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 Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted written comments on the Water Services Amendment Bill [B24 – 2025], welcoming the introduction of a licensing regime for Water Services Providers (WSPs) and personal liability for directors and municipal managers. However, the CER raised significant concerns regarding the concentration of authority in the Director General, the lack of mandatory environmental and public-health standards in the licensing process, and the absence of emergency enforcement mechanisms for acute pollution events. The CER argues that while the Bill improves governance, it fails to address systemic under-funding of infrastructure and climate-change resilience.

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.

This expert report, prepared by Sustainable Surface and Groundwater Solutions (SSGS) for the Centre for Environmental Rights, reviews the revised groundwater component of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for Tetra4 (Pty) Ltd's proposed Cluster 2 expansion of a natural gas field near Virginia, Free State Province. The review concludes that the assessment is fundamentally flawed in its methodology, data interpretation, and numerical modeling, rendering it an unreliable basis for decision-making.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing the Life After Coal/Impilo Ngaphandle Kwamalahle Campaign, submitted comments on South Africa's Draft Second Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). The submission argues that the draft's mitigation targets are inadequate and lack ambition, proposing instead more stringent emission limits aligned with the 1.5°C global warming target. The CER also criticizes the lack of transparency in the process, specifically the late release of the underlying technical report, and calls for stronger integration of climate justice, adaptation measures, and a clear commitment to phasing out fossil fuels.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted comments on the Draft Mineral Resources Development Bill, 2025, arguing that the Bill fails to adequately protect communities and the environment. The CER criticizes the 'One Environmental System' for creating a conflict of mandate within the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources, advocates for the adoption of 'free, prior and informed consent' for communities, and warns that shortened timelines for environmental authorizations and consultations risk reducing public participation to a 'tick-box exercise'.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, acting on behalf of FSEJN, has filed an appeal to the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment to set aside an Environmental Authorisation granted to Afro Energy (Pty) Ltd on 23 June 2025.

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 Centre for Environmental Rights, acting on behalf of MEJCON-SA and MACUA, has filed an appeal to the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and Environmental Affairs to set aside an Environmental Authorisation granted to Tetra4 (Pty) Ltd by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, representing MEJCON-SA and MACUA, has filed an appeal response report challenging the Environmental Authorisation (EA) granted to Tetra4 (Pty) Ltd for its Gas Gathering and Production Project in Virginia, Free State. The appellants argue that Tetra4 used a Basic Assessment Report (BAR) process to circumvent more rigorous Scoping and EIA requirements for the drilling of 18 additional wells, effectively 'project splitting' to avoid comprehensive environmental scrutiny. The report highlights critical failures in assessing climate change and geohydrology impacts, inadequate public participation—specifically the exclusion of farm workers and dwellers—and a lack of state capacity to monitor and enforce compliance in the oil and gas sector.

This briefing details a judgment by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) delivered on 11 April 2025, which affirmed that poor air quality in South Africa's Highveld Priority Area breaches constitutional rights. The court ruled 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) to implement and enforce the Highveld Priority Area Air Quality Management Plan, finding that the Minister had unreasonably delayed in doing so.

This document contains the heads of argument filed by Lephalale Coal Mine (Pty) Ltd (LCM) in the High Court of South Africa. LCM responds to a review application by Earthlife Africa seeking to set aside environmental authorisations for a proposed coal mine in Limpopo Province. LCM concedes that its original climate change impact assessment was insufficient and agrees that the related decision should be reviewed and set aside, but opposes all other grounds of review regarding air quality, health impacts, cumulative impacts, and public consultation.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted comments on January 13, 2025, regarding the Department of Water and Sanitation's (DWS) proposed regulations for water use in onshore hydrocarbon exploration and production, specifically hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and underground coal gasification (UCG). The CER argues that the regulations are insufficient to protect water resources, fail to adequately address climate change and methane leakage, and lack robust compliance monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. They specifically highlight the risks to the water-scarce Karoo region and call for more stringent buffer zones, longer-term monitoring of well integrity, and mandatory 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.

This briefing by the Centre for Environmental Rights evaluates Eskom's November 2024 request for Minimum Emission Standards (MES) exemptions for eight power stations. The authors argue that Eskom's cost-benefit analysis is fundamentally flawed, systematically underestimating the health benefits of compliance while prioritizing financial savings over public health and international air quality standards.