<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Who Gains from Saving Nature: new and updated cases</title>
  <link href="https://whogains.org/feed.xml" rel="self"/>
  <link href="https://whogains.org/"/>
  <id>https://whogains.org/</id>
  <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
  <author><name>Who Gains from Saving Nature</name></author>
  <entry>
    <title>Kyparissia Bay (Thines Kyparissias), Greece: construction, roads and beach use at a loggerhead nesting site, CJEU C-504/14 (2016)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/kyparissia-bay-loggerhead-nesting-greece/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/kyparissia-bay-loggerhead-nesting-greece/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>On 10 November 2016 the Court of Justice of the European Union found that Greece had breached Articles 6(2) and 12(1)(b) and (d) of the Habitats Directive at Kyparissia Bay, a Natura 2000 loggerhead nesting beach in Messinia. The Bern Convention file opened in 2010 remained open in October 2026.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Laganas Bay, Zakynthos, Greece: National Marine Park, Bern file 1986/8 and CJEU C-103/00 (2002)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/laganas-bay-zakynthos-marine-park-greece/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/laganas-bay-zakynthos-marine-park-greece/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>MEDASSET complained to the Bern Convention in 1986 about development at the loggerhead nesting beaches of Laganas Bay on Zakynthos. On 30 January 2002 the Court of Justice found that Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations to establish strict protection for Caretta caretta on the island; the Bern file was reopened in 2020 and remained open in October 2026.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Zakynthos landfill inside the National Marine Park, Greece: CJEU C-600/12 (2014) and penalty judgment C-368/24 (2025)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/zakynthos-landfill-marine-park-greece/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/zakynthos-landfill-marine-park-greece/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The Commission said a landfill inside the National Marine Park of Zakynthos had caused problems since 1999. The Court of Justice found Greece in breach on 17 July 2014 and, on 9 October 2025, ordered Greece to pay a lump sum of EUR 5,500,000 and a periodic penalty of EUR 12,500 per day until compliance.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Limni Bay / Polis-Gialia golf and villa resort, Cyprus: infringement procedure closed (2019), land sold (2025)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/limni-bay-polis-gialia-resort-cyprus/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/limni-bay-polis-gialia-resort-cyprus/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A golf, hotel and beachfront-property resort was planned at Limni Bay on the Akamas peninsula, in the Natura 2000 site Polis-Gialia, which has loggerhead nesting beaches. The European Commission closed its infringement procedure on 24 January 2019; the project was cancelled in 2021 and the land was split and sold in February 2025.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Fethiye and Patara nesting beaches, Türkiye: Bern Convention files and recommendations, 1996-2025</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/fethiye-patara-nesting-beaches-bern-convention-turkiye/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/fethiye-patara-nesting-beaches-bern-convention-turkiye/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The Bern Convention Standing Committee has dealt with the loggerhead nesting beaches of Patara and Fethiye since 1996 through case files and Recommendations No. 54 (1996), 66 (1998), 182 and 183 (2015). In 2025 the Patara file moved to stand-by and the Fethiye file stayed open.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Anamur (Karaagac) Beach, Mersin, Türkiye: Bern Convention file 2019/5 and Recommendation No. 226 (2024)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/anamur-karaagac-beach-bern-file-2019-5/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/anamur-karaagac-beach-bern-file-2019-5/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A 2019 complaint to the Bern Convention concerns construction of a public beach and picnic area at the Anamur (Karaagac) nesting beach in Mersin. The Standing Committee opened the case in 2022 and adopted Recommendation No. 226 in 2024; the file is open.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Dalyan / Iztuzu Beach, Türkiye: Kaunos Beach Hotel project stopped (1987)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/dalyan-iztuzu-kaunos-beach-hotel-1987/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/dalyan-iztuzu-kaunos-beach-hotel-1987/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Construction of an 1,800-bed hotel complex, the Kaunos Beach Hotel, began at Dalyan in April 1987 and drew protests from IUCN, Greenpeace, WWF and others. The project stopped in September 1987.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Belek, Antalya: 1998 Bern marina recommendation, 2014 hotel-road annulment and 2021 hatchling deaths</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/belek-antalya-nesting-beach-cases/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/belek-antalya-nesting-beach-cases/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Between 1998 and 2021 the Belek, Kadriye and Bogazkent coast in Antalya, Türkiye, appeared in a Bern Convention recommendation on a marina plan, an administrative court ruling that cancelled a hotel road permit, and fines on two hotels after hatchlings died under wooden walkways. EKAD said the 30 km beach had more than 3,000 nests in 2021.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Mediterranean fisheries bycatch of sea turtles: GFCM rules of 2011 and 2021 and a Tunisian fisher study</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/mediterranean-fisheries-loggerhead-bycatch/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/mediterranean-fisheries-loggerhead-bycatch/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A review cited in a 2019 paper gives more than 132,000 sea turtles caught per year in the Mediterranean, all species. The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean adopted a landing and release rule in 2011 and a mitigation recommendation in 2021, and a 2023 Tunisian study named ray nets, trawls and pelagic longlines as the main threats.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>EU LIFE funding for loggerhead conservation, 2002-2029</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/eu-life-loggerhead-conservation-funding/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/eu-life-loggerhead-conservation-funding/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Four EU LIFE projects between 2002 and 2029 funded loggerhead conservation in Greece, the eastern and northern Mediterranean and the western Mediterranean. The results listed are the projects' own reports; no independent evaluation was found.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>TUI Care Foundation sponsorship of ARCHELON in Crete and the &quot;Turtle-Friendly&quot; hotel certificate</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/tui-care-foundation-archelon-crete-turtle-friendly/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/tui-care-foundation-archelon-crete-turtle-friendly/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>From 1 June 2023 to 31 May 2026 the TUI Care Foundation funded ARCHELON's &quot;TUI Turtle Aid Greece&quot; project. Eight northern Crete hotels received a &quot;Turtle-Friendly&quot; certificate designed by the foundation; no independent audit of the certificate was found.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Israel tar spill, February 2021: unidentified tanker, IOPC Fund compensation and oiled turtles</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/israel-tar-spill-2021-iopc-compensation/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/israel-tar-spill-2021-iopc-compensation/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Tar washed up along Israel's Mediterranean coast in February 2021. The 1992 IOPC Fund treated it as a spill of unidentified origin and authorised payment of admissible claims; the Michmoret rescue centre received 10 injured sea turtles in two days.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Libya: Qubeiba Beach nesting site demolished for a power plant near Sirte; turtle programme interrupted</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/libya-qubeiba-beach-power-plant-turtle-programme/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/libya-qubeiba-beach-power-plant-turtle-programme/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>In 2009 construction of a power plant near Sirte demolished Qubeiba Beach, which The National described in 2023 as one of Libya's most active nesting sites. A UN-funded turtle programme was interrupted by conflict, and volunteers continue without funding.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>US import ban on shrimp harvested without turtle protection: WTO dispute DS58 (US – Shrimp)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/wto-us-shrimp-turtle-import-ban-ds58/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/wto-us-shrimp-turtle-import-ban-ds58/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Section 609 of US Public Law 101-162 bars imports of shrimp harvested with technology that may harm sea turtles unless the exporting nation is certified. India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand challenged the ban at the WTO; the Appellate Body found in 1998 that it failed the Article XX chapeau as applied, and in 2001 that the revised measure was justified.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Hawaii shallow-set longline swordfish fishery: loggerhead interaction limits, Ninth Circuit ruling and 2018 closure</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/hawaii-shallow-set-longline-loggerhead-limits-ninth-circuit/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/hawaii-shallow-set-longline-loggerhead-limits-ninth-circuit/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The Hawaii-based shallow-set longline fishery was reauthorised in 2004 with a limit of 17 loggerhead interactions a year. In 2017 the Ninth Circuit held NMFS's 2012 no-jeopardy finding for loggerheads arbitrary and capricious; a May 2018 settlement closed the fishery for the rest of that year, and a 2019 opinion and 2020 rule set new limits.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>California and Oregon drift gillnet fishery: Pacific Loggerhead Conservation Area and the SB 1017 buyout</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/california-oregon-drift-gillnet-pacific-loggerhead-conservation-area/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/california-oregon-drift-gillnet-pacific-loggerhead-conservation-area/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A 2000 biological opinion found the drift gillnet fishery likely to jeopardise loggerheads. NMFS closed an area to the fishery in June–August during El Niño conditions from 2004, and California's SB 1017 of 27 September 2018 phases out swordfish drift gillnets through a buyout.