Search Climate Insights Directory

The Centre for Environmental Rights, acting for the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA), submitted formal objections to ArcelorMittal South Africa's (AMSA) application for an alternative SO2 emission limit at its Vanderbijlpark Works. The objections argue that granting a limit of 1,500 mg/Nm³—three times the legal standard of 500 mg/Nm³—would violate constitutional rights to a healthy environment, ignore the conversion of SO2 into dangerous particulate matter (PM), and prioritize corporate cost-savings over public health in a known pollution hotspot.

The report examines the gendered impacts of climate change and environmental degradation in South Africa, focusing on air pollution, water access, agroecology, and energy poverty. Through case studies, it highlights how women-led initiatives—such as legal challenges against air pollution in the Highveld, agroecology gardens in Burundi, solar energy projects in Johannesburg, and waste management in Durban—address systemic inequalities and build community resilience. It argues that a Just Transition must integrate an intersectional gender perspective to be effective.

The Life After Coal Campaign opposes Eskom's plan to install temporary bypass stacks at the Kusile power station, which would allow unabated SO2 emissions to restore generating capacity. The campaign argues that this proposal poses grave risks to human health, potentially causing up to 1,362 air pollution-related deaths and R25 billion in societal costs over 36 months at high utilization. They challenge the claim that the bypass will restore 2,160 MW, noting the plant's historical 33% capacity performance. Instead of the bypass, the campaign proposes investing the funds into solar PV and wind installations to accelerate the coal phase-out.

A letter from the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) to Tokiso Dispute Settlement (Pty) Ltd regarding the management of Multi-Stakeholder Reference Group (MSRG) and Implementation Task Team (ITT) meetings for air quality priority areas in South Africa.

The 2017 National Framework for Air Quality Management serves as the operational blueprint for the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (AQA) in South Africa. It defines the roles of national, provincial, and municipal governments in managing atmospheric emissions and outlines a governance cycle comprising information management, problem identification, strategy development, standard setting, and enforcement. Key tools introduced include the South African Air Quality Information System (SAAQIS) and the South African Atmospheric Emission Licence and Inventory Portal (SAAELIP). The framework also details the process for declaring priority areas, managing listed activities through Atmospheric Emission Licences (AELs), and fulfilling international obligations regarding greenhouse gases, ozone-depleting substances, and persistent organic pollutants.

The Life After Coal Campaign, comprising the Centre for Environmental Rights, groundWork, and Earthlife Africa, urged the South African National Department of Health to participate in the WHO's First Global Conference on Air Pollution and Health (30 October - 1 November 2018). The letter asserts that air quality in South Africa frequently exceeds ambient air quality standards (AAQS), particularly in the Highveld, Mpumalanga, and Waterberg-Bojanala priority areas, and that the Vaal Triangle Airshed and Highveld Priority Areas remain at dangerous exposure levels despite being declared priority areas over a decade ago. The campaign notes that South African AAQS are significantly weaker than the WHO's 2005 guidelines. Citing a 2016 report by Dr Mike Holland, the letter states that PM2.5 emissions from Eskom's coal-fired power stations alone cause 2,239 deaths per year, including 1,110 from ischaemic heart disease and 157 from lung cancer, with total associated economic costs exceeding USD2 billion annually. The document identifies Eskom and Sasol as the country's largest emitters of regulated criteria pollutants.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and a coalition of eight civil society organisations defend their legal opposition to a proposed coal mine by Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd. CER argues that the mine would threaten a Strategic Water Source Area and a protected environment, while asserting that coal mining in Mpumalanga has historically failed to alleviate poverty or provide sustainable local employment. The document clarifies that CER does not represent local farmers or WWF-SA and disputes claims that its actions are 'anti-development', citing the constitutional right to a healthy environment.

