that the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) does not override the Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO), meaning mining rights holders must still comply with land use zoning requirements. The court clarified that the MPRDA and LUPO serve different purposes—mining governance and land use regulation, respectively—and that their overlap does not constitute an impermissible intrusion of local government into national spheres. Additionally, the court refused to grant a declaratory order on the conflict between the MPRDA and the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), dismissing the cross-appeal on the grounds that it lacked a chance of success.

The Centre for Environmental Rights advocates for the alignment of mining environmental regulations with the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), the use of Section 49 of the MPRDA to prohibit mining in critical biodiversity and hydrological areas, and the integration of GIS environmental data into the SAMRAD online application system to prevent mining rights from being granted in ecologically sensitive areas.

The document identifies four primary areas of focus for the COP5 meeting in Geneva: the potential banning of the pesticide endosulfan, the elimination of newly listed persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and the review of DDT and lindane exemptions, the improvement of the Convention's effectiveness regarding compliance and voting, and the closing of the funding gap for developing countries. It also notes the United States' status as an observer and the legislative hurdles preventing its ratification of the treaty.

The statement outlines requirements for a fair appeals process for CDM Executive Board decisions, emphasizing the need for an independent appeals body, broad legal standing for civil society organizations, and the ability to challenge both procedural and substantive violations.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and 12 other organisations are urging the South African Minister of Mineral Resources to exercise discretion under section 49 of the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) to create 'no-go areas' for mining based on environmental sensitivity. The CER rejects claims by the Chamber of Mines that existing laws—such as the Protected Areas Act, the Biodiversity Act, and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs)—provide sufficient protection, noting that rights have been granted illegally in protected areas and that the Biodiversity Act often only triggers an EIA without providing further legal protection. The CER asserts that a section 49 declaration is the only way to prevent wasted costs for the state and industry by refusing applications in sensitive areas from the outset, citing the Minister's intention to declare the Chrissiesmeer Biodiversity Site as a precedent.

The Magaliesberg Protection Association (MPA) is pursuing a judicial review in the Mafikeng High Court to overturn the MEC's decision to allow the 'rectification' of the Kgaswane Country Lodge, a ± 50 bedroom hotel built illegally in a 'highly sensitive' area of the Magaliesberg Protected Environment. Despite an unsuccessful application for an interdict to stop construction, the MPA argues that the approval violates the area's Environmental Management Framework and sets a dangerous precedent for other illegal developments. The legal process has cost approximately R260,000 to date, with an estimated total cost of R400,000, funded by donations and guarantees from hiking and mountaineering clubs.

The Centre for Environmental Rights is urging the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Acid Mine Drainage to respond to concerns raised by a coalition of 34 civil society organisations and to publish a report from a team of experts. The letter warns that legal action may be pursued if a satisfactory response is not provided to prevent the release of toxic acid mine drainage into watercourses.

The document is a formal letter from a coalition of civil society organisations to the co-chairs of the Inter Ministerial Committee on Acid Mine Drainage (IMC), expressing alarm over the uncontrolled decant of untreated acid mine drainage (AMD) in the Witwatersrand Basin. The authors argue that the State has failed its constitutional obligations to protect the environment and public health, citing a lack of transparency, the exclusion of civil society, and unreasonable delays in implementing treatment solutions. They specifically criticize the preference for 'neutralisation' as an inadequate short-term fix and highlight ecological crises such as fish kills in the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site and pollution at the Grootvlei mine. The letter demands the public release of expert reports and a decision on treatment proposals by 2 February 2011, threatening legal action if these demands are not met.

The Water Tribunal dismissed an appeal by the Escarpment Environmental Protection Group and the Langkloof Environmental Committee against a water use licence issued to WERM Mining (Pty) Ltd. The Tribunal ruled that the appellants lacked locus standi because the National Water Act 36 of 1998 limits the right of appeal to specific persons, and no right of appeal arises for objectors if no notice was published in the media as required by section 41(4) of the Act. The Tribunal further determined that the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 did not extend the right to internal appeal in this statutory context.

The document serves as a comprehensive guide for interns in South Africa's environmental sector, bridging the gap between academic study and professional work. It outlines the roles of various government and civil society entities, explains the national environmental policy landscape rooted in the Constitution, and provides practical tools for time management, communication, and workplace ethics. Additionally, it offers guidance on performance appraisals, the rights and responsibilities of interns, and strategies for transitioning into full-time employment within the green economy.

The Centre for Environmental Rights and other NGOs contend that the JSE's SRI Index undermines environmental regulation by listing companies that are non-compliant with environmental laws. They propose that the Index should require legal compliance as a minimum qualification, implement independent methods to identify enforcement actions using public data, and require companies to self-report environmental violations and fines annually. The document highlights that environmental non-compliance is price-sensitive information, citing a 19% drop in Coal of Africa Limited shares in November 2010 following enforcement action.

The Magaliesberg Protection Association (MPA) is pursuing a judicial review in the Mafikeng High Court to set aside the environmental authorisation of the Kgaswane Country Lodge, a ± 50 bedroom hotel built illegally in a 'highly sensitive' area of the Magaliesberg Protected Environment (MPE). Despite the development being designated as an 'incompatible activity' by the Department's own Environmental Management Framework (EMF), the MEC dismissed the MPA's appeal on 5 February 2010. The MPA's legal action, filed on 4 August 2010, seeks an interdict to stop ongoing construction and an order for the lodge's demolition and environmental rehabilitation. The MPA estimates the total legal costs at approximately R300,000, funded through donations and guarantees from organisations including the MCSA and the Johannesburg Hiking Club.

The Centre for Environmental Rights and a coalition of environmental NGOs are urging the South African government to use legislative powers to prohibit mining in areas of critical biodiversity and hydrological value. They offer to provide scientific evidence and a list of sensitive areas to assist a government task team in improving environmental compliance and sustainable development in the mining sector.