Search Climate Insights Directory

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted comments on the South African National Petroleum Company Bill, B2 - 2026, arguing that the draft legislation prioritizes petroleum expansion and commercialization over environmental governance, climate commitments, and constitutional rights. While acknowledging the potential for improved coordination by consolidating PetroSA, iGas, and the Strategic Fuel Fund, the CER recommends rejecting the Bill in its current form until significant amendments are made to align it with South Africa's climate obligations and environmental laws.

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 Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), on behalf of several partner organisations, submitted a formal comment to the South African Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) regarding the proposed "Flexible Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system." The CER argues that the shift from a rules-based system to one based on administrative discretion risks violating constitutional rights to a healthy environment and just administrative action, potentially weakening environmental protections and public participation.

The report examines the systemic failure of mine closure and rehabilitation in Mpumalanga, South Africa, highlighting a dangerous reliance on third-party financial guarantees over ring-fenced cash. It identifies a significant gap where older mining rights are exempt from stricter 2015 financial provisioning regulations and notes that large-scale mines rarely receive formal closure certificates. Through a PAIA information request, the report reveals that the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (DMPR) lacks a system to verify if provided funds are sufficient for actual rehabilitation costs. It concludes with recommendations for a regional closure framework, mandatory proactive disclosure of environmental data, and a shift toward rehabilitation trust funds to protect the public from inheriting environmental liabilities.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) welcomes the introduction of a licensing regime and personal liability for directors in the Water Services Amendment Bill [B24 – 2025] but warns that the Bill concentrates too much power in the Director General and lacks mandatory environmental and public health standards for licensing. The CER argues that the Bill fails to address systemic under-funding of infrastructure and climate-change resilience, and it calls for the inclusion of mandatory climate-adaptation plans and a national framework for wastewater reuse.

The Centre for Environmental Rights and Natural Justice, representing several community and environmental networks, submitted formal objections to the Scoping Report for the Motuoane Production Right application. The project proposes hydrocarbon exploration and extraction over approximately 14,400 hectares in the Free State Province, involving up to 43 production wells and associated infrastructure. The objectors argue that the Scoping Report is deficient in its assessments of air quality, climate change, hydrogeology, and social impacts, and that the public participation process was not meaningful.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and Natural Justice (NJ) argue that the proposed MIR for onshore exploration in South Africa lacks the specificity, enforceable standards, and climate integration necessary to protect environmental integrity and community interests. They recommend mandatory greenhouse gas accounting, a regional cumulative impact assessment, and a comprehensive public health baseline. Technical experts in the document highlight critical gaps in groundwater monitoring, the absence of a risk-based 'traffic light protocol' for induced seismicity, and the need for transparent chemical disclosure of fracturing fluids. The authors ultimately argue that hydraulic fracturing is incompatible with South Africa's climate commitments and water scarcity, suggesting it should be prohibited.

The review identifies fundamental flaws in the site characterization, aquifer testing, and numerical modeling of the Cluster 2 Virginia Gas Production Project, concluding that the assessment does not provide a reliable basis for decision-making.

The submission argues that South Africa's draft second NDC lacks sufficient ambition and fails to reflect the 'highest possible ambition' required by the Paris Agreement. It proposes more stringent emission targets—350 Mt CO2e for 2025-2030 and 248 Mt CO2e for 2031-2035—based on 'fair share' calculations and the best available science. The document highlights legal risks under the South African Constitution, the Climate Change Act, and NEMA, while criticizing the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) for a non-transparent process that delayed the release of the underlying technical report. It further calls for a stronger focus on phasing out fossil fuels, enhancing climate adaptation for vulnerable groups, and incorporating climate justice principles from the Presidential Climate Commission's recommendations.

The briefing evaluates the draft second NDC from the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) and the recommendations from the Presidential Climate Commission (PCC), arguing that the DFFE's targets lack sufficient ambition and scientific justification compared to the PCC's evidence-based approach.

The CER argues that the Draft Mineral Resources Development Bill 2025 fails to adequately protect mine-affected communities and the environment. Key concerns include the conflict of interest inherent in the 'One Environmental System' (OES), where the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources manages both mining promotion and environmental authorisations. The CER criticizes the Bill's narrowing of the definition of 'community' and 'interested and affected persons,' which it claims limits public participation. It further highlights gaps in mine closure and rehabilitation, particularly regarding abandoned mines, and calls for the legal incorporation of the Mining Charter to ensure binding transformation and gender parity targets. The CER proposes introducing the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and improving access to information through mandatory public disclosure of mining authorisations.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), on behalf of the Life After Coal Campaign, submitted comments on the Presidential Climate Commission's (PCC) draft recommendations for South Africa's 2030–2035 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) update. The submission emphasizes the need for high mitigation ambition to avoid fossil fuel lock-in, the integration of social justice, and the urgent implementation of adaptation measures in accordance with the Climate Change Act.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, on behalf of MACUA and MEJCON-SA and jointly with Natural Justice, submitted formal objections to the Motuoane Exploration Right 386 application. The submission argues that the project's scoping report is deficient in its assessment of climate change, air quality, and groundwater impacts, and that the public participation process was exclusionary and legally inadequate.

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled on 11 April 2025 that poor air quality in the Highveld Priority Area breaches constitutional rights and that the Minister of Environmental Affairs has a legal duty to prescribe regulations under section 20 of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 39 of 2004 (NEM:AQA). The court found that while the law uses the permissive word 'may', this constitutes a mandatory duty once the 'jurisdictional fact of necessity' is established. The SCA declared that the Minister unreasonably delayed these regulations and directed their prescription within 12 months. Notably, the court affirmed that environmental rights under section 24 of the Constitution are immediately realisable rather than subject to progressive realisation based on available resources.

The document argues that the proposed amendments to the EIA Regulations 2014 would lower the required level of environmental assessment for onshore exploration and seismic surveys, potentially ignoring significant climate and ecological risks. It specifically criticizes the shift of onshore exploration to Listing Notice 1, which only requires a Basic Assessment Report (BAR) rather than a full Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment (S&EIA). The authors also express concern over the Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Act (UPRDA) and the potential for 'petroleum rights' to create regulatory gaps. Additionally, the submission advocates for more stringent regulation of the reclamation of residue stockpiles and deposits, arguing they should be treated as distinct activities due to their toxic nature. The document further suggests that the appointment of Environmental Assessment Practitioners (EAPs) should be handled by the Minister or EAPASA to ensure independence from proponents.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) argues that the proposed 2024 regulations for unconventional hydrocarbon extraction in South Africa are insufficient to protect water resources and the climate. The CER highlights the extreme water intensity of fracking, the risk of groundwater contamination from toxic chemicals and radioactive materials, and the lack of state capacity for compliance monitoring. They specifically warn that fracking in the semi-arid Karoo region would violate constitutional rights to water and a healthy environment. The document calls for the adoption of the precautionary principle, the implementation of long-term monitoring (up to 300 years) for well integrity, and the requirement for meaningful public participation and community development provisions.

The Free State Environmental Justice Network (FSEJN) has filed an appeal to the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment to set aside an environmental authorisation (EA) granted on 23 June 2025 to Afro Energy (Pty) Ltd. The EA allows for the exploration of conventional natural gas across approximately 240,000 hectares in the Free State and Mpumalanga provinces. FSEJN argues that the decision by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) was unlawful, irrational, and failed to adequately assess climate, air quality, geohydrological, and socio-economic impacts, while also neglecting meaningful public participation.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), on behalf of groundWork and Earthlife Africa, submits a formal objection to Eskom's application for exemptions from Minimum Emission Standards (MES) for eight coal-fired power stations under section 59 of the Air Quality Act (AQA). The submission argues that these exemptions violate the constitutional right to a healthy environment, particularly for residents in Priority Areas, and that Eskom has failed to justify its 14-year delay in achieving compliance.

The High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria, ruled in the #CancelCoal case that the South African government's plan to add 1500 megawatts of new coal-fired electricity generation to the 2019 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) was unlawful and invalid. The court found that the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) failed to consider the environmental and health impacts of this additional capacity, particularly regarding the rights of children.

The statement highlights that persons with disabilities are disproportionately affected by climate change due to systemic discrimination and barriers to emergency services. It critiques South Africa's current climate frameworks for lacking specific details on accessible infrastructure and tailored adaptation measures, calling for the integration of disability-inclusive design and representation in decision-making processes.