The Life After Coal Campaign (LAC) argues that new coal-fired power plants in South Africa are irrational, costly, and contrary to international climate obligations. The campaign highlights the severe water externalities of coal, the health risks associated with the proposed Khanyisa power station, and the financial risks of stranded assets as global investment shifts away from thermal coal. LAC advocates for a just transition that prioritizes renewable energy, protects workers' livelihoods, and ensures Eskom's active role in a sustainable energy system.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several environmental justice organisations, submitted provisional comments on June 29, 2018, regarding the Department of Environmental Affairs' (DEA) proposed amendments to the 2012 National Framework for Air Quality Management in South Africa. The CER argues that the public consultation process was inadequate and that the draft Framework fails to address systemic failures in air quality monitoring, enforcement, and the achievement of previous targets.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, representing the Life After Coal/Impilo Ngaphandle Kwamalahle Campaign, submitted representations on June 25, 2018, regarding proposed amendments to the List of Activities resulting in atmospheric emissions. While supporting the elimination of 'rolling postponements' for minimum emission standards (MES), the submission argues for stricter requirements for once-off suspensions, greater transparency in application documents, and a more robust public participation process.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, on behalf of the Life After Coal/Impilo Ngaphandle Kwamalahle Campaign, supports the elimination of 'rolling postponements' for emission standards but argues that the draft legislation lacks sufficient safeguards. The submission recommends that postponement applications be contingent on ambient air quality compliance, require full public disclosure of decommissioning schedules, and mandate stricter emission standards for facilities seeking once-off suspensions, particularly in air quality priority areas.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, on behalf of the Life After Coal/Impilo Ngaphandle Kwamalahle Campaign, urges the Portfolio Committee on Energy to compel the Department of Energy to release key technical data and conduct fair public consultations before finalising the IRP Update and IEP. The submission highlights the Department's failure to respond to PAIA requests for modelling assumptions and tariff implications. It further argues that the current planning ignores the health and water costs of coal, the emissions of nitrous oxide from CFB technology, and the financial viability of new coal and nuclear plants. Citing studies by Meridian Economics and the Frankfurt Institute, the document asserts that accelerating the decommissioning of older coal stations and prioritising wind and solar PV is the most cost-effective path for South Africa's energy future.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) presents findings from a Meridian Economics study arguing that Eskom can save up to R17 billion and improve public health without compromising energy security by decommissioning the Hendrina, Grootvlei, and Komati power stations and curtailing the completion of Kusile units 5 and 6. The letter highlights that new coal and nuclear plants are no longer cost-competitive compared to solar PV and wind, and notes that Eskom's failure to comply with minimum emission standards (MES) should necessitate decommissioning.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) criticises the draft 2017 National Framework for Air Quality Management for failing to review progress against previous targets and for inadequate public participation. The submissions highlight persistent non-compliance with national ambient air quality standards in priority areas, severe delays in the implementation of the South African Air Quality Information System (SAAQIS), and deficiencies in greenhouse gas reporting. CER demands more transparent, facility-level GHG reporting, stricter air quality standards aligned with WHO guidelines, and the urgent appointment of air quality officers and inspectors to ensure enforcement of the Air Quality Act.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) argues that South Africa's draft Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) and Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Update are inconsistent with the Constitution, the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), and the National Energy Act (NEA). The CER contends that the plans unjustifiably constrain renewable energy while promoting new coal-fired power stations, which they claim cause severe health impacts and contribute to climate change. They highlight that coal-fired power is no longer the least-cost option and risks creating stranded assets. The document recommends removing build limits on wind and solar, excluding new coal and nuclear power, and conducting a comprehensive assessment of external social and environmental costs.

This document is a formal appeal submitted by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) on behalf of groundWork, Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, and the Highveld Environmental Justice Network. The appeal challenges the variation of the Atmospheric Emission Licence (AEL) for Eskom's Hendrina Power Station, issued by the Nkangala District Municipality on 31 March 2015. The appellants argue that the AEL improperly incorporates postponements of Minimum Emission Standards (MES) granted by the National Air Quality Officer, thereby permitting pollution levels that exceed national standards in a declared priority area with already compromised air quality.

The statement criticizes the South African government for granting air quality standard postponements to Eskom, Sasol, and Engen on 24 February 2014. It asserts that these postponements effectively legalize toxic air, contradicting Section 24 of the constitution and a 1995 promise by President Mandela. The document highlights the severe health impacts of Eskom's pollution, estimating 20,000 premature deaths and an economic cost of R230 billion, while arguing that industries have had sufficient time since 2004 to implement pollution control technologies.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), acting for several environmental justice organisations, submitted comments on the Department of Environmental Affairs' (DEA) Draft Air Quality Offset Policy. The CER and its clients oppose the use of offsets in principle, arguing they serve as a "cheap option to avoid compliance" with emission standards and could undermine the constitutional right to a healthy environment. The submission highlights significant gaps in the draft policy, including a lack of clear criteria for determining offsets, poor institutional capacity for monitoring and enforcement, and failure to address equity and distributional effects.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several community and environmental groups, submitted comments on August 23, 2013, regarding uMoya-NILU Consulting's Plan of Study (PoS). The PoS was designed to support Eskom's applications for exemptions and postponements of Minimum Emission Standards (MES) for its power stations. The CER argues that the PoS is too narrow in scope, fails to include critical pollutants like PM2.5, uses inappropriate modelling software for near-field impacts, and lacks a mechanism to verify model outputs against real-world ambient measurements.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing groundWork, the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA), and the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA), submitted comments on August 22, 2012, regarding the review of the National Framework for Air Quality Management. The submission criticizes the lack of a systematic review of the 2007 Framework, the absence of a current State of the Air Report, and significant gaps in air quality monitoring and public access to information. The CER advocates for more stringent emission standards, mandatory reporting for data holders, and a more inclusive, transparent review process.