{"query_echo":{"q":"","filters":{"climate_tags":["precautionary principle"]},"warnings":[{"code":"facet_value_not_in_vocabulary","message":"Value 'precautionary principle' for facet 'climate_tags' is not in the controlled vocabulary."}]},"total":{"value":2,"relation":"eq"},"page":1,"page_size":20,"self":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/api/v1/search?climate_tags=precautionary+principle","stability":"beta","ai_marking":{"digital_source_type":{"uri":"http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/digitalsourcetype/trainedAlgorithmicMedia","name":"Created using Generative AI"},"notice":"Summary and key insights are generated using artificial intelligence."},"results":[{"id":"cer-000513","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/cer-000513","title":"APPELLANTS’ HEADS OF ARGUMENT IN THE APPEAL IN TERMS OF SECTION 149 OF THE NATIONAL WATER ACT NO. 36 OF 1998","publisher":{"name":"Centre for Environmental Rights","organization":"centre-for-environmental-rights"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":null,"source_url":"https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Appellants-heads-of-argument.pdf?x21779","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"This document contains the Appellants' Heads of Argument filed by the Centre for Environmental Rights on behalf of the Endangered Wildlife Trust and the Federation for a Sustainable Environment. The appeal, brought under section 149 of the National Water Act (NWA), challenges a Water Tribunal decision that dismissed an appeal against the granting of a water use licence (WUL) to Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd for the proposed Yzermyn Underground Coal Mine. The appellants argue that the Water Tribunal erred on several questions of law, including the failure to consider the strategic importance of the mine area, the absence of landowner consent, the misapplication of the precautionary principle, the lack of post-closure water treatment provisions, and the misapprehension of the burden of proof regarding socio-economic impacts.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000513#summary","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The proposed Yzermyn Underground Coal Mine is located in an area of high environmental sensitivity, identified as a Strategic Water Source Area (SWSA), part of a protected environment under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, and an endangered ecosystem under the Biodiversity Act.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000513#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The mine is expected to cause three primary water impacts: 'dewatering' of aquifers which affects springs and wetlands, the 'decant' of contaminated water (including acid mine drainage) post-closure, and the accumulation of toxic water in groundwater plumes before decant occurs.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000513#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The appellants argue the Water Tribunal erred by dismissing evidence of the mine area's strategic importance as irrelevant, claiming the Tribunal wrongly held that national-level studies (like SWSA reports) are not applicable to project-level decisions.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000513#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The appellants contend that the WUL was granted in violation of section 24 of the NWA because the owner of the farm Zoetfontein 94 HT did not consent to the use of underground water, and no 'good public reason' was provided to override this requirement.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000513#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The appellants claim the Water Tribunal failed to apply the precautionary principle from NEMA, which requires a risk-averse approach when scientific knowledge is limited. They cite 'low confidence' in the groundwater assessments and uncertainty regarding the adequacy of mitigation for acid mine drainage.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000513#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The WUL is criticized for failing to provide for the post-closure treatment of contaminated water, as it is only valid for the 15-year life of the mine and lacks financial security for long-term water treatment.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000513#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The appellants argue the Water Tribunal wrongly shifted the burden of proof regarding socio-economic impacts onto the appellants, whereas the statutory duty of justification lies with the licence applicant (Atha).","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000513#insight-7","date_modified":"2026-08-17"}],"climate_tags":["water security","acid mine drainage","groundwater contamination","biodiversity loss","sustainable development","precautionary principle"],"geography_discussed":["Mpumalanga","Assegaai River","Mabola Protected Environment"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["legal_argument","environmental_impact_review"]},{"id":"cer-001221","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/cer-001221","title":"notice-of-appeal-s149-nwa-_-served-and-filed-bdaaed071241cfdd.pdf","publisher":{"name":"Centre for Environmental Rights","organization":"centre-for-environmental-rights"},"document_type":"statement","language":"en","date_published":null,"source_url":"https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Notice-of-appeal-s149-NWA-_-served-and-filed.pdf?x21779","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"This document is a Notice of Appeal filed in the High Court of South Africa by the Endangered Wild Federation and the Federation for a Sustainable Environment. The appellants challenge a May 22, 2018, decision by the Water Tribunal regarding a water use licence granted to Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd. The appeal is based on eleven grounds, primarily arguing that the Water Tribunal ignored critical environmental data, failed to apply the precautionary principle, and overlooked jurisdictional requirements regarding landowner consent and financial security for post-closure water treatment.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001221#summary","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The appellants argue that the Water Tribunal erred by dismissing reports from the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) from 2013 and 2018 as irrelevant. These reports identified the mine area as falling within the Enkangala Drakensberg Strategic Water Source Area, which is critical for national water and economic security.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001221#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The appeal claims the Water Tribunal failed to give effect to the National Water Resource Strategy, 2013, by incorrectly treating it as a draft and ignoring its recognition of Strategic Water Source Areas as vital for water security.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001221#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The appellants contend that the Water Tribunal ignored the mine area's status as part of a River Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area, as published in August 2011 by the Departments of Water Affairs and Environmental Affairs.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001221#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The appeal asserts that the Water Tribunal failed to apply the precautionary principle under section 2(4)(a)(vii) of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), despite acknowledging a high risk of post-closure water contamination and irreversible environmental impacts.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001221#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The appellants argue that the water use licence is legally insufficient for post-closure water treatment because it is only valid for 15 years, and the National Water Act (NWA) does not allow the responsible authority to extend the licence period during a review.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001221#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The appeal challenges the granting of the licence on the basis that section 24 of the NWA requires landowner consent or 'good reason' to use underground water on land not owned by the applicant, which the appellants claim was not satisfied.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001221#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The appellants argue the Water Tribunal erred by placing the burden of proof for socio-economic impacts and scientific studies on the appellants rather than on the applicant, Atha-Africa Ventures.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001221#insight-7","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The appeal claims the Water Tribunal unlawfully abdicated its power by delegating the assessment of financial security for post-closure treatment to the First Respondent (Department of Water and Sanitation) rather than making the determination itself.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001221#insight-8","date_modified":"2026-08-17"}],"climate_tags":["water security","environmental regulation","mining impacts","biodiversity protection","precautionary principle"],"geography_discussed":["Mpumalanga"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["legal appeal","regulatory challenge"]}]}