Search Climate Insights Directory

This expert panel report, compiled by Emross Consulting Pty. Ltd. for the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA), evaluates the legality and environmental implications of mining within protected environments in Mpumalanga Province, focusing specifically on the proposed Yzermyn coal mine in the Mabola Protected Environment (MPE). The report concludes that the MPE's proclamation was well-founded due to its high biodiversity and hydrological value, and recommends against allowing mining in the area.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) sent an urgent letter to the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) on 23 February 2015, requesting confirmation and documentation regarding a mining right allegedly granted to Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (AAV) within the Mabola Protected Environment.

This report provides the motivation for declaring the Mabola Protected Environment in southern Mpumalanga, South Africa, under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act. The proposed area consists of 22 properties totaling 8,772 hectares, identified for their high biodiversity value, including endangered ecosystems and critical water catchments. The document outlines the ecological significance of the site, the legal framework for its declaration, and the results of consultations with landowners and local government.

This document consists of a series of legal statements, permissions, and correspondence regarding the Yzermyn underground coal mine project in Mpumalanga, South Africa. It includes a formal permission from the Ministers of Environmental Affairs and Mineral Resources for Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd to mine within the Mabola Protected Environment, a land use approval from the Dr Pixley ka Isaka Seme Local Municipality, and a detailed statement of grounds for appeal filed by a coalition of environmental organisations. The appeal argues that the project is 'fatally flawed' due to its potential for irreversible damage to critical biodiversity, wetlands, and water resources, and claims that the socio-economic benefits to local communities were overestimated.

The document contains a strategic plan for expanding protected areas in Mpumalanga province from 2009 to 2028, alongside legal correspondence and objections regarding a proposed coal mine by Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd on Portion 1 of the farm Yzermyn 96 HT. The strategy prioritizes the Grassland Biome for conservation, while the legal disputes center on the environmental risks to the Mabola Protected Environment and the alleged failure of the mining application to follow the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA).

The document consists of a series of legal and administrative records regarding a land-use change application for Portion 1 of the farm Yzermyn 96 HT in Mpumalanga, South Africa. The application, submitted by Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd, sought to rezone the land from agricultural to 'special' use to allow for mining and related activities. The process involved multiple objections from environmental organizations and landowners, a dismissal by a local planning tribunal based on a lack of locus standi, a subsequent appeal, and a final approval by the Gert Sibande District Municipal Planning Tribunal on 29 April 2019.

This document is a responding statement submitted by Atha Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd. (AAV) to the Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs. It responds to an appeal filed by eight environmental and social organizations against the granting of an Environmental Authorization for the proposed Yzermyn Underground Coal Mine (YUCM) in the Magisterial District of Wakkerstroom, Mpumalanga Province.

The Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA) submitted a formal objection to the proposed Yzermyn underground coal mine project by Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd, arguing that the project is illegal and environmentally devastating due to its location within protected biodiversity areas.

This answering statement, submitted by the Centre for Environmental Rights on behalf of several appellants, challenges an environmental authorisation granted to Atha Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd for the proposed Yzermyn coal mine. The appellants argue that the project has significant implications for international environmental commitments, suffers from material gaps in specialist information—particularly regarding acid mine drainage and subsidence—and was determined by an incorrect competent authority.

This document is a decision by the MEC for Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs of Mpumalanga Province to dismiss an appeal brought by the Centre for Environmental Rights. The appeal challenged the environmental authorisation granted to Atha-Africa Ventured for the proposed Yzermyn underground coal mine, located on Portion 1 of the farm Yzermyn 96 HT within the Pixley Ka Seme Local Municipality.

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.

This responding statement, submitted by the Centre for Environmental Rights on behalf of eight appellants, challenges the Department of Mineral Resources' (DMR) approval of the Environmental Management Programme (EMPR) for Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd's proposed Yzermyn mine. The appellants argue that the approved EMPR authorizes an environmentally destructive discard dump, ignores extensive government conservation policies for the area, and contains woefully inadequate financial provisions for rehabilitation.

The document contains the applicants' heads of argument in a legal matter before the High Court of South Africa, Mpumalanga Division. A coalition of seven non-profit organisations seeks the review and setting aside of a decision by the MEC for Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs to exclude four properties from the Mabola Protected Environment to facilitate the construction of an underground coal mine by Uthaka Energy (Pty) Ltd.

This document is a legal notice filed in the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) in August 2017. It outlines the grounds upon which several applicants, including Mining and Environmental Justice and GroundWork, seek the review and setting aside of decisions made by the Minister of Environmental Affairs and the Minister of Mineral Resources to allow Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd to conduct commercial mining in the Mabola Protected Environment.

This Applicants' Practice Note for Case No. 1322/2021 in the High Court of South Africa (Mpumalanga Division) outlines a legal application to review and set aside a decision by the MEC for Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs, Mpumalanga to exclude four properties from the Mabola Protected Environment.

This document is an affidavit filed by Praveer Tripathi, Senior Vice President of Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (now Uthaka Energy), in the High Court of South Africa. The affidavit responds to a filing by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), alleging that the CER and its attorney, Catherine Horsfield, have a conflict of interest because they are acting as both legal representatives for environmental groups and as activists with their own agenda to stop coal mining. Tripathi details a decade of litigation and media campaigns led by the CER to obstruct Atha-Africa's coal-mining project in the Mabola Protected Environment, arguing that these actions follow a global 'disrupt and delay' strategy used by environmental NGOs to make fossil fuel projects unviable.

This document is a replying submission by Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd to the Director-General of the Department of Mineral Resources. It responds to an administrative appeal lodged by a coalition of environmental organisations against the approval of the Environmental Management Programme (EMP) for the Yzermyn Underground Coal Mine Project.

This document is a written response from Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (the Second Respondent) to a substituted appeal submitted on 1 December 2017. The appeal, lodged by the Endangered Wildlife Trust, the Federation for a Sustainable Environment, and Mpumalanga Landbou/Agriculture, challenges the Director-General of the Department of Water and Sanitation's decision to grant a water use licence for the Yzermyn Project. Atha-Africa argues that the Appellants rely on outdated reports and a misunderstanding of the precautionary principle, asserting that the project's environmental impacts are localised, manageable through mitigation, and balanced by significant socio-economic benefits.

This memorandum from the Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs (DARDLEA) evaluates an appeal by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and its clients against the environmental authorisation granted to Atha Africa Ventures (AAV) for the proposed Yzermyn underground coal mine. The department recommends that the appeal be dismissed, concluding that the authorisation process was legally sound and that potential environmental impacts can be mitigated to acceptable levels.

This document is a statement of grounds of appeal filed by eight environmental and community organisations against an environmental authorisation (EA) granted on 7 June 2016 to Atha Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd for the Yzermyn underground coal mine near Wakkerstroom, Mpumalanga. The appellants argue that the EA was granted without lawful authority, based on a deficient Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR), and ignores critical biodiversity and socio-economic risks.