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>NOAA certifications of Mexico for loggerhead bycatch in the Gulf of Ulloa</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/noaa-mexico-loggerhead-bycatch-certifications-gulf-of-ulloa/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/noaa-mexico-loggerhead-bycatch-certifications-gulf-of-ulloa/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NOAA identified Mexico in 2013 for loggerhead bycatch, gave a negative certification in an addendum to its 2015 report, certified Mexico positively on 1 September 2016, and gave a negative certification again in its 2023 report. NOAA states that Mexican vessels in the Gulf of Ulloa gillnet fisheries are barred from US ports.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>CEC factual record on Mexico's enforcement for loggerheads in the Gulf of Ulloa (SEM-20-001, USMCA Chapter 24)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/cec-factual-record-gulf-of-ulloa-loggerhead-sem-20-001/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/cec-factual-record-gulf-of-ulloa-loggerhead-sem-20-001/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Cemda and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a submission on 17 December 2020. The CEC Council instructed a factual record on 3 April 2023 and the CEC published it on 22 April 2024, the first under USMCA Chapter 24.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>FPL St. Lucie nuclear plant cooling-water intake and sea turtles, Hutchinson Island, Florida</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/fpl-st-lucie-cooling-water-intake-turtles/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/fpl-st-lucie-cooling-water-intake-turtles/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The cooling-water intake canal of the Florida Power &amp; Light St. Lucie nuclear plant has drawn in sea turtles since 1976. In 2006 the plant exceeded its incidental take limit, and in 2016 NMFS issued a new biological opinion and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission amended the plant's environmental protection plans.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Beach nourishment and armoring on Florida's loggerhead nesting beaches</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/florida-beach-nourishment-armoring-loggerhead-nesting/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/florida-beach-nourishment-armoring-loggerhead-nesting/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A 2015 US Fish and Wildlife Service opinion on Army Corps of Engineers sand placement in Florida found no jeopardy for the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead population and stated that nesting success is about 10–34% lower on nourished beaches in the first year. A 2011 study found fewer nesting attempts on armored beaches.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Volusia County, Florida: beach driving and lighting, Endangered Species Act suit with sea turtles as named plaintiffs</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/volusia-county-beach-driving-lighting-esa-suit/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/volusia-county-beach-driving-lighting-esa-suit/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>On 8 June 1995 plaintiffs including loggerhead and green sea turtles sued Volusia County under the Endangered Species Act over beach driving and beachfront lighting. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded on 3 August 1998.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Petrobras sponsorship of Projeto TAMAR, Brazil, 1982–2021</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/petrobras-projeto-tamar-sponsorship-end/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/petrobras-projeto-tamar-sponsorship-end/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Petrobras sponsored the Fundação Pró-Tamar, which runs Brazil's sea turtle conservation project, from 1982 and announced the end of the partnership on 6 September 2021. Petrobras and the foundation give different accounts of who chose not to continue.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Boa Vista, Cabo Verde: hotel on a nesting beach and the rise in loggerhead nesting</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/boa-vista-cabo-verde-hotel-nesting-beach/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/boa-vista-cabo-verde-hotel-nesting-beach/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The RIU Touareg hotel opened on Lacacao beach, Boa Vista, in May 2011, after the Turtle Foundation began protecting the beach in 2009. A 2026 paper reports an 80-fold rise in nesting on three Boa Vista beaches from 1998 to 2024.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Masirah Island, Oman: loggerhead nesting decline and a tourism and commercial project</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/masirah-island-oman-nesting-decline-tourism-project/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/masirah-island-oman-nesting-decline-tourism-project/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Loggerhead track counts on a 9 km index section of Masirah Island fell 79% between 1985–1996 and 2008–2016, according to a 2020 study. On 12 October 2026 a foundation stone was laid for a RO5.775 million tourism and commercial project on the island.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Queensland, Australia: trawl turtle excluder devices and investment in the Mon Repos turtle centre</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/queensland-loggerhead-teds-mon-repos/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/queensland-loggerhead-teds-mon-repos/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Turtle excluder devices became mandatory in Queensland and northern trawl fisheries in 2000-2002, and the Queensland government reports more than $10 million invested in the Mon Repos turtle centre. Dr Col Limpus said in 2021 that preliminary data supported a continued decline in turtle nesting numbers.