Search Climate Insights Directory

The document serves as a manual for experts and officials to implement Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in Estonia. It details the legal requirements based on EU directives and Estonian laws (KeHJS and PlanS), outlining the process from screening and scoping to the final report and follow-up. It emphasizes the importance of integrating environmental considerations early in the planning of sectoral development plans and spatial plans, the use of various quantitative and qualitative assessment methods, and the necessity of public and institutional participation to achieve sustainable development goals.

The document critiques the ESIA for the 250km Lamu-Garissa road, highlighting risks to the critically endangered Hirola antelope and the Tana River ecosystem. It argues that the preferred route (Alternative I-1) lacks species-specific wildlife crossing data and fails to allocate budget for wildlife protection in its management plan. Additionally, the authors identify failures in stormwater management planning, a lack of impact analysis for the extraction of approximately 1.375 million cubic meters of construction materials, and procedural violations of Kenyan law regarding public participation and gazette notices.

The document argues that poor environmental governance by the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) and the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) leads to systemic violations of environmental rights in South Africa's mining sector. It highlights severe impacts on water resources, including acid mine drainage and the depletion of aquifers, and notes the destruction of strategic water source areas (SWSAs). The CER identifies critical failures in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, citing insufficient timeframes for public participation and a lack of independence among practitioners. It recommends transferring environmental regulation of mines from the DMR to environmental authorities, implementing free prior and informed consent (FPIC) for communities, and establishing 'no-go' areas for mining in ecologically sensitive zones.

The document outlines the severe risks faced by environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs), particularly indigenous people and women in the Americas and Cambodia. It identifies the root causes of these threats as the prioritization of profit from resource extraction and large-scale development over community rights and environmental health. The authors argue that a legally binding regional agreement based on Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration is essential to guarantee access to information, public participation, and justice in Latin America and the Caribbean to protect EHRDs and hold both State and corporate actors accountable.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted recommendations to the Department of Environmental Affairs to amend the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA): National Appeal Regulations, 2014. The CER argues that the current regulations may violate the right to just administrative action under the Constitution and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (PAJA), specifically regarding restrictive timeframes and procedural fairness for interested and affected parties (I&APs).

The document consists of two appendices: a comprehensive household survey questionnaire and a matrix of potential citizen participation avenues. The survey collects detailed data on household characteristics, the use of various energy sources (including grid electricity, solar PV, kerosene, and biomass), and the impact of energy access on health and education. The participation framework identifies the roles of women's groups, youth groups, community leaders, and administration in mobilizing resources, advocating for services, and implementing energy projects in Migori County.

The handbook explains the legal framework of the EU Air Quality Directive, emphasizing the enforceability of 'limit values' for pollutants like NO2 and PM10. It details how citizens and NGOs can use the Aarhus Convention's pillars—access to information, public participation, and access to justice—to challenge inadequate air quality plans and government inaction in national courts. The document also outlines the European Commission's infringement procedures and the 'Fresh Approach' to tackling systemic breaches of air quality standards across Member States.

The document examines how La Mesa, a Salvadoran coalition, used amicus curiae submissions in the Pac Rim arbitration to bring community concerns regarding metals mining and sustainable development to an international tribunal. It highlights the importance of alliance building between local groups and international legal experts to navigate technical arbitration processes and argues that such interventions provide essential public interest context that disputing parties may omit.

The report examines how the Mesa Nacional Frente a la Minería Metálica de El Salvador (MNFM), supported by CIEL and FESPAD, used amicus curiae submissions in the Pac Rim investor-state arbitration to highlight environmental and human rights concerns. It details the legal requirements for such interventions, the strategic importance of technical legal expertise combined with community grounding, and the outcomes of the jurisdictional phase of the arbitration. The document concludes with lessons for other civil society organizations on navigating the technical nature of international investment law to protect public interest and democratic decision-making.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) provides detailed legal submissions on a draft Air Quality Management By-law, advocating for stronger public participation, mandatory rather than discretionary emission standards, and the removal of 'rectification' provisions for unlawful activities.

