Search Climate Insights Directory

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 (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.

A joint submission by environmental organisations to the South African Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources regarding the MPRDA Amendment Bill. The authors support the principle that mining right holders remain responsible for environmental liabilities regardless of a closure certificate but strongly oppose a proposed 20-year limit on the Minister's ability to retain financial provisions for latent impacts, arguing that such a period is arbitrary and often insufficient to cover long-term issues like acid mine drainage.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted comments on the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill, 2012, arguing that while the application of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) to mining is welcome, the Bill fails to ensure adequate community consultation and transparency. The CER criticizes the proposed administrative penalty system for lacking an independent tribunal and warns that the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) lacks the capacity to act as the competent environmental authority. The document further advocates for the reinstatement of joint and several liability for company directors and the removal of state immunity from criminal liability.

The document assesses the adequacy of financial provisions for mine closure in South Africa, identifying systemic failures in estimation, securing funds, and financial reporting. It highlights that many Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) are inadequate, master rates for costs are not inflation-adjusted, and concurrent rehabilitation is underperformed. The report recommends updating the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) guidelines, enhancing the SAMREC code, and improving public access to financial provision data. It also analyzes the risks associated with different financial instruments—such as trust funds, bank guarantees, and insurance—and the legal uncertainties regarding the ring-fencing of these funds during company insolvency or business rescue.

A coalition of environmental and community organizations argues against granting special liability relief or regulatory exemptions to carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) operators, asserting that such measures create moral hazards and undermine public health and environmental safeguards. The authors specifically oppose exempting geologic sequestration from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C, arguing that CO2 streams containing impurities could constitute hazardous waste and that existing industrial activities, such as hazardous waste injection, operate without such broad liability shields.

The document details a legal challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to implement financial assurance regulations required under 1980 Superfund legislation. These regulations are intended to ensure mining companies provide proof of funds for cleaning up toxic spills and contamination, preventing taxpayers from bearing the cost when companies declare bankruptcy. In February 2009, a United States District Court ordered the EPA to produce these regulations by May 4, 2009.

The Bareki v Gencor case is a significant South African legal precedent regarding environmental liability. The court initially ruled that section 28 of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) did not apply retrospectively to pollution occurring before 1999, citing a common law presumption against retrospectivity and the 'strict' or 'absolute' nature of the liability. However, the document notes that Act 14 of 2009 subsequently amended NEMA to explicitly include retrospective application for significant pollution. The case also addressed the continuity of rehabilitation duties from repealed mining laws, with the court dismissing 'continuity by content' arguments but allowing some claims based on the Interpretation Act of 1957. The plaintiffs sought R64 million for asbestos pollution at the Bute mine caused by Gefco and Gencor between 1976 and 1981.

The briefing by Friends of the Earth International criticizes Anglo-American Plc for environmental degradation and social injustice in its mining operations. In Zambia, the company is accused of polluting water and air, and securing secret agreements to avoid liability for pollution. In Peru, its planned copper mine threatens water scarcity and the livelihoods of local farmers. The document highlights the company's failure to comply with OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and calls for an international framework for corporate accountability.

The document describes a scenario where MultiPaint, Inc. (MPI), a company marketing itself as "environmentally friendly," discovers significant toxic contamination at its idle downtown paint plant. The case explores five strategic options for the site: self-cleanup and sale, contracting a third-party cleanup, selling the land "as is" at a discount, donating the land to the city, or re-opening the site to produce lead-based paint for an international contract. It further examines the internal conflicts arising from a previous $100,000 EPA fine for RCRA violations in the Stain Division and the external pressures from banks, auditors, and the press following news leaks about the pollution in Puget Sound.

The document analyzes the case of Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited v Free State, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, where the court ruled that the obligation to take 'reasonable measures' to prevent pollution under the National Water Act is not limited to a party's own land and can extend to land owned or used by others. This occurred in the context of managing groundwater and preventing acid mine drainage in the KOSH basin, where several mining companies were directed to share the costs of pumping and treating water at defunct mines to protect active operations.

The case Rex v Marshall & Another [1951] confirmed the convictions of the manager and resident engineer of Natal Cambrian Collieries Ltd for violating Regulation 7(2) of the Mines and Works Regulations, 1937. The court found that the mine had allowed water containing injurious matter to escape without treatment, contaminating a stream that affected lower-lying farms. The court rejected defense arguments that the regulation was void for vagueness, unreasonableness, or ultra vires, ruling that 'injurious' water is that which is unfit for human or animal consumption, dangerous to animal life, or unsuitable for irrigation.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the BTC Pipeline Project's legal framework undermines the rule of law and sovereign regulatory power in Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey. CIEL identifies significant deficiencies in the project's approach to climate change, public consultation, and compensation for affected populations, particularly in Turkey. The document further contends that the project fails to demonstrate a measurable contribution to poverty alleviation, potentially violating IFC mandates.

The brief asserts that customary international law requires states to exercise due diligence to prevent significant transboundary environmental harm, a principle rooted in the 'sic utere' doctrine and affirmed by the International Court of Justice and various international declarations. It argues that the 1988 U.N. Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances does not act as lex specialis to displace this obligation because the Convention focuses on cooperation against drug trafficking rather than state liability for environmental damage.

The document proposes using user fees to fund an international capacity-building fund for developing countries and a no-fault insurance fund for states injured by invasive alien species. It highlights the severe economic and biodiversity impacts of invasive species, citing costs such as US$373 million annually for rabbit control in Australia and US$3.1-5.0 billion in damages to US and European industrial plants from aquatic invasives between 1988 and 2000. The text urges the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development to move the international community from planning to implementation of the goals set by the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The document analyzes the legal mechanisms for accessing justice in environmental matters within the European Union, structured around the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention: access to environmental information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice for breaches of environmental law. It details the scope of review, standing requirements for individuals and NGOs, and the standards of judicial scrutiny required to ensure effective legal protection. The guide specifically highlights the disparities in implementation across Member States and the restrictive nature of judicial review for decisions made by EU institutions.

The document serves as a journalistic guide to the just energy transition in Colombia. It distinguishes between the country's clean electrical matrix and its fossil-fuel-dependent energy matrix, highlighting the potential for non-conventional renewable energy sources (FNCER) and the strategic importance of transition minerals like copper and lithium. It argues that a just transition must protect social and environmental rights and suggests that decarbonization offers greater employment opportunities than continuing with natural gas. The guide also addresses the environmental risks of mining and the specific case of Vaca Muerta in Argentina as a cautionary example of non-conventional hydrocarbon extraction.