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>US Endangered Species Act listing of nine loggerhead population segments (2011) and marine critical habitat (2014)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/us-esa-loggerhead-listing-critical-habitat-2011-2014/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/us-esa-loggerhead-listing-critical-habitat-2011-2014/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A final rule of 22 September 2011 identified nine loggerhead distinct population segments, four threatened and five endangered. On 10 July 2014 the National Marine Fisheries Service designated 38 marine areas as critical habitat, with no exclusions.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>US Atlantic pelagic longline fishery: loggerhead take limits, Northeast Distant area reopened to circle hooks (2004) and Oceana v. Gutierrez (2007)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/us-atlantic-pelagic-longline-northeast-distant-2001-2007/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/us-atlantic-pelagic-longline-northeast-distant-2001-2007/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>NMFS learned in 2003 that its take statement for loggerheads may have been exceeded in 2002. A 6 July 2004 rule reopened the Northeast Distant area to vessels using circle hooks, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed for the government on 1 June 2007.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>US Southeast shrimp skimmer-trawl turtle excluder device rule (2019) and the Louisiana Shrimp Association litigation</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/us-southeast-skimmer-trawl-ted-rule-2019-2026/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/us-southeast-skimmer-trawl-ted-rule-2019-2026/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A final rule of 20 December 2019 requires turtle excluder devices on skimmer trawls of 40 ft and longer. The Louisiana Shrimp Association sued in January 2024; the district court dismissed on 27 June 2025 and the Fifth Circuit affirmed on 28 August 2026.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Xcacel-Xcacelito turtle sanctuary, Tulum, Mexico: Semarnat refuses permits for the La Calma hotel (2018)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/xcacel-xcacelito-la-calma-hotel-denied-2018/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/xcacel-xcacelito-la-calma-hotel-denied-2018/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>On 31 August 2018 Semarnat refused permits for La Calma, a 520-room hotel on 26 ha fronting Xcacel-Xcacelito bay. Semarnat said the project would place both land and marine ecosystems at risk.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Karachaganak oil arbitration and the sulphur-fine reports (Kazakhstan)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/karachaganak-sulphur-fine-and-consortium-arbitration/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/karachaganak-sulphur-fine-and-consortium-arbitration/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Kazakhstan started an arbitration with the Karachaganak consortium in spring 2023 over disputed cost deductions. In February 2026 an interim award in Kazakhstan's favour, estimated at US$2–4 billion, was reported. The roughly $5 billion sulphur fine reported in April 2026 is described in its sources as a Kashagan fine and is recorded under that case.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Kashagan sulphur environmental fine (Kazakhstan)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/kashagan-sulphur-environmental-fine/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/kashagan-sulphur-environmental-fine/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Kazakh authorities pursued an environmental fine of about $5 billion over sulphur at the Kashagan oil field. In April 2026 a report described the fine as upheld on appeal, setting back the oil majors in the consortium. In July 2026 the authorities froze the operator's assets over the fine; Kazakhstan's separate US$160 billion arbitration against the consortium includes claims for environmental damage.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Volgoneft 212/239 spill (Kerch Strait)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/volgoneft-212-239-spill/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/volgoneft-212-239-spill/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Two Volgoneft tankers were involved in an oil spill in the Kerch Strait on 15 December 2024. In August 2025 a Krasnodar court was reported to have awarded RUB 49.46bn against the owner of the Volgoneft 212.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Methane super-emitters in Turkmenistan's oil and gas fields</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/turkmenistan-methane-super-emitters/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/turkmenistan-methane-super-emitters/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Satellite studies between 2022 and 2026 recorded repeated large methane plumes over Turkmenistan's oil and gas fields. Turkmenistan joined the Global Methane Pledge in December 2023, and in August 2026 UNEP confirmed 8 stopped leaks.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Darvaza gas crater: orders to extinguish the fire, wells drilled, methane measured</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/darvaza-gas-crater/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/darvaza-gas-crater/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The Darvaza gas crater in Turkmenistan's Karakum desert has burned since late 1987 or early 1988, according to a satellite preprint. Turkmenistan's president ordered the fire extinguished in January 2022, Türkmengaz reported combustion falling after wells were drilled in 2024, and a preprint measured continuing methane release.