Search Climate Insights Directory

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted objections to the Final Integrated Water Use Licence Application (IWULA) for KiPower's proposed 600 MW coal-fired power station in Delmas, Mpumalanga. The CER and expert reviewers argue the application is fatally flawed, citing incorrect legal classifications of water use, insufficient groundwater baseline data, failure to address public concerns, and a lack of adequate monitoring and mitigation strategies. They recommend the application be rejected.

The Centre for Environmental Rights wrote to the Department of Environmental Affairs on 7 March 2015, requesting copies of compliance roadmaps, decision letters, and the reasoning behind the granting of postponements for minimum air quality emission standards for affected facilities.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing various environmental NGOs and community groups, has requested the Department of Environmental Affairs to provide copies of decisions and written reasons regarding the postponement of compliance time-frames for minimum air quality emission standards for 35 facilities.

The report argues that the Mabola Protected Environment (MPE) was correctly proclaimed due to its high biodiversity and hydrological importance. It concludes that de-proclaiming the MPE to allow the Yzermyn coal mine would set a dangerous precedent, risk irreplaceable ecosystems, and contradict South Africa's climate change goals. While the mine's current underground plan has moderate short-term impacts, the report warns of long-term risks including acid mine decant and permanent loss of critical water-producing wetlands.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) sent an urgent letter to the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) on 23 February 2015, requesting confirmation and documentation regarding a mining right allegedly granted to Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (AAV) within the Mabola Protected Environment.

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 serves as a technical guide for navigating the transition between various iterations of South African environmental legislation, including the Environment Conservation Act (ECA) and the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA). It details how pending applications and unlawfully commenced activities (Section 24G) are treated when the listed activities they pertain to have changed, been repealed, or been re-worded in newer regulations such as GNR 982. The guide includes extensive cross-reference tables mapping old listed activities to their current equivalents in GNR 983, 984, and 985, while noting that some activities are now governed by the National Environmental Management: Waste Act (NEMWA).

The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014, establish the legal procedures and criteria for preparing, submitting, and deciding upon applications for environmental authorisations in South Africa. The regulations detail two primary assessment paths—Basic Assessment and Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR)—and mandate the appointment of independent environmental assessment practitioners (EAPs) to manage the process. They also set strict timeframes for government decisions, requirements for public participation, and protocols for the auditing and amendment of environmental management programmes (EMPr) and closure plans.

The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014, establish the legal procedures and criteria for preparing, submitting, and deciding upon applications for environmental authorisations in South Africa. The regulations detail two primary assessment paths—Basic Assessment and Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR)—and mandate the involvement of independent Environmental Assessment Practitioners (EAPs) and specialists to mitigate detrimental environmental impacts.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted written comments on December 1, 2014, regarding the Draft Regulations for financial provision for the rehabilitation, closure, and post-closure of mining operations in South Africa. While the CER views the draft as a "welcome improvement" over previous systems, it argues that the regulations are too narrow in scope, lack sufficient definitions for 'rehabilitation' and 'specialist', and contain loopholes regarding trust deeds and the duration of 'care and maintenance' periods.

The Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa ordered ArcelorMittal (AMSA) to disclose environmental records, including a 'Masterplan' on pollution levels at its Vanderbijlpark plant, to the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA). The court ruled that VEJA's request was valid under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) for the protection of environmental rights, emphasizing that corporate secrecy is unacceptable in matters of environmental protection and that public participation is essential for constitutional enforcement.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) reports that PAIA is poorly implemented in South Africa, with public bodies frequently refusing environmental information requests by citing the protection of third-party commercial interests. While some departments like the DEA show consistency, others like the DMR and various municipalities exhibit high refusal rates and poor response times. The report highlights a specific lack of transparency regarding oil refinery atmospheric emission licences and details litigation used to compel the disclosure of environmental records from corporate polluters.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) sent a letter to the chairperson of the Nkangala District Municipality (NDM) Implementation Task Team (ITT) on 29 October 2014. The letter outlines specific requests for the 13 November 2014 meeting and future ITT meetings to ensure the proper implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Highveld Priority Area (HPA).

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted a statement to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) opposing Eskom's applications to postpone compliance with Minimum Emission Standards (MES). The CER argues that Eskom failed to provide required health impact assessments and future compliance plans, while monitoring data indicates that Eskom's emissions cause frequent, year-round exceedances of air quality guidelines, contributing to significant regional health risks.

The letter argues that Sasol and Natref's court application to set aside air pollution regulations threatens public health and environmental rights, particularly in the Vaal Triangle and Highveld Priority Areas. The signatories contend that Sasol's high profitability makes its claims of prohibitive compliance costs immoral and that granting exemptions would set a dangerous precedent for other polluters, including Eskom.

The National Environmental Compliance & Enforcement Report 2013/14 details the activities of South Africa's Environmental Management Inspectorate (EMI). Key trends include a 12.26% increase in registered EMIs and a significant rise in reported environmental incidents. While industrial sectors like cement and refineries show improved performance due to proactive inspections, biodiversity crimes—particularly rhino poaching—remain a critical concern despite heavy court sentences. The report also highlights legislative updates, judicial precedents regarding the 'polluter pays' principle, and capacity-building initiatives for law enforcement and prosecutors.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations published in August 2014. The CER argues that the proposed timeframes for assessments and decision-making are insufficient and potentially unconstitutional, and that the regulations fail to adequately address climate change impacts, the inefficiencies of the basic assessment process, and the need for clear guidance on biodiversity offsets to ensure 'no net loss' to the environment.

This document consists of a formal submission by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and an accompanying independent peer review by Carin Bosman Sustainable Solutions (CBSS). It critiques the Integrated Water Use Licence Application (IWULA) Report prepared by Jones and Wagner for KiPower's proposed 600 MW coal-fired power station in Mpumalanga, South Africa. The CER and CBSS conclude that the IWULA is 'Inadequate' due to significant procedural and substantive failures, including the absence of a practical Integrated Water and Waste Management Plan (IWWMP) Action Plan and a failure to adequately assess impacts on groundwater and other water users.