A coalition of civil society organisations condemns the South African Minister of Mineral Resources for prioritising corporate interests over the rights and health of mining-affected communities. The statement highlights widespread protests across multiple provinces due to pollution, socio-economic hardship, and the exclusion of communities from the legislative process regarding the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA). The coalition warns that rushing the Amendment Bill without genuine consultation will lead to further instability and constitutional challenges, while also noting the impact of illicit financial flows by multinational mining companies.

The Legal Resources Centre (LRC) and a coalition of civil society and community organisations are urging the South African National Assembly to reject the Mining and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill 15B of 2013. Following President Zuma's referral of the bill back to Parliament, the LRC argues that the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) and provincial legislatures failed to facilitate reasonable public participation, violating sections 72 and 118 of the Constitution. The LRC specifically highlights that the bill removes community participation in mining and eliminates requirements for addressing socio-economic needs. They contend that the bill was influenced by 'lobbying and influence peddling' from the mining industry and the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) outside of parliamentary processes. The LRC demands a fresh start to the legislative process to ensure meaningful consultation with affected mining communities, particularly regarding living customary law and the principle of community consent.

The document examines the legal basis for public participation in the imposition of administrative fines under section 24G of NEMA. It concludes that while such determinations likely do not constitute 'administrative action' affecting I&APs under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), the failure to allow I&APs to be heard may still be considered irrational and unlawful under the Constitution and the principle of legality.

The document criticizes the cosmetics industry's efforts to gain more direct influence in TTIP negotiations, warning that the agreement seeks the 'lowest common denominator' in safety standards rather than elevating protections. It highlights the disparity between EU and US chemical bans and argues that the secrecy of the negotiations excludes civil society while allowing industry to draft text that could undermine public health and environmental laws.

The document examines how transparency serves as a compliance mechanism in EU fisheries management. It analyzes the legal obligations of EU institutions and Member States under the Treaty on European Union, the Access to Information Regulation, and the Aarhus Convention, specifically as they apply to the CFP, EMFF, and CMO. The briefing identifies specific publicity and reporting requirements, such as the Union fishing fleet register and MSY progress reports, while recommending greater transparency regarding the names of natural persons receiving EMFF funding and mandatory production method labelling for aquaculture products.

The text advocates for a shift in ecologist political strategy toward 'social innovation' rather than just technological innovation, positioning civil society as the primary engine for social change. It suggests that green foundations should maintain a 'benevolent distance' from political parties—long enough to allow independent reflection and dialogue with citizens, but short enough to influence party roadmaps. Using the Etopia foundation in French-speaking Belgium as an example, the author highlights initiatives such as 'Sustainable Citizen Neighborhoods' in Brussels, the implementation of synthetic indicators to complement GDP in Wallonia, and the promotion of 'prosperity without growth' to challenge the traditional growth-centric political paradigm.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several environmental justice organisations, submitted comments on 21 February 2014 regarding the Draft National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory System (NAEIS) Reporting Regulations. The submission primarily argues that the draft regulations fail to ensure adequate public access to atmospheric emission data and provides recommendations to align the regulations with constitutional rights to information and a healthy environment.

The document evaluates the outcomes of COP19 through a human rights lens, noting progress in establishing the Warsaw Mechanism for loss and damage and rules for REDD+ safeguards, while criticizing the lack of accountability in the Green Climate Fund and the postponement of Clean Development Mechanism reforms.

The Centre for Environmental Rights argues that South Africa's proposed fracking regulations are flawed because they rely on industry standards rather than a comprehensive legal framework. The document recommends that fracking be regulated under a suite of environmental laws (NEMA, NWA, NEMWA, NEMAQA) rather than just the MPRDA, and suggests the creation of a specialised inter-departmental unit for monitoring and enforcement. Key requirements include mandatory baseline measurements for water and air quality, public disclosure of fracking fluid chemicals, a prohibition on using potable water, and significant financial guarantees for rehabilitation.

The report evaluates the 'Doha Gateway' decisions from a human rights perspective, noting that while human rights are not explicitly mentioned in the Doha outcomes, they are referenced via the Cancun Agreements. The analysis covers mitigation ambition, loss and damage mechanisms, REDD+ safeguards, the Clean Development Mechanism's lack of appeals processes, public participation under Article 6, and the adoption of 'gender balance' over 'gender equality'.