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Altyn Asyr (Golden Age) Turkmen Lake: a drainage-water reservoir in the Karakum</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/altyn-asyr-turkmen-lake/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/altyn-asyr-turkmen-lake/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Turkmenistan built a system of collectors to channel saline drainage water into a reservoir in the Karashor depression in the Karakum desert. Reported costs range from USD 4 billion to USD 6.5 billion, and the government has not published a precise figure.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Garagum Canal and Amu Darya: conveyance losses, salinisation and the money around them</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/garagum-canal-amu-darya-water-losses/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/garagum-canal-amu-darya-water-losses/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The Garagum (Karakum) Canal takes 10–12 km³ a year from the Amu Darya, and FAO recorded conveyance losses of more than 30% of intake since 2000. FAO gave the direct economic loss from salinised land at USD 142 million for 2001; a South Korean builder signed a memorandum on modernising a 250 km section in September 2026.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Tengizchevroil sulphur storage claims and emission fines (Kazakhstan)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/tengizchevroil-sulphur-storage-claims-and-emission-fines/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/tengizchevroil-sulphur-storage-claims-and-emission-fines/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Kazakh authorities pursued Tengizchevroil over open-air sulphur storage at the Tengiz field in 2007–2009 and over air emissions above permitted limits between 2011 and 2026. A damage claim of KZT 74.4 billion in 2007 was cut to KZT 37 billion by a regional economic court; administrative fines of KZT 2.8 billion (2023), KZT 639.6 million (2025) and KZT 53.7 million (2026) followed.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Karaturun well blowout and methane release (Mangystau, 2023)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/karaturun-well-blowout-methane-2023/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/karaturun-well-blowout-methane-2023/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A gas-water blowout at well No. 303 at the Karaturun field on 9 June 2023 ignited and burned for about 200 days. A study (preprint) estimated 128 ± 36 kt of methane released; Buzachi Neft paid environmental fines and was ordered by an Almaty court to pay KZT 2.27 billion for the burned gas.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Kashagan gas flaring: KZT 134.2 billion damage order (2014) and KZT 3.6 billion award (2025)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/kashagan-flaring-damage-claim-2013-and-2024-award/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/kashagan-flaring-damage-claim-2013-and-2024-award/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>After pipeline leaks in September–October 2013, the Atyrau Department of Ecology ordered the Kashagan operator and Agip KCO to pay KZT 134.2 billion for gas flaring; three court levels upheld the order in 2014, and a confidential December 2014 agreement followed. A separate 2024 flaring claim was awarded in January 2025 and paid in July 2025.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Embamunaigas sour-gas flaring at the Prorva fields (Atyrau, 2014 and 2018)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/embamunaigas-prorva-sour-gas-flaring/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/embamunaigas-prorva-sour-gas-flaring/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The Atyrau environmental department ordered Embamunaigas and RD KMG to pay KZT 37.2 billion in 2014 for flaring sour associated gas at the Prorva fields; after appeals the order was reduced to KZT 1.9 billion. In 2018 a fine of KZT 8.9 billion was cut by a court to KZT 6.68 billion and collected.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Buzachi Operating: KZT 8.4 billion for gas losses and unauthorised flaring (Mangystau, 2025)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/buzachi-operating-gas-losses-and-flaring-2025/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/buzachi-operating-gas-losses-and-flaring-2025/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Courts ordered Buzachi Operating Ltd, the operator of the North Buzachi field, to pay KZT 8.4 billion to the state for six years of oil and gas losses and flaring of raw gas without permission; the sum was paid in full in March 2025. In May 2026 the company was fined KZT 474 million for exceeding the hazardous-waste accumulation limit by 513.2 tonnes during drilling.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Mangistaumunaigas fines for wastewater injection, drilling waste and furnace emissions (Mangystau, 2024)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/mangistaumunaigas-wastewater-injection-fine-2024/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/mangistaumunaigas-wastewater-injection-fine-2024/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>On 4 December 2024 the Karakiya District Court fined the KazMunayGas–CNPC joint venture Mangistaumunaigas KZT 31 billion after prosecutors said it had discharged wastewater into subsoil layers and accumulated drilling waste without established limits; a further KZT 1.2 billion fine for furnace emissions followed on 11 December. The company said it would challenge both.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Ozenmunaigas environmental claims of KZT 59.3, 212.6 and 327.9 billion annulled by courts (2013–2014)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/ozenmunaigas-environmental-claims-annulled-2013-2014/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/ozenmunaigas-environmental-claims-annulled-2013-2014/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The Mangystau ecology department brought successive claims and a fine against Ozenmunaigas, the Uzen field operator and a KMG EP subsidiary, over disposal of oil-contaminated soil. A KZT 59.3 billion claim was successfully appealed in 2013, a KZT 212.6 billion fine was dismissed in February–March 2014, and on 19 March 2014 a court declared the inspection act and the KZT 327.9 billion claim illegal.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Semipalatinsk test site: state compensation to residents under Kazakhstan’s 1992 law</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/semipalatinsk-test-site-compensation-law/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/semipalatinsk-test-site-compensation-law/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A 1992 Kazakh law sets one-time payments, wage and pension supplements and extra leave for people who lived in zones affected by fallout from Soviet nuclear tests. The payments come from Kazakhstan’s own budgets; the Ministry of Labour reported KZT 16.4bn paid to more than 1.1 million people in 1996–2020.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Semipalatinsk test site: measured contamination, land reallocation and the Nuclear Safety Zone</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/semipalatinsk-contamination-land-and-nuclear-safety-zone/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/semipalatinsk-contamination-land-and-nuclear-safety-zone/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Surveys of the former Soviet test site found 429 km² of the 1,200 km² observed at Degelen and Aktan-Berli radioactively contaminated. Since 2013 Kazakhstan has moved former test-site land back into use and, from 2023, has been setting up a Nuclear Safety Zone funded by KZT 3.596bn through 2027.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Degelen Mountain plutonium security operation (United States–Kazakhstan–Russia)</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/degelen-mountain-plutonium-security-operation/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/degelen-mountain-plutonium-security-operation/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A US-managed, three-country operation secured plutonium left in test tunnels and boreholes at the Degelen massif of the former Semipalatinsk Test Site. The White House put the estimated cost at $150 million over eight years; a Belfer Center report describes a 17-year, $150 million operation.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Proton-M crash at Baikonur, 2 July 2013: Kazakhstan’s KZT 13.69bn damage claim against Russia</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/proton-m-crash-2013-kazakhstan-claim/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/proton-m-crash-2013-kazakhstan-claim/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A Proton-M rocket crashed seconds after launch from Baikonur on 2 July 2013 and spilled roughly 600 tons of heptyl, amyl and kerosene. Kazakhstan claimed 13,690,747,305 tenge from Roscosmos; in February 2016 a Kazakh vice-minister said the talks had ended without any sum being determined.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Baikonur launch accidents 1999–2007: Kazakh claims and the compensation agreed</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/baikonur-launch-accidents-1999-2007-compensation/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/baikonur-launch-accidents-1999-2007-compensation/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Russian launch accidents on Kazakh territory in 1999, 2006 and 2007 ended in settlements far below Kazakhstan’s first figures: $60.7 million demanded and $2.5 million agreed for the 2007 Proton-M crash, and $340 million first estimated against $1.1 million for the 2006 Dnepr crash.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Baikonur lease, rocket-stage drop zones and fuel monitoring; Proton phase-out and Baiterek</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/baikonur-drop-zones-fuel-monitoring-and-lease/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/baikonur-drop-zones-fuel-monitoring-and-lease/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Russia leases Baikonur for $115 million a year, extended to 2050 at the same rent, and its launches drop spent stages on Kazakh land. Kazakhstan’s 2018–2019 national report recorded petroleum by-products in drop-zone soils and stated that a lack of funding in 2019 prevented an environmental impact study of areas affected by fallen stages and debris.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Sary-Shagan test range lease to Russia: rent, a 1992–1996 compensation clause and an ecological commission</title>
    <link href="https://whogains.org/case/sary-shagan-test-range-lease/"/>
    <id>https://whogains.org/case/sary-shagan-test-range-lease/</id>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Russia leases the Sary-Shagan military test range in Kazakhstan under 1995 and 1996 treaties. Annual rent has been $16.276 million since 1 January 2016; the 1996 treaty fixes compensation of $99.85 million for 1992–1996 property losses and expenses and provides for a joint commission on the range’s ecological consequences, to be remedied at the lessee’s expense.</summary>
  </entry>
</feed>
