Search Climate Insights Directory

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) warns that TTIP's push for regulatory cooperation on chemicals may weaken environmental and health protections by favoring the U.S. risk-based approach over the EU's hazard-based REACH regulation. CIEL highlights that REACH drives innovation toward safer alternatives and that the externalized costs of chemical pollution far outweigh the costs of regulation. The statement also cautions against strengthening trade secret protections and calls for greater transparency and public participation in the TTIP negotiation process.

The Jakarta Declaration, issued by representatives from several Asian nations, argues that access to environmental information is critical for public health and pollution control. It calls for the operationalization of Freedom of Information (FOI) laws, the adoption of proactive disclosure requirements for air and water quality, and the creation of mandatory pollutant release and transfer registers. The document emphasizes that environmental data, including emissions from private and state-owned corporations, should not be restricted by claims of commercial confidentiality when it relates to public health.

The submission emphasizes that climate change is a major human rights challenge and urges that the 2015 Agreement's Preamble and Shared Vision explicitly recognize the link between human rights and climate change. It calls for a rights-based approach to adaptation, the regulation of corporations to prevent rights abuses during mitigation, and the establishment of an international mechanism to provide compensation for loss and damage. Additionally, it advocates for strong safeguard policies and accountability mechanisms within climate finance, specifically mentioning the Green Climate Fund, and demands guaranteed access to information and justice for all affected communities.

The document argues that Joint Implementation (JI) requires significant reform to prevent the 'laundering' of surplus emission units and to ensure that credits represent real, additional greenhouse gas reductions. CAN-I recommends a single unified track with stringent oversight, the prohibition of using first commitment period (CP1) Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) to shadow credits during the transition to the second commitment period (CP2), and the implementation of mandatory independent audits for baselines and 'positive lists'. It further calls for a robust appeals process that allows NGOs to challenge project approvals and a mandatory 30-day public comment period for monitoring reports.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) calls for the publication of an expert task team report and the holding of public hearings before the Minister of Mineral Resources decides on shale gas fracking licences in the Karoo. The CER criticizes the current process for its secrecy, the refusal of access to information requests by the Department of Mineral Resources and the Department of Environmental Affairs, and the exclusion of vulnerable communities. The CER opposes any fracking technology that contaminates aquifers, introduces pollutants, increases carbon-intensive energy dependence, or hinders South Africa's carbon emissions targets. They demand a 90-day moratorium and public consultation period following the report's release, and insist that any future authorizations include stringent regulation under the National Environmental Management Act and the National Water Act.

The document is a statement from a coalition of NGOs expressing serious concerns over the 'trialogues' negotiations regarding the revision of Regulation 1049/2001. While welcoming the extension of rules to all EU bodies and proactive publication of legislative documents, the authors argue that the Council's proposal would severely limit the right of access in ways inconsistent with international standards. They specifically oppose the introduction of 'block exceptions', a restrictive definition of 'document', and new exceptions for staff selection and contract awards, which they claim increase the risk of corruption. The coalition calls for the European Parliament to maintain its first reading position to ensure transparency and accountability within EU institutions.

The report analyzes 32 judicial precedents and 16 'live' cases to assess the legal landscape of mining and environmental rights in South Africa. It highlights a significant increase in litigation since the 2004 Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA), noting that while courts have made progressive rulings on land-use planning and consultation, there are critical gaps in jurisprudence regarding the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and the National Water Act (NWA). The document identifies systemic failures in the Department of Mineral Resources' (DMR) administrative processes, including lengthy appeal delays and inadequate public notification, and provides strategic recommendations for civil society to use constitutional norms and specific precedents to hold mining companies and the state accountable.

The document argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has failed its dual goals of reducing emissions and promoting sustainable development. It highlights that 40-70% of projects are non-additional, meaning they would have occurred without CDM registration, and that many projects cause social and environmental harm. The signatories call for the exclusion of fossil fuel and large hydro projects, the implementation of 'do no harm' assessments, and the creation of meaningful public participation and grievance mechanisms.

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) submitted a report to the Petroleum Agency of South Africa (PASA) following a series of community workshops in the Karoo. The CER argues that public participation by Shell's consultants, Golder Associates, was insufficient, as only 14% of workshop attendees had participated in those meetings. The document details widespread community concerns regarding water contamination, food security, and health, while noting a regional divide where some Eastern Karoo residents welcome potential economic benefits. The CER recommends additional consultation and the creation of simplified information brochures to ensure disadvantaged communities can exercise their constitutional rights.

A coalition of 13 NGOs argues that the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) provides an inferior environmental regulatory regime compared to the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA). They call for the integration of mining under NEMA to ensure comprehensive environmental impact assessments, better public participation, and higher penalties for non-compliance. The submission also requests specific safeguards for environmentally sensitive areas and improved public access to mining application documents.

CDM Watch recommends several procedural improvements to the CDM Executive Board to enhance accessibility and communication for civil society, including better notification systems, language translation of project documents, and extended public commenting periods.

The document analyzes the 40-year history of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), identifying its strengths in promoting public engagement and its failures in baseline data quality and mitigation enforcement. It argues that Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) can avoid these pitfalls by adopting specific procedural improvements, such as earlier implementation, broader definitions of affected parties, and external monitoring of mitigation measures.

CDM Watch argues that despite mandates from decision 2/CMP.5 to improve transparency and stakeholder communication, existing Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) procedures create significant obstacles that prevent effective public participation in a manner consistent with international law and the Kyoto Protocol.

The report identifies significant distrust and dissatisfaction among stakeholders regarding Estonia's environmental impact assessment (EIA) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) processes. Key issues include the perceived lack of independence of experts hired by developers, the incompetence of decision-makers (local governments), and a general decline in the protection of public interests. The study suggests that the system requires refinement, particularly in integrating SEA with planning processes and increasing the leading role of decision-makers to ensure objectivity and the protection of non-market values.

The document summarizes the case of Joubert & Others v Maranda Mining Co (Pty) Ltd, where the court determined that a mining rights holder's right to access land 'solidifies' once all public participation and consultation provisions under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 have been met. In this specific instance, the court dismissed an appeal by the Sanwild Wildlife Trust, confirming that Maranda Mining Co had complied with the necessary consultation requirements to gain access to the land for gold mining operations.

The document serves as a toolkit for civil society to navigate the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol. It details the seven-step project cycle—from the creation of the Project Design Document (PDD) to the issuance of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs)—and highlights specific windows for public intervention, such as the 30-day public consultation period. The guide emphasizes the importance of 'additionality' and 'baselines' to prevent the issuance of false carbon credits and explains special project categories like small-scale activities, carbon sinks (afforestation/reforestation), and Programmes of Activities (PoA).

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Toolkit is a resource for civil society to navigate the complex process of carbon credit generation under the Kyoto Protocol. It details the seven-step project cycle—from the creation of the Project Design Document (PDD) to the issuance of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs)—and highlights critical technical requirements such as additionality and baseline estimation. The document emphasizes the role of Designated Operational Entities (DOEs) as validators and verifiers and outlines specific rules for small-scale, sinks, and Programme of Activities (PoA) projects. It specifically guides users on how to utilize the 30-day public comment period and other intervention points to challenge non-additional or socially harmful projects.

The document provides a comprehensive analysis of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), focusing on the experiences of pioneer countries. It details the official guidance documents, the five stages of the review process, and the critical roles of national institutions like the Focal Point and National Governing Council. A significant portion of the text is dedicated to '80 Lessons for Success,' offering strategic advice on planning, governance, media engagement, and the use of the Self-Assessment Questionnaire. It emphasizes the necessity of civil society leadership, transparency, and rigorous research to ensure the mechanism's credibility and effectiveness in fostering good governance across Africa.

The report analyzes the early experiences of countries implementing the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), highlighting critical gaps in national governance, technical research, and the formulation of actionable reform plans. It argues that while the self-assessment phase often generates sound analysis, the resulting Programmes of Action (POAs) are frequently superficial and lack the detail necessary for effective implementation and monitoring. The authors provide a set of best practices for research, public consultation, and the creation of more rigorous, costed, and prioritized POAs to ensure the mechanism leads to substantive governance improvements.