News

Introduction

The Department of Forestry, Fisheries & the Environment (“DFFE”) has called for public comments on a revised set of draft guidelines potentially affecting environmental authorisation, waste management licence and atmospheric emissions licence applications. The draft National Guideline for consideration of Climate Change Implications in applications for Environmental Authorisations, Atmospheric Emission Licenses and Waste Management Licenses (“the Guideline”) were published in Government Gazette 53574 Notice number 6759, on 24 October 2025. Once finalised, the Guideline is expected to ensure that climate change and its implications are factored into development project planning from its earliest stages. The Guideline follows a previous draft version sharing the same title, that was published on 25 June 2021.

Purpose and Scope of the Draft National Guideline

The Guideline aims to ensure that environmental authorisation applications fully account for both the impacts of proposed projects on climate change (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions) and the impacts of climate change on proposed projects (e.g. vulnerability and resilience). The Guideline proposes creating a consistent approach for the incorporation of climate change considerations across environmental impact assessments (“EIA”), atmospheric emissions licenses and waste management licenses. The Guideline provide practical guidance on the nature, scope and minimum content of information to be included in applications so authorities can make informed decisions. It sets out when climate-change specialist input is needed and what that input should cover (both green-house-gas (“GHG”) emissions and vulnerability / adaptation). Role-players will now be provided with the minimum requirements for climate change assessments in these applications. The Guideline will also assist authorities in their determination of these applications.

Key principles and approach

The Guideline advise that climate considerations are integrated early in project planning and that the mitigation hierarchy (avoid → minimise → rehabilitate → offset) is applied alongside adaptation and resilience measures. An emphasis is also placed on treating climate change as an inseparable part of the environment (in the context of EIAs) and that all role-players consider both the emissions the project will generate (mitigation) and the project’s vulnerability to future climate change (adaptation). The Guideline places the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (“NEMA”) and the Environmental Impact Regulations, 2014 together with NEMA’s specific environmental management acts, the Climate Change Act 22 of 2024 and international obligations (such as the UNFCCC / Paris Agreement) as the framework within which assessments must be carried out. The Guideline also references national tools and reporting regimes including the National Greenhouse Gas Emission Reporting Regulations). Cont.The Guideline also includes practical tables and an appendix with a Climate Change Significance Rating Framework, a table on the role/timing of specialist input across the EIA process, impact severity rating guidance and example evaluation criteria to help practitioners make consistent and informed judgements.

Roles and Responsibilities of role-players

In the case of Environmental Assessment Practitioners (“EAP”) appointed for a particular development project, they must lead the screening/scoping process, identify if climate change is an issue, commission specialists where required, draft terms of reference for specialists, and incorporate specialist outputs into the basic assessment / scoping and environmental impact report / EIA reports. Appointed climate-change specialists should clarify their mandate set out by EAPs, conduct vulnerability/risk assessments, quantify GHGs where required, select methods, produce the specialist report and recommend mitigation/adaptation/monitoring measures. The applicant for a particular development project should allocate time and budget for specialists, provide project information, include contingency for additional specialist involvement, and implement environment management programme (“EMPr”) measures. Lastly, competent/licensing authorities (such as the DFFE) may require additionalspecialist assessments and must base decisions on sound scientific input.

When a climate-change specialist assessment is required

The Guideline sets out a staged screening approach to decide whether specialist input is needed (i.e., pre-application → screening/scoping → assess impacts → if unresolved, a specialist climate-change assessment is required). A specialist assessment will generally be required where the EAP determines significance after screening takes place, the proposed development is a listed activity in the National GHG Reporting Regulations and exceeds the reporting threshold or where the competent/licensing authority specifically requires it. The Guideline also provides for the minimum content a climate-change impact assessment must contain including, scope and purpose, description of the development and associated activities, methodology, findings/impacts, mitigation and adaption measures and clear justification for significance ratings and whether further specialist work is required. Recommendations from the climate assessment must be translated into EMPr impact management outcomes and measurable actions (including adaptation measures and monitoring). Competent authorities should ensure EMPrs contain obligations, monitoring and adaptive management measures that address both mitigation and resilience.

