Search Climate Insights Directory

This legal opinion, authored by Paul Kennedy SC on 16 May 2012, addresses the legal implications of the Water Tribunal operating without a duly appointed chairperson following the resignation of the previous chairperson on 31 December 2011.

This document consists of the practice note, chronology, and heads of argument filed by Arcelormittal South Africa Ltd (AMSA) in the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa. AMSA is appealing a High Court judgment that ordered it to disclose environmental records to the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA) under the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA). AMSA argues that VEJA failed to meet the 'need to know' threshold required for requests to private bodies and that there is no legal right for a private NGO to act as a regulatory 'watch-dog' to monitor a private company's environmental compliance.

A letter from the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA) dated 15 September 2020, confirming the appointment of the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) as its attorneys of record to appeal a decision regarding emission standards for an ArcelorMittal facility.

The document details the process and disputes surrounding the extension of the Tormin Mineral Sands Mine. It includes a Background Information Document and an Executive Summary of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prepared by SRK Consulting for Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd (MSR), outlining plans to mine ten beaches and an inland strandline. It also contains a detailed appeal by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), which argues that the extension is an unlawful circumvention of mining right applications, fails to adequately protect Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs), and relies on unproven rehabilitation success. Additionally, the CER's correspondence alleges multiple environmental violations by MSR, including unauthorised road construction and sea dumping, and requests the cancellation of the mine's existing rights.

This document consists of the applicants' (defendants') heads of argument filed in the High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division) on 15 May 2019. The applicants, including environmental lawyers and a community activist, are seeking an order to compel Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd (MSR) to disclose documents relevant to a defamation lawsuit. MSR is suing the applicants overS for statements made during a University of Cape Town course on 25 January 2017, which alleged that MSR operated its Tormin Mine in breach of mining, environmental, and land use planning laws. The applicants argue that the requested documents are essential to prove the truth of their statements and to protect their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and academic freedom.

This document is a legal notice filed in the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) in August 2017. It outlines the grounds upon which several applicants, including Mining and Environmental Justice and GroundWork, seek the review and setting aside of decisions made by the Minister of Environmental Affairs and the Minister of Mineral Resources to allow Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd to conduct commercial mining in the Mabola Protected Environment.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) has requested a meeting with the South African Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) to discuss the ongoing review of the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002. The CER, acting on behalf of a strategy group of over ten non-governmental organisations, civil society groups, and academic institutions, aims to share expertise on environmental compliance, transparency, and accountability in mining to ensure draft legislation has greater civil society buy-in from an early stage.

The document identifies 22 water source areas (WSAs) in South Africa that provide 50% of surface run-off from only 8% of the land, supporting 60% of the population and 67% of economic activity. It highlights critical threats including coal and gold mining, fracking, climate change, and alien invasive vegetation, noting that only 13% of WSAs are under formal protection under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (NEMPAA). The guide provides a 'Legal Toolbox' of seven legislative mechanisms to restrict harmful activities and restore ecological infrastructure.

The Climate Change Bill, tabled in February 2022, aims to empower South Africa to respond to climate risks through the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and the management of climate adaptation. The document argues that a formal Act is necessary to hold government and emitters accountable, ensure legal certainty for ambitious climate action, and improve access to climate finance. To be effective, the author suggests the Bill must include strong enforcement penalties, science-based emission targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, and high levels of transparency regarding carbon budgets.

The document describes a proposed Climate Change Bill in South Africa introduced in October 2022. The Bill aims to strengthen the country's response to climate change through three main pillars: regulating the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions via carbon budgets, managing adaptation to climate-related risks such as floods and droughts, and defining the responsibilities of government departments at national, provincial, and local levels. The text argues that the Bill is essential for protecting constitutional rights, attracting climate finance, and ensuring accountability. To be effective, the document asserts that the Bill requires strong penalties for exceeding carbon budgets, clear timelines for implementation, transparency regarding emissions data, and science-based targets to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. It concludes by encouraging citizens to study the Bill, engage with policymakers, and share personal experiences of climate change to ensure the resulting law is robust.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) provided joint submissions on 18 July 2012 regarding the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Bill, 2012. The document offers a detailed critique of proposed amendments to the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), the Biodiversity Act, and the Air Quality Act, focusing on environmental governance, criminal liability, and the rights of traditional communities.

