Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that section 139 interventions in South African municipalities are largely ineffective, often initiated only after 'total collapse' rather than as a preventative measure. It highlights a systemic misapplication of the law, where discretionary section 139(1) interventions are used for financial crises that legally require mandatory section 139(5) recovery plans. The authors argue that the use of administrators to assume all executive functions is legally baseless and often worsens municipal health due to incompetence or corruption. The report recommends a standardized implementation framework with clear trigger thresholds and strengthened oversight from the NCOP and National Treasury's Municipal Financial Recovery Service.

The report outlines a methodology for creating biocultural community protocols—documents that record a community's customary laws, governance, and visions—to help them negotiate with extractive industries. It provides action research questions, guidance for facilitators, and tools for community mobilisation and external engagement, while highlighting the legal and structural challenges faced by communities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

The research examines the 'mixed reception' of Mozambican refugees in South Africa, arguing that despite ethnic solidarity and eventual legal amnesties, former refugees remained a marginalized underclass. It details how the apartheid government's refusal to grant refugee status ghettoized arrivals in homelands like Gazankulu, creating a vulnerable labour pool. The document highlights a three-tiered agricultural labour market in the lowveld where undocumented migrants were exploited as 'spare chaps' with minimal pay. It further critiques the UNHCR's flawed repatriation programme and suggests that a deep-seated xenophobic impulse in South African society continues to render permanent residents 'de facto undocumented' in practice.

The document examines two distinct waves of forced migration to South Africa: Mozambicans fleeing civil war in the 1980s and Congolese migrants arriving from the 1990s. It highlights a persistent gap between the legal rights granted to refugees and the social reality of their reception, characterized by economic marginalization and xenophobia. Mozambican refugees, primarily rural peasants, were often ghettoized in homelands like Gazankulu and exploited as low-wage agricultural labor. Congolese migrants, typically urban and middle-class, face significant social dislocation, with many highly educated professionals relegated to survivalist roles such as car guarding and street vending. In both cases, the author argues that state officials and local communities often ignore formal legal statuses, maintaining the migrants' de facto 'illegal' status to sustain cheap labor markets or satisfy xenophobic impulses.

GreenCape has issued a Request for Quotation (RFQ) for a full conference package to support a project for the German International Climate Initiative (JUST SA). The package includes venue hire, catering, accommodation, and a recreational activity for 30 delegates in the Kruger Lowveld region of Mpumalanga from 21 to 25 May 2024.

The report examines the reception of 250,000 to 350,000 Mozambican refugees in South Africa during the 1980s, highlighting a paradox where ethnic solidarity among Shangaan-speakers coexisted with severe economic exploitation. It details the creation of a 'third tier' of undocumented labour in the lowveld's commercial farming sector and critiques the UNHCR's flawed repatriation programme in the 1990s. Despite subsequent South African government amnesties granting permanent residence to 176,648 refugees by 2000, the author argues that many former refugees remained a 'de facto undocumented' underclass due to systemic xenophobia and structural economic dependence on cheap labour.