20170921111638401-7b2f1113e0d7a09c.pdf

This document is a legal affidavit filed by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) challenging decisions made by the South African Ministers of Environment and Mineral Resources to permit coal mining by Atha in the Mpumalanga Protected Environment (MPE). The CER argues that these decisions were procedurally unfair, based on outdated environmental reports, and ignored critical statutory duties regarding local community interests, international environmental obligations, and the precautionary principle.

• The Ministers' decisions under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (NEMPAA) were procedurally unfair because they failed to conduct a separate public participation process, violating section 33(1) of the Constitution and sections 3 and 4 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).
• The decisions were based on a version of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) dated January 2014, which had been rejected by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) on 16 May 2014 for containing insufficient information on biodiversity, water impacts, and mine stability.
• The Environment Minister failed to comply with section 48(4) of NEMPAA, which requires the consideration of local community interests, including impacts on water access, subsistence agriculture, and the costs versus benefits of the mine.
• The proposed mine's economic benefit to the local community is described as minimal, with a total anticipated investment of R6.06 million over five years, representing only 0.06% of the total anticipated revenue of R12.35 billion per year over ten years.
• The coal resource targeted by the mine is considered marginal, representing only 0.86% of South Africa's total coal reserves and 0.43% of Mpumalanga’s reserves, and is categorized as "low grade bituminous coal".
• The Ministers ignored the precautionary and vulnerable ecosystems principles of NEMA, specifically regarding the high risk of Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) and the potential for permanent damage to pristine wetlands.
• The decisions failed to account for South Africa's international environmental responsibilities, including the Ramsar Convention on wetlands, the Migratory Species Convention, the Biological Diversity Convention, and the Paris Agreement on climate change.
• Atha's financial provision for rehabilitation is deemed hopelessly insufficient at R5,758,000.00 because it excludes the costs of long-term water treatment for AMD, which is likely to be the largest expense.
• The Ministers took the NEMPAA decisions before the approval of the management plan for the MPE, which is a requirement for determining whether mining is a permitted activity in a specific zone.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). 20170921111638401-7b2f1113e0d7a09c.pdf. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/20170921111638401.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. 20170921111638401-7b2f1113e0d7a09c.pdf. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/20170921111638401.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=20170921111638401-7b2f1113e0d7a09c.pdf |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/20170921111638401.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsnd201709211116384017b2f1113e0d7a09cpdf, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{20170921111638401-7b2f1113e0d7a09c.pdf}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/20170921111638401.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }