Search Climate Insights Directory

The document is a formal request by 87 public interest groups asking the U.S. EPA to provide in-person public hearings and extend the public comment period to 120 days for two proposed rules: the 'Part A' rule on Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) closure deadlines and the revision of Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) for steam electric power plants. The groups argue that the current 60-day window is insufficient due to holiday schedules and the complexity of the rules. They further contend that the EPA's proposed call-in sessions are an inadequate substitute for in-person hearings, which allow affected communities to present visual evidence and direct testimony regarding the toxic impact of coal ash on groundwater and surface waters.

Natural Justice submits a memorandum on the Public Participation Bill, 2019, arguing that the Bill's current framework is too narrow. The organization proposes amendments to guarantee that information provided to the public is not only timely but also "accurate, complete, relevant", and accessible. Key recommendations include the explicit inclusion of "minorities and marginalised groups" to comply with Article 56 of the Constitution of Kenya, the establishment of mandatory reasonable timelines for public involvement and decision communication, and the requirement that civic education must precede public participation to empower citizens.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, acting on behalf of groundWork and Earthlife Africa NPC, submitted a formal request to the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) on 5 November 2019 for written reasons regarding the approval of the updated Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for Electricity published on 18 October 2019.

The briefing note examines the ongoing negotiations regarding Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, highlighting the risk that poorly designed carbon market and non-market mechanisms could lead to human rights violations. It advocates for the inclusion of rights-based safeguards, meaningful stakeholder consultation (including free, prior, and informed consent for indigenous peoples), and independent grievance redress processes to avoid repeating failures seen in the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism.

The document advocates for enhancing public participation in climate policies by leveraging international legal instruments like the Aarhus Convention and the Escazú Agreement. It identifies specific entry points at COP-25—including Article 6 market mechanisms, the Lima Work Programme on Gender, and the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform—where procedural rights and safeguards for environmental defenders should be strengthened. It further suggests using the transparency framework's interactive dialogues to review how public participation improves national climate ambition.

ClientEarth identifies systemic failures in the implementation of the IED's 'Aarhus rights' across the EU. It argues that the IED's wording is too narrow to comply with the Aarhus Convention, particularly regarding public participation during permit updates. National implementation is further hindered by limited online information, high litigation costs in the UK, and a tendency for judges in Bulgaria and the UK to defer to regulators due to the technical complexity of the IED. Case studies from Bulgaria, Spain, and the UK illustrate these deficits, including the withholding of baseline reports in Spain and the lack of electronic access to permit applications in Bulgaria.

The paper argues that government-led adaptation is insufficient and that individuals and households must be actively involved to reduce climate risks. It identifies six categories of adaptive behavior—information seeking, preparative measures, protective measures, evacuation/migration, insurance, and political action—and analyzes the psychological drivers of these actions. Key motivators include risk perception, negative emotions, self-efficacy, outcome efficacy, social norms, and perceived responsibility. The authors conclude that while communication campaigns are common, they are often ineffective if they only provide information; instead, they should target psychological antecedents. Furthermore, the paper advocates for genuine public participation in decision-making to empower citizens and improve policy effectiveness, while noting that individual action must be supported by systemic, large-scale governmental infrastructure.

The document outlines the legal mechanisms available to the public and environmental NGOs in Estonia to challenge environmental decisions, access information, and participate in decision-making. It details the 'three pillars' of the Aarhus Convention—access to information, public participation, and access to justice—and explains how these are implemented through EU directives and Estonian laws. The guide describes specific court procedures in Estonia, the role of the European Court of Justice, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, and the European Court of Human Rights, while highlighting challenges such as court costs and the strict 'personal interest' requirements for standing.

The International Coalition for Sustainable Aviation (ICSA) calls on Aarhus Convention Parties to address a lack of transparency in ICAO's work on CORSIA. The letter recommends that member countries push for open observer status, public meetings, public access to committee documents and Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), and the inclusion of public input in decision-making processes.

The document analyzes the implementation of the Aarhus Convention in Austria, detailing the legal paths for accessing environmental information, public participation in decision-making, and the right to challenge environmental violations. It highlights significant deficits in the Austrian system, particularly regarding the third pillar of the Aarhus Convention (access to justice for general environmental violations), and examines the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) in shaping these rights.

