The power to declare a prohibition or restriction on prospecting or mining to protect the environment: a critical assessment of section 49 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 and section 24(2A) of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 411-432
Author(s):  
Clive Vinti
Obiter ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clive Vinti

This note examines the interplay between the twin provisions of section 48 of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (57 of 2003) (NEMPA Act) and section 48 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (28 of 2002) (MPRDA), in respect of the concept of a “protected area”. In essence, section 48(1) of the NEMPA Act read with section 48(1) of the MPRDA, prohibit “prospecting” in “protected areas”. However, section 48(1)(b) of the NEMPA Act and section 48(2) of the MPRDA, permit “prospecting” in “protected environments” and in any land “reserved in terms of any other any law”, if written authorisation is acquired under specific strict conditions. “Prospecting” is defined as intentionally searching for any mineral through any method which disturbs the surface or subsurface of the earth, including any portion of the earth that is under the sea or under other water; or in or on any residue stockpile or residue deposit, in order to establish the existence of any mineral and to determine the extent and economic value thereof; or in the sea or other water on land (s 1 read with s 17 of the MPRDA). This issue of the relationship between section 48 of the NEMPA Act and section 48 of the MPRDA has yet to be appropriately adjudicated on by the courts and thus, this paper will assess the implications of their inevitable interaction and suggest an approach that the courts could take in the assessment of a prospecting licence granted in respect of a “protected area”.


Author(s):  
Francois Durand ◽  
Mariette Liefferink ◽  
Elize S Van Eeden

Mining and, especially, gold and uranium mining have played a major role in the economy, history, and demography of South Africa. The contribution of the mines to the economy of South Africa over the past century has been overvalued, while the social injustices and negative environmental impacts that accompanied mining have been underplayed or ignored by the mining houses and government. The environmental situation has worsened significantly over the past few years due to the abandonment and pending closure of most of these mines. A reluctance is perceived on the part of the mining companies, and even government, to take responsibility for the damage caused by pollution, ecological degradation, and impact on human health by mining. Instead, the current informal policy appears to take smaller companies to court on minor environmental injustices to, perhaps, impress the broader public, while one of the biggest environmental concerns is stylishly treated. The inability of government to address the damage by mines effectively is in conflict with the National Water Act, the National Environmental Management Act, the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Act, the National Nuclear Regulator Act, and the Constitution of South Africa. The authors propose a multidisciplinary approach to address water-related environmental injustices on the West Rand and Far West Rand. We also describe the application of the National Environmental Management Act of South Africa (Act No. 107 of 1998) in the Wonderfonteinspruit and Tweelopiespruit Catchments and the current water quality situation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (3) ◽  
pp. 599-616
Author(s):  
Pieter Badenhorst

This article examines the nature and features of ‘unused old order rights’ (‘UOORs’) under item 8 of Schedule II of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 in light of the recent decision by the Constitutional Court in Magnificent Mile Trading 30 (Pty) Ltd v Celliers 2020 (4) SA 375 (CC). At issue was: (a) whether an UOOR was transmissible to heirs upon the death of its holder; and (b) the applicability of the Oudekraal principle to the award of an unlawful prospecting right to an applicant, contrary to the rights enjoyed by the holder of an UOOR. The article analyses the constituent elements of an UOOR, rights ancillary to the UOOR’s and the nature and features of UOORs and ancillary rights. The article also considers the possible loss of an UOOR by application of the Oudekraal principle due to the unlawful grant of a prospecting right by the state, as custodian of mineral resources. The article illustrates that the CC ensured in Magnificent Mile that the Oudekraal principle does not undermine the security of tenure and statutory priority afforded to holders of UOORs by ultra vires grants of inconsistent rights to opportunistic applicants. Concern is also expressed about the poor administration of mineral resources by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy.


Author(s):  
Michael Kidd

Despite the broadening of locus standi in environmental cases by both Section 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, and Section 32 of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, two recent cases suggest that the pre-constitutional approach to locus standi still holds sway in our Courts.  Moreover, failure to recognise the environmental right in Section 24 of the Constitution may be an impediment to applicants' ability to bring an interdict application successfully.  Correct use of the relevant constitutional provisions ought to obviate such problems, but alternatives are suggested.  In the course of the article, it is suggested that the rule in Patz v Greene is no longer relevant and should be consigned to the history books.


2020 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Blackmore

ABSTRACT The Hibiscus Coast Municipality assumed it had the authority to issue or amend bylaws to formalise an existing nudist friendly beach within the Mpenjati Nature Reserve. Following a complaint, the Public Protector concluded the same when she investigated the legality of the Municipality's actions. Two immediate questions arise. The first, whether the Municipality and the Public Protector were correct in their view that the Municipality has the authority over the beach irrespective of the presence of a protected area, and the second, whether nudism is a legal activity therein. Both the Municipality and the Public Protector overlooked the relevance of the nudist friendly beach being located within a protected area and the power of the management authority to determine the nature of the tourism that takes place therein. Nudism within a protected area appears not to be in conflict with the Sexual Offences Act 23 of 1969 and hence may be a legitimate activity within such area. The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 and the Regulations thereunder appear not to contain provisions that prohibit nudism or other niche nature based tourism activities. Provided that the activity conforms to the purpose of the Act and proteced area management plan and zonation and does not pose a significant physical risk to the integrity of the protected area, the conservation agency may be hard-pressed to refuse a request for a niche nature based tourism activity, such as nudism, to be included in the zonation - should one be received.1 Key words: Municipality, National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, nature based tourism, nudist friendly beach, protected area, Public Protector, Sexual Offences Act, zonation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 79-121
Author(s):  
Denning Metuge

With a focus on Algoa Bay, this article considers the potential conflicts that may arise between South Africa’s marine spatial planning (MSP) legislation and the environmental authorisations, permits and licencing requirements provided under specific environmental management Acts (SEMAs). The legislation for MSP in South Africa is the Marine Spatial Planning Act, 2018 (MSPA). It provides that ‘[a]ny right, permit, permission, licence or any other authorisation issued in terms of any other law must be consistent with the approved marine area plans’. What is more, where there is a conflict between the MSPA and any other legislation ‘specifically relating to marine spatial planning’, the provisions of the MSPA prevail. Particular attention is given to the principle of sustainability that the MSPA incorporates into MSP and its impact on environmental authorisation, permit and licence requirements issued in terms of three SEMAs: the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (NEM:BA), the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (NEM:PAA) and the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 (NEM:AQA). The article concludes by summarising the potential impact the MSPA will have on the discussed SEMAs when it comes into operation and makes recommendations to prevent the occurrence of potential conflicts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document