Strengthening the recognition of strategic water source areas in decisions on water use licences [Discussion of Endangered Wildlife Trust v Director-General, Department of Water and Sanitation (WT 03/17/MP) [2019] ZAWT 3 (22 May 2019)

A. Mkhonza
{"title":"Strengthening the recognition of strategic water source areas in decisions on water use licences [Discussion of Endangered Wildlife Trust v Director-General, Department of Water and Sanitation (WT 03/17/MP) [2019] ZAWT 3 (22 May 2019)","authors":"A. Mkhonza","doi":"10.47348/slr/2022/i2a9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There has been increasing recognition of the importance and value of strategic water source areas (“SWSAs”). SWSAs form about 10% of South Africa’s landscape and provide 50% of the country’s water. Their strategic importance lies in their significant ability to provide for the country’s economic, agricultural and basic human needs. One such SWSA has been at the centre of various court hearings, due to proposed mining activities in the Mabola Protected Environment – which falls squarely within the Enkangala Drakensberg SWSA. In May 2019, the Water Tribunal handed down a judgment pertaining to the water use licence application for these proposed mining activities in Endangered Wildlife Trust v The Director-General, Department of Water and Sanitation (WT 03/17/MP) [2019] ZAWT 3 (22 May 2019). The applicants challenged the decision to grant the water use licence on seven grounds, all revolving around how public authorities should exercise their statutory mandates when dealing with the country’s most scarce natural resource – water. As important as the judgment is for underscoring the balance between the use of natural resources and economic gain, it also highlights a trite point – SWSAs are not regulated in South Africa’s environmental legislation and as such, their legal protection is questionable. Although various scientific research documents and guidelines point to the need to protect SWSAs, the Tribunal insisted that these do not meet the “relevant considerations” requirement as per the National Water Act 36 of 1998 and could thus not be taken into account when coming to its final decision. This case note has three objectives. First, to provide a summary of the case and the Tribunal’s findings. Secondly, to reflect critically on the lessons learned from the Tribunal’s consideration of the scientific reports calling for SWSA protection. Thirdly, to suggest a way forward for promoting the protection of SWSAs in environmental law.","PeriodicalId":325707,"journal":{"name":"Stellenbosch Law Review","volume":"128 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stellenbosch Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/slr/2022/i2a9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There has been increasing recognition of the importance and value of strategic water source areas (“SWSAs”). SWSAs form about 10% of South Africa’s landscape and provide 50% of the country’s water. Their strategic importance lies in their significant ability to provide for the country’s economic, agricultural and basic human needs. One such SWSA has been at the centre of various court hearings, due to proposed mining activities in the Mabola Protected Environment – which falls squarely within the Enkangala Drakensberg SWSA. In May 2019, the Water Tribunal handed down a judgment pertaining to the water use licence application for these proposed mining activities in Endangered Wildlife Trust v The Director-General, Department of Water and Sanitation (WT 03/17/MP) [2019] ZAWT 3 (22 May 2019). The applicants challenged the decision to grant the water use licence on seven grounds, all revolving around how public authorities should exercise their statutory mandates when dealing with the country’s most scarce natural resource – water. As important as the judgment is for underscoring the balance between the use of natural resources and economic gain, it also highlights a trite point – SWSAs are not regulated in South Africa’s environmental legislation and as such, their legal protection is questionable. Although various scientific research documents and guidelines point to the need to protect SWSAs, the Tribunal insisted that these do not meet the “relevant considerations” requirement as per the National Water Act 36 of 1998 and could thus not be taken into account when coming to its final decision. This case note has three objectives. First, to provide a summary of the case and the Tribunal’s findings. Secondly, to reflect critically on the lessons learned from the Tribunal’s consideration of the scientific reports calling for SWSA protection. Thirdly, to suggest a way forward for promoting the protection of SWSAs in environmental law.
在审批用水许可证时加强对战略水源地的认可[关于濒危野生动物信托基金与水及卫生署署长的讨论(WT 03/17/MP) [2019] ZAWT 3(2019年5月22日)
人们日益认识到战略水源地的重要性和价值。swsa约占南非景观的10%,并提供该国50%的水。它们的战略重要性在于它们具有满足国家经济、农业和人类基本需要的重要能力。一个这样的SWSA一直是各种法庭听证会的中心,因为拟议在马博拉受保护环境进行采矿活动,而马博拉受保护环境正好属于恩坎加拉德拉肯斯堡SWSA。2019年5月,水审裁处就濒危野生动物信托基金诉水和卫生部门总干事(WT 03/17/MP) [2019] ZAWT 3(2019年5月22日)中拟议采矿活动的用水许可证申请作出判决。申请人以7个理由对授予用水许可证的决定提出质疑,这些理由都围绕着公共当局在处理该国最稀缺的自然资源——水时应如何行使其法定授权。该判决强调了自然资源利用与经济收益之间的平衡,这一点同样重要,但它也强调了一个老生常谈的问题——南非的环境立法没有对swsa进行监管,因此,它们的法律保护是值得怀疑的。虽然各种科学研究文件和指导方针都指出有必要保护swsa,但仲裁庭坚持认为,这些不符合1998年第36号《国家水法》的“相关考虑”要求,因此在作出最终决定时不能考虑到这些因素。本案例说明有三个目标。第一,概述案件和法庭的调查结果。第二,批判性地反思从法庭审议要求保护SWSA的科学报告中吸取的教训。第三,提出在环境法中推进对西南海洋保护区保护的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信