Practical implications

The Guideline makes clear that climate change is no longer an optional consideration but a required part of environmental decision-making and by embedding the mitigation-hierarchy, requiring early screening and quantification where relevant, and insisting that outcomes translate into practical EMPr measures and monitoring, the Guideline gives role-players a consistent, action-oriented framework to reduce project risk and help align development with South Africa’s broader climate commitments.

The Guideline, published on 24 October 2025, can be accessed via the following link: https://www.gov.za/documents/notices/national-environmental-management-act-national-guideline-consideration-climate

Any comments on the Guidelines must be submitted in writing by no later than 23 November 2025.

Disclaimer:

This newsletter does not aim to provide a summary of all legal developments in the environmental, mining and natural resources sectors. For professional legal advice on any particular issue, please contact us.

Introduction

In last week’s Gunn Byte, we mentioned how section 53(1) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) requires any person intending to use the surface of land in a manner that may potentially be contrary to the MPRDA’s objectives to first seek approval from the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy (Minister of Mineral Resources). This week, we look at the applicability of section 53(1) to protected areas as defined in the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 (NEMPAA).

The Applicability of Section 53 to Protected Areas

Despite section 53(1) casting a wide net and finding broad application, it has been debated whether this section applies to the declaration of protected areas under NEMPAA. The requirement to apply for approval under section 53 applies to any “person”, which appears to exclude Ministers and MECs by virtue of the definition of “person” as contained in the Interpretation Act 33 of 1957 (Interpretation Act). Even if a competent court were to find that section 53 applies to a Minister or MEC, and in particular the Minister responsible for environmental management (Environment Minister), it has also been debated whether the declaration of an area as a protected area constitutes an “intention to use the surface area of any land” in a manner that may detrimentally affect the mining of mineral resources. Since the Environment Minister/MEC only considers all information provided to determine whether an area should be declared a protected area by way of issuing a notice in the relevant Government Gazette, it is clear that the Environment Minister/MEC does not intend to use the surface of such land, meaning that section 53 cannot apply in such instances. Even if a court were to find that the Environment Minister/MEC did intend to “use the surface area” of the land, there is an express statutory prohibition contained in section 48(1) of NEMPAA which essentially states that no person may conduct commercial prospecting or mining activities in a special nature reserve, nature reserve, or protected environment without written permission from the Environment Minister and the Minister of Mineral Resources. Sections 31 and 32 of NEMPAA require the Environment Minister/MEC to consult with all national organs of state when considering whether to declare an area a protected area. By necessity, the DMRE and the Minister of Mineral Resources would be affected and would be included in the consultation process. In addition, when authorities such as the Limpopo Department of Economic Development initiate the process to declare a protected area under NEMPAA, it is standard procedure to consult with the DMRE during the application phase. This consultation forms part of the broader duty to consult all relevant national organs of state impacted by the proposed declaration, in alignment with sections 31 and 32 of NEMPAA.

Then, in terms of section 47B of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA), this requirement for consultation is “regarded as having been satisfied if a formal written notification of intention to act has been made to that person or organ of state and no response has been received within a reasonable time.”

It is clear that section 53 does not apply to decisions by the Environment Minister/MEC to declare a protected area, as it does not impose a duty on the competent authority to obtain approval from the Minister of Mineral Resources. If it did, this would be in conflict with the requirements of both NEMA and NEMPAA.

Conclusion

We therefore hold the view that the declaration of a protected area does not constitute a “use of the surface” as contemplated in section 53 of the MPRDA. Therefore, such an activity does not require the Minister of Mineral Resources’ prior written consent. This position will remain even if section 53 is amended as proposed in the Draft Mineral Resources Development Bill, 2025 (Bill). The Bill proposes to amend section 53(1) such that it reads ‘any person who intends to use the surface of any land in any way which may be contrary to any object of this Act or which is likely to impede any such object must obtain comments from the Minister in the prescribed manner.’ The implication is that the Minister of Mineral Resources’ role becomes advisory (rather than determinative), and does not change our view expressed above.

 Disclaimer:

This newsletter does not aim to provide a summary of all legal developments in the environmental, mining and natural resources sectors. For professional legal advice on any particular issue, please contact us.

On 1 August 2025, the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (“the Minister”) published the draft National Greenhouse Gas Carbon Budget and Mitigation Plan Regulations (“the draft Regulations”) together with the Technical Guidelines for the Regulations, for public comment.

This followsthe official commencement of the long-awaited Climate Change Act 22 of 2024 (“the Climate Change Act”) on 17 March 2025.

The draft Regulations and accompanying Technical Guidelines, made under the Climate Change Act, set out the framework for the allocation, implementation, and enforcement of carbon budgets and associated mitigation plans for entities referred to as “data providers“, with high greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The draft Regulations aim to operationalise the Climate Change Act’s requirements for binding GHG limits (carbon budgets) and specific emissions reduction (mitigation) actions, replacing the previous voluntary or ‘softer’ regulatory regime with enforceable obligations for major emitters. The draft Regulations form part of South Africa’s broader transition towards a low-carbon, climate-resilient, and just economy. The Technical Guidelines aim to support the implementation of the draft Regulations by providing for inter alia the structure and methodology of the Carbon Budgeting and Mitigation Plan programme, internal review by the Competent Authority, responsibilities of data providers, budget allocation and progress reporting.

The draft Regulations and draft Technical Guidelines introduce binding carbon budgets and mitigation plan requirements for large GHG emitters (data providers) with emissions exceeding 30,000 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent per annum. From 1 January 2026, companies with average annual GHG emissions exceeding this threshold will be required to comply with strict, legally binding carbon budgets. These budgets apply over three consecutive five-year periods and are allocated at the company level but disaggregated per facility based on operational control. This mandatory approach underlines South Africa’s commitment to structured emissions reduction in key sectors. Targets are set for priority sectors such as mining, synthetic fuels, cement, steel, and electricity production. Regulated entities must register their facilities, provide emissions data, receive mandated carbon budgets, and implement approved mitigation plans for each five-year compliance period.

In addition to carbon budgets, impacted companies must develop and implement mitigation plans designed to ensure compliance with their allocated limits. The initial focus falls on Scope 1 (direct) emissions, while reporting of Scope 2 (electricity-related) and Scope 3 (value chain) emissions remains voluntary. Annual progress reporting is compulsory, with reports due by 31 March for the preceding year. Should a company exceed its allocated budget, it may face significant financial penalties, including adjustments to carbon tax rates imposed under the Carbon Tax Act 15 of 2019 (“the Carbon Tax Act”).

Non-compliance, including failure to register, report, or meet budget limits, can result in fines up to R5 million and/or five years’ imprisonment for a first offence, and up to R10 million or ten years for repeat offences. Entities exceeding their carbon budgets will also face higher carbon tax rates under the Carbon Tax Act, with strict annual reporting and third-party verification deemed mandatory.

All carbon budget allocations and mitigation plans are subject to rigorous, periodic independent validation and verification in accordance with the associated Technical Guidelines. The allocation system is supported by a New Entrants Reserve, with 5% of the aggregate industry budget set aside to accommodate new or expanding emitters, ensuring a flexible and equitable integration of additional participants based on sector benchmarks and transparent formulas.

Socio-economic considerations are also provided for as companies and data providers are encouraged to submit detailed information about the potential economic, employment, and community impacts of their climate compliance actions. These data submissions are intended to inform a “just transition” and help guide regulatory responsesthat balance environmental, economic, and social objectives.

Affected sectors are strongly advised to review the draft Regulations and draft Technical Guidelines, assess their organisational readiness for these new obligations, and consider submitting comments before the closing date. With mandatory carbon budgets pending from 2026, companies should prepare for strengthened and more stringent requirements regarding emissions monitoring, transparent reporting, and independent verification of climate actions. This milestone marks a pivotal step in South Africa’s binding transition to a climate-resilient, low-carbon future under the new national climate change framework.

Interested and affected parties have been invited by the Minister to submit written representations on the draft Regulations and draft Technical Guidelines within 60 days from the date of publication of the two noticesin the Government Gazette i.e. by 30 September 2025.

The draft Regulations and draft Technical Guidelines can be accessed via the following link: https://legalacademy.co.za/news/read/carbon-budgetting-emission-mitigation-planning-draft-regulations-out-for-comment

Introduction

The African Penguin, one of South Africa’s most iconic and endangered seabirds, is facing a fight for survival. With population numbers declining at alarming rates, conservation efforts have become increasingly urgent. Earlier this year, a High Court victory resulted in securing biologically meaningful foraging areas for African Penguins for the next decade in order to help bring the species back from the brink of extinction. Against this backdrop, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment recently published The Draft Regulations for the Environmental Management of Offshore Ship-to-Ship Transfer (“the Draft Regulations”) aimed at managing offshore ship-to-ship (“STS”) transfers, with a strong focus on safeguarding sensitive marine ecosystems.

Why Ship-to-Ship Transfers Matter

STS transfers, as defined in the Draft Regulations, refer to the transfer at sea of liquid bulk cargo, including chemicals, oil, petroleum products, liquified petroleum gas or liquified natural gas from one vessel to another outside an operational harbour area and includes bunkering. STS transfers are a cost-effective way of refueling, however, they carry significant environmental risks. Oil spills, even minor ones, can devastate marine life, disrupt ecosystems, and threaten breeding colonies of the African Penguins. These risks have prompted calls for a stronger legal framework to regulate such operations.

In March 2025, BirdLife South Africa (“BirdLife SA”) and the Southern African Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds (“SANCCOB”) secured a historic victory for South Africa’s critically endangered African Penguin when the Pretoria High Court approved a landmark settlement (Birdlife South Africa and Another v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others (2024-029857) [2025] ZAGPPHC 264, 18 March 2025) to protect the critically endangered species whose population has dropped to fewer than 9,000 breeding pairs and could face extinction in the wild by 2035. The agreement, reached between the two conservation groups (BirdLife SA and SANCCOB), the fishing industry, and the government, establishes 10-year no-fishing zones around six key penguin breeding colonies, including Robben Island, Dassen Island, Stony Point, Dyer Island, Bird Island, and St Croix Island. These closures, which secure biologically meaningful foraging areas, will be written into fishing permits and reviewed after six years to measure effectiveness. The ruling represents a major conservation victory, balancing ecosystem protection with fishing interests, and gives the species a crucial chance to recover from its severe decline.

The Draft Regulations for the Environmental Management of Offshore Ship-to-Ship Transfer

On 4 July 2025, the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (“the Minister”) published the revised Draft Regulations for public comment. The Draft Regulations, developed under section 83(1) of the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act 24 of 2008, follow the first iteration published on 21 February 2025. Extensive consultations with stakeholders, including the South African Maritime Safety Authority, Transnet National Ports Authority, the Department of Transport, South African National Parks, and Members of the Executive Council, responsible for the environment in the four coastal provinces necessitated the need for this revised Draft.

The Draft Regulations establish a risk-based framework to mitigate and avoid the environmental impacts of offshore STF transfers on South Africa’s coastal and marine environments. Where avoidance is not feasible, the Draft Regulations aim to minimise and remedy impacts, particularly in sensitive areas such as Algoa Bay, home to the world’s largest African Penguin colonies. Since bunkering commenced in Algoa Bay in 2016, four oil spills have impacted 260 endangered African Penguins and other marine species. The draft regulations introduce robust measures, including mandatory environmental management plans, wildlife monitoring, and spill prevention protocols, to protect South Africa’s marine ecosystems.

Key amendments in the second iteration of the Draft Regulations include renaming the Draft Regulations from “bunkering” to “ship-to-ship transfer” to clarify the scope of activities covered, replacing sonobuoys with hydrophones for wildlife monitoring to reduce noise impacts on marine life and mandating that STS environmental management plans be developed by independent specialists and approved by the Minister within 90 days.

Conclusion

South Africa’s Draft Regulations for the Environmental Management of Offshore Ship-to-Ship Transfer signal a critical step towards aligning maritime commerce with environmental stewardship. By embedding biodiversity considerations into operational law, regulators are helping to ensure that economic development at sea does not come at the cost of one of South Africa’s most treasured and endangered species. By requiring industry to integrate biodiversity safeguards into operations from the outset, the Draft Regulations move the law from simply managing damage after it occursto preventing it in the first place.

The latest Draft Regulations, published on 4 July 2025, can be accessed via the following link:
https://www.gov.za/documents/notices/national-environmental-management-integrated-coastal-management-draft-regulations

Birdlife South Africa and Another v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others (2024-029857) [2025] ZAGPPHC 264 (18 March 2025) can be accessed via the following link:
https://lawlibrary.org.za/akn/za-gp/judgment/zagpphc/2025/264/eng@2025-03-18

Introduction

Derelict mines and inadequate pollution control in South Africa’s mining sector present significant environmental, public health, and socio-economic challenges. The legacy of unrehabilitated mines poses threats ranging from toxic pollution to physical hazards, affecting nearby communities and ecosystems. This article explores the scale and impact of derelict mines, the regulatory framework, enforcement challenges, and potential solutions.

Scale and Impact of Derelict Mines

There are around 6000 abandoned mines in South Africa, with over 2300 classified as high-risk sites. These mines pose severe threats to both public health and the environment. Key issues include acid mine drainage (which occurs when sulfide minerals are exposed to air and water during mining, creating acidic water that leaches heavy metals), toxic residues (such as unlined tailings piles) and physical dangers (such as open shafts and sinkholes).

Inadequate Pollution Control in the Mining Sector

Despite stringent legal requirements in the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (“MPRDA”), enforcement of environmental rehabilitation remains weak. One key issue is that mining companies often fail to set aside sufficient funds for closure and rehabilitation (known as financial provision), or they miscalculate these costs, leading to numerous mines being abandoned without the required remediation being performed. Another key issue lies with the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (“DMRE”), which has conflicting mandates of promoting mining development and ensuring environmental compliance, leading to insufficient monitoring and enforcement. For example, recent information indicates that only five compliance officers are assigned to oversee the more than 1000 operating mines in Mpumalanga, clearly highlighting the resource constraints.

Challenges with Enforcement

Several systemic challenges hinder efforts to enforce compliance and address the legacy of derelict mines. These include resource and capacity constraints, with regulatory agencies like the DMRE and Department of Water and Sanitation (“DWS”) lacking adequate manpower and funding, leading to minimal enforcement action being taken.

Thus, despite widespread violations, limited resources result in insufficient monitoring and enforcement of environmental regulations. Another challenge is the existence of legal loopholes and corporate avoidance, with companies often evading responsibility by declaring bankruptcy or selling mines to financially weaker entities, shifting the burden of rehabilitation to the government and taxpayers. This practice is often seen under Black Economic Empowerment initiatives, where mines are sold to entities lacking the financial capacity for rehabilitation. Further difficulties present themselves when fragmented environmental governance caused by overlapping jurisdictions and poor coordination between departments (such as the DMRE and DWS) weakens enforcement efforts and leads to inefficiencies in enforcement actions and practices. This is exacerbated by an overall lack of transparency, with poor public access to compliance data and the exclusion of communities from decision-making processes worsening the already-evident lack of accountability. For example, communities affected by mining pollution often lack the information and means to hold companies or the government accountable.

The environmental degradation caused by mining has severe social consequences.

Nearby communities face health risks, housing insecurity, and economic hardship. Illegal miners, or zama zamas, work under dangerous conditions in abandoned shafts, risking exposure to toxic gases and violent confrontations.

Solutions and the Way Forward

Addressing this crisis requires a multi-faceted approach. Regulatory bodies must be adequately staffed and funded to monitor and enforce compliance effectively. For example, the state could establish a dedicated environmental authority outside the DMRE, which could help mitigate conflicts of interest. Community involvement and transparency are also key. Improving access to environmental data and engaging communities in decision-making are critical for ensuring accountability and fairness in resource development. To this end, communities should be involved in monitoring and reporting environmental impacts, ensuring transparency and accountability.

Insofar as financial provisioning is concerned, stricter financial provisions (such as escrow accounts or insurance-backed guarantees) should be implemented to ensure funds are available for mine closure and rehabilitation. This will assist in ensuring that mining companies set aside sufficient funds for rehabilitation before operations commence can prevent the number of abandoned sites from rising. The state should also finalise and implement mine closure and rehabilitation strategies, prioritising high-risk sites and leveraging international support or expertise. A national strategy that includes clear timelines, funding mechanisms, and international collaboration can address the legacy of derelict mines effectively.

Sustainable mine closure remains one of the most critical environmental and social imperatives facing South Africa’s mining industry. Among the various closure strategies, the use of pit lakes – if properly assessed and managed – offers a viable and cost-effective alternative to traditional backfilling. Designed as terminal sinks with no surface discharge, pit lakes can support post-mining ecosystems and serve broader socio-economic functions when integrated with community needs and water reuse strategies. Pit lakes have successfully been used in mine closure in the Waterberg coal field, where studies have shown that many of the pit lakes in the area have a stable water balance. These are good examples of how pit lakes can be managed after mine closure. The successful use of pit lakes shows that a well-designed closure plan (grounded in environmental science, supported by regulatory compliance, and mindful of long-term land use) can turn legacy challenges into future opportunities.

Thus, with mining still central to South Africa’s economy, balancing the sector’s economic benefits with its environmental and social costs is imperative. Immediate action is required to address the legacy of pollution, improve regulatory frameworks, and protect the rights and well-being of affected communities.

Disclaimer:

This newsletter does not aim to provide a summary of all legal developments in the environmental, mining and natural resources sectors. For professional legal advice on any particular issue, please contact us.

Briefly put, Carbon tax is an environmental tax on the carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions and gives effect to the ‘polluter-pays-principle’ which ensures that the polluter is held accountable for damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions and the costs imposed on third parties. A carbon taxpayer is a person who undertakes a carbon taxable activity listed in Schedule 2 of the Carbon Tax Act 15 of 2019 (“Carbon Tax Act”). The tax levied is based on the carbon content of the amount of greenhouse gases emitted (i.e. emissions from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas) above a certain threshold. The tax is applied for each tonne of CO2 -equivalent emissions (‘’t/CO2e’’) that is produced. The South African Revenue Service is responsible for administering and collecting carbon tax and is governed primarily by the Carbon Tax Act, read together with the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964.

Effective from 1 January 2025, the carbon tax rate has increased from R190 per t/CO2e to R236 per t/CO2e. This rate is planned to increase gradually over time with the aim of steadily encouraging emission reductions. Earlier this year, Johannesburg Stock Exchange (“JSE”) launched the JSE Ventures Voluntary Carbon Market, marking South Africa’s first trades of carbon credits eligible for use against SA’s carbon tax. The JSE transacted 10,000 t/CO2e of eligible carbon credits at $8.25 per t/CO2e. Additionally, to bolster SA’s climate change mitigation efforts, the carbon fuel levy will increase by 3c/litre to 14c/litre and 17c/litre for petrol and diesel, respectively, applicable from April 2 2025.

Carbon tax came into effect in South Africa on 1 June 2019 and has since been introduced in several phases to allow entities the time to make the necessary structural adjustments to their production processes and overall practices. Phase 1 of the carbon tax has been ongoing since the initial date of effect on 1 June 2019 and is set to run up until 31 December 2025. Phase 2 is proposed to come into effect from 1 January 2026 and is expected to run until 31 December 2030.

On 13 November 2024, National Treasury published a discussion paper on Phase 2 of the carbon tax. This paper proposes several measures to

reduce tax-free allowances and strengthen the effective carbon tax rate to encourage behaviour change. Amongst others, it is proposed that the basic tax-free allowance be reduced by 10 percentage points in 2026 and then by a further 2.5 percentage point reduction per year from 2027 to As a means to stimulate carbon market activities under the carbon tax, an increase of the carbon offset allowance by 5 percentage points from 1 January 2026 is proposed. Another key proposal includes extending the section 12L energy efficiency tax incentive and the commitment to electricity price neutrality until 31 December 2030.

Disclaimer:

This newsletter does not aim to provide a summary of all legal developments in the environmental, mining and natural resources sectors. For professional legal advice on any particular issue, please contact us.

Introduction

Environmental Assessment Practitioners (EAPs) play a crucial role in ensuring that development projects are compliant with South Africa’s various environmental laws and regulations. In a regulatory landscape defined by the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) and its associated regulations, EAPs act as key navigators for developers, guiding projects through complex environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes.

NEMA and the regulations made thereunder mandate the involvement of EAPs in various stages of project development to ensure environmental sustainability and compliance. On certain projects Gunn Attorneys may work closely with the EAP, providing legal advice to the EAP to ensure that the project meets all regulatory requirements and mitigate environmental risks.

Summary of EAP Involvement

EAPs are instrumental in conducting EIAs, which are required for any activity that may have a significant impact on the environment- and in this role they have to be objective and independent. EAPS play an important role in compiling environmental management plans and programs, which outline the measures to be taken during the construction phase to manage and mitigate environmental impacts. They may also fulfil the role of Environmental Compliance Officer (ECO) for a project, thereby auditing compliance for the project. EAPs ensure that projects comply with NEMA and other relevant environmental laws, such as the National Water Act 36 of 1998 and the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013. EAPs also facilitate stakeholder engagement and public participation, which are critical components of the EIA process.

Practical Consequences of Inadequate EAP Involvements

The importance of involving competent EAPs early in a project cannot be overstated. A well-known example highlighting the risks inadequate EIA assessment is the Thabametsi Power Project in Limpopo. Approved in 2015, the Thabametsi coal-fired power plant was intended to meet growing energy demands. However, the EIA initially submitted for the project was found to be inadequate in its consideration of climate change impacts, which proved to be a critical oversight. Civil society groups and NGOs challenged the approval, arguing that the assessment failed to adequately address how climate change would affect the project and how the project itself would contribute to climate change.

The court ultimately set aside the environmental authorisation, ordering that a comprehensive climate change impact assessment be conducted. This setback delayed the project significantly and eventually contributed to its cancellation in 2020. The importance of thorough and competent EIA processes led by qualified EAPs who understand the full scope of regulatory requirements, including evolving issues like climate resilience, is evident from this example.

Implications for Developers

Engaging EAPs early in the project lifecycle is essential to ensure compliance with environmental regulations and to avoid costly delays and legal challenges. EAPs, in conjunction with legal subject matter experts like Gunn Attorneys, can provide valuable insights into sustainable practices and help mitigate environmental risks, ensuring that all legal requirements are met and that the project remains compliant throughout its lifecycle.

Clients are encouraged to review their current environmental compliance practices and consider engaging EAPs for upcoming projects. Beyond legal compliance, early EAP involvement helps identify environmental risks and community concerns that may not be obvious at the planning stage. This proactive approach can prevent project delays, reduce conflict with stakeholders, and ensure smoother approvals. Working with a law firm like Gunn Attorneys can provide additional legal support and guidance to ensure that all regulatory requirements are met.

Conclusion

Engaging EAPs is not simply a box-ticking exercise. Instead, it is a strategic investment in the long-term success and sustainability of any devel the backing of skilled EAPs and legal advisors, developers can confidently pursue their goals while remaining compliant with the law and being environmentally responsible.

Disclaimer:

This newsletter does not aim to provide a summary of all legal developments in the environmental, mining and natural resources sectors. For professional legal advice on any particular issue, please contact us.

On 20 May 2025, the Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (“the Minister”) published the Draft Mineral Resources Bill, 2025 (“the Draft Bill”) for public comment. The Draft Bill proposes significant amendments to the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (“MPRDA”). The proposed amendments are extensive and aim to establish a more effective regulatory system for South Africa’s mineral sector.

The Draft Bill follows the 2018 withdrawal of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill, 2013. Various new definitions and concepts have been added, including:

• artisanal mining – the Minister would be empowered to identify and designate certain areas and invite applications for black persons for small-scale and artisanal mining permits. Regulating these artisanal and small-scale operations enhances the regulator’s ability to apply and enforceoccupational health and safety standards within artisanal mining operations. These operations will then fall within the scope and ambit of the Mine Health and Safety Act 29 of 1996 enforced by the Mine Health and Safety Inspectorate. The Draft Bill is part of a broader strategy to modernise South Africa’s mining sector, including the Critical Minerals and Metals Strategy, launched by the Minister on 20 May 2025. This strategy explicitly includes artisanal and small-scale mining as a pillar of inclusive economic development. The Draft Bill includes a targeted Black economic empowerment mechanism which empowers the Minister, after consultation with the Council for Geoscience, to designate certain areas for small-scale and artisanal mining to Black people, and to invite applicationsfor small-scale and artisanal mining.

• associated mineral – which is any mineral found in mineralogical association with another primary mineral and which allows rights holders to prospect or mine for associated minerals and dispose of them, provided they declare this to the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources and subsequently apply to include such minerals in the existing rights.

• historic residue stockpiles – give owners two years to either include the dump/stockpile in its mine works programme (in circumstances where such material is situated within an existing mining area) or apply for a right provided as the material is situated outside an existing mining area. Failure to apply for a right will result in the dump/stockpile reverting to the state.

• effective date – rights are made effective from when the right is granted rather than when executed. Previously, rights were notarially executed well after being granted, resulting in right holders retaining their rights for longer periods than initially intended and creating uncertainty regarding renewal application deadlines.
  • community and landowner – recognises both registered landowners as well as rights in land which are unregistered and in respect of which persons or communities enjoy protection under any law. When granting mining rights, the Minister must impose standards for housing and living conditions for the minerals industry and apply the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act 53 of 2003 regarding ownership, inclusive procurement, supplier and enterprise development, human resource development, employment equity and mining community development. The Draft Bill also introduces requirements for meaningful community consultation regarding social and labour plans before rights can be granted. This expands beyond the requirement to consult with landowners and lawful occupiers.

In an effort to clarify the current misalignment between the MPRDA and National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (“NEMA”), the Draft Bill provides that environmental authorisation applications for rights and permits must only be applied for once the MPRDA right or permit application has been accepted. Environmental management plans or environmental management programmes approved in terms of the MPRDA before the National Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2014, will be deemed approved with an environmental authorisation under NEMA. Streamlining of the appeals process now directs all MPRDA-related appeals to the Minister regardless of who made the initial decision, while environmental appeals are expected to be submitted to the Minister of Water and Sanitation and Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment. The environmental appeal route creates confusion as it overlaps with existing NEMA provisions for environmental authorisation decisions.

Provisions have also been added for the establishment of a Ministerial Advisory Council to advise the Minister on sustainable resource development, transformation growth, beneficiation terms and conditions and other ministerial referrals. A Regional Mining Development Environmental committee will also be formed for the purpose of adjudicating objections and making recommendationsto the Minister.

Some efforts have been made to address illegal mining under the MPRDA. The Draft Bill proposes prohibitions on assisting or providing services to illegal miners and the transportation of any minerals without prescribed documentation. In regard to enforcement of infringements of the MPRDA, the Minister is empowered, in concurrence with the Minister of Police and by written notice to a member of the South African Police Service, to assign all the powers contemplated in section 92 (Routine inspections) and section 93 (Orders, suspensions and instructions) of the MPRDA.

Interested and affected parties have been invited by the Minister to submit written representations on the Draft Bill by 13 August 2025.

The Draft Bill can be accessed via the following link: https://www.gov.za/documents/draft-bills/mineral-resources-development-bill-draft-20-may-2025

Disclaimer:

This newsletter does not aim to provide a summary of all legal developments in the environmental, mining and natural resources sectors. For professional legal advice on any particular issue, please contact us.

Overview

Section 53 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) establishes an important regulatory mechanism for land use compatibility within the nation’s mineral development objectives. However, it has also historically caused significant delays in surface developments on land, including renewable energy projects and urban development projects. Section 53(1) mandates that any person intending to use the surface of land in a manner that may potentially be contrary to the MPRDA’s objectives (such as hindering mineral access or impeding equitable resource allocation) must first seek approval from the Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (Minister of Mineral Resources). This approval has become indispensable for project developers, particularly those in renewable energy, where lenders often require it for financial close.

Operation of Section 53(1)

The provision therefore acts as a statutory check and casts a wide net in terms of its applicability. If the land in question has mineral or petroleum potential, any activity that may sterilise those resources requires the Minister of Mineral Resources’ written approval. However, it must be noted that in terms of section 53(2) of the MPRDA, section 53(1) does not apply to farming or any use incidental thereto. Generally speaking, section 53 applies to land currently being used for mining or prospecting, land that is likely to be used for such purposes, and land where the mineral potential is confirmed and may be impacted by proposed surface developments. To obtain the consent of the Minister of Mineral Resources, developers typically submit a motivation with supporting documents. There is then a site inspection by Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (DMPR) officials and the consideration of existing mining rights or applications by the DMPR. This process can take years and is often a major hurdle for developers to overcome.

Practical Example of Complexities around Section 53

One notable example of the complexities around section 53 is the dispute between Renergen and Springbok Solar, which made the news and sparked widespread debate in both the mining and renewable energy sectors. The section 53 approval granted for the Springbok Solar solar plant was revoked by the Director General after Tetra4, owned by Renergen and the holder of a petroleum production right over the same area, lodged an appeal against the section 53 approval. The appeal was upheld because of procedural defects, most notably