The National Environment Tribunal (NET) in Kenya cancelled the license for a 1050MW coal power plant in Lamu County due to inadequate public participation and the omission of a climate change assessment in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

A coalition of 77 public interest groups is urging the EPA to extend the public comment period for the Phase 2 Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) proposal to 120 days and to hold a public hearing in Guayama, Puerto Rico. The groups argue that the complexity of the rules and the severe local impacts of coal ash waste piles and fill projects in Puerto Rico necessitate greater public accessibility and time for expert review. They highlight that 91 percent of coal plants reporting groundwater data under the 2015 CCR Rule have contaminated groundwater exceeding federal health standards.

The document serves as a guide for citizens, NGOs, and legal professionals to navigate the complex system of environmental litigation in Germany. It details the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention—access to information, public participation, and access to justice—and explains how these are implemented through EU directives and German national law. The toolkit outlines specific procedures for challenging government inaction or illegal acts, the standing of recognized environmental associations, and the roles of international bodies like the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC), and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

The document outlines the legal frameworks and specific entry points within the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement processes where public participation and access to information can be strengthened. It highlights the Aarhus Convention and Escazú Agreement as regional models for environmental democracy and warns that the lack of procedural rights in the Clean Development Mechanism led to harmful projects. The briefing recommends that the new Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM) under Article 6.4 include robust stakeholder consultation and an independent grievance redress mechanism. It further suggests that the review of the Doha Work Programme and the updating of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by 2020 be used to enhance the participation of local communities, indigenous peoples, and women.

The document outlines the legal requirements for public participation in the development of national long-term strategies (LTS) for greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2050. It asserts that the EU Governance Regulation (GR) is insufficiently clear and may not fully comply with the Aarhus Convention, which mandates early public involvement when all options are open. ClientEarth provides a consolidated procedure for compliant participation, including open access to all interested parties, active dissemination of relevant documents, and specific timeframes for consultation. The briefing notes that previous strategies submitted under the Paris Agreement are insufficient to meet current GR requirements and urges that public participation for the 2020 deadline should have commenced by September 2019.

The document outlines the legal pathways for citizens and NGOs in Spain to access justice regarding environmental information, public participation, and the enforcement of environmental laws. It details the application of the Aarhus Convention and EU Directives within the Spanish legal system, highlighting the role of the 'acción popular' for non-profit organizations. A significant portion of the text focuses on the right to free legal aid (AJG) for environmental NGOs, noting a recent Spanish Supreme Court ruling that removes the requirement to prove financial insufficiency. It also describes international recourse options via the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

The document argues that existing human rights obligations under legally binding treaties must inform climate action to protect those most affected and ensure non-discrimination and public participation. It highlights the role of UN human rights treaty bodies (HRTBs) in elaborating these obligations and reviews their 2018 guidance on emissions reduction, adaptation, procedural rights, and international cooperation, including specific contributions from CEDAW, CESCR, and the CRC.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, representing several environmental groups, is demanding the withdrawal of an amendment to the List of Activities that weakened sulphur dioxide minimum emission standards for existing plants. The groups argue the amendment was made without following legally-prescribed public participation procedures and threaten High Court litigation if the provision is not withdrawn by 12 March 2019.

The report examines the increasing engagement of UN human rights treaty bodies (HRTBs) with climate change, specifically analyzing their 2018 Concluding Observations (COBs), general comments, and thematic initiatives. It highlights a shift toward addressing a broader diversity of countries, including developed nations, and identifies a continuing emphasis on adaptation and procedural rights over mitigation. The document provides detailed syntheses of recommendations from the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), emphasizing the disproportionate impacts of climate change on women, children, and persons with disabilities.

The document argues that public participation is essential for achieving sustainable development goals, as it provides local knowledge and increases the legitimacy of decisions. It distinguishes between 'invited spaces' (formal state-led processes) and 'created spaces' (citizen-led mobilization), noting that these often interact to influence policy. However, the authors warn that without intentional design to address social injustice, participation can reinforce existing inequalities and be hindered by technocratic exclusion.