The court found the Stilfontein Gold Mining Company (SGM) and its four directors guilty of contempt of court for ignoring directives to pump underground water to prevent pollution and flooding. The judge rejected the directors' defense that their mass resignation and the company's financial status absolved them of responsibility, emphasizing that directors cannot 'walk away' from environmental obligations. However, this contempt order was subsequently set aside on appeal in Kebble v The Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry 2007 JDR 0872 (SCA).

This document is a legal notice filed in the High Court of South Africa on May 21, 2014, by Sasol Synfuels (Pty) Ltd, National Petroleum Refiners of South Africa (Pty) Ltd, and Sasol Infrachem. The applicants challenge the constitutionality of minimum emission standards published by the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs under the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 39 of 2004.

The document serves as a practical manual for South African citizens to enforce environmental rights against mining operations. It details indicators of illegal mining activity, the legal framework governing environmental crimes, and a step-by-step procedure for filing criminal charges with the police. It also explains the subsequent prosecution process and the legal protections available to whistleblowing employees.

The document provides legal arguments to support a lawsuit against the Panamanian National Environmental Authority (ANAM) regarding the Barro Blanco Hydroelectric Project. It contends that the project's EIA was approved without adequate consultation or the free, prior, and informed consent of the Ngäbe people, violating international human rights and environmental law. The brief highlights specific failures, including a single public forum conducted only in Spanish and the omission of critical data regarding indigenous territories adjacent to the Ngäbe-Buglé Comarca.

The briefing argues that CETA's 'domestic regulatory disciplines' limit the discretion of regulators in EU Member States, specifically using Greece as a case study. It highlights that Greek mining laws—which rely on expert judgment, public input, and evolving scientific data—may be vulnerable to legal challenges under CETA's requirements that licensing processes be 'objective' and 'established in advance'.

The document asserts that the phase-out of fossil fuels is a legal requirement derived from customary international law, human rights law, environmental law, and the law of the sea. It emphasizes that states must employ all available means to prevent significant climate damage, prioritize emissions reduction at the source over speculative technologies, and ensure a just transition, particularly for the least developed countries and small island developing states. The authors argue that these obligations are 'erga omnes' and should prevail over investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submits this brief to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) regarding Case 12.696. It contends that Chile's Agricultural and Livestock Service (SAG) provided incomplete and ambiguous information about GMO crops, failing to disclose specific planting locations and the identities of companies involved. The document argues that scientific uncertainty regarding GMO risks to human health and biodiversity necessitates a transparent regulatory framework and public participation. It supports its claims by citing international instruments like the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Aarhus Convention, as well as jurisprudence from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and the European Court of Justice, all of which emphasize the public's right to environmental information.

This research paper analyzes a 1991 General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) dispute resolution panel decision regarding a U.S. embargo on Mexican tuna. The panel found that the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) violated GATT by imposing quantitative restrictions on imports. The authors examine the legal conflict between international trade rules and environmental protections, arguing that the decision limits the ability of nations to enforce environmental standards on imported products unless those standards affect the physical makeup of the product or its sale.

The report examines the difficulties in listing hazardous substances under Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention due to the requirement for consensus, which has blocked chemicals like chrysotile asbestos, Paraquat, and Fenthion despite scientific evidence. It evaluates three primary options: amending the Article 22.5 listing procedure, creating a new annex for non-consensus chemicals, or increasing information exchange. The analysis highlights that creating a new annex is procedurally easier than amending the voting procedure, as it enters into force one year after adoption without requiring ratification by three-fourths of the Parties. Amending the listing procedure could lead to a complex 'two-tier' system of parallel conventions until all parties ratify the change. While aligning Annex III with other annexes would remove the consensus requirement, the report warns this might eliminate the critical role of the Chemical Review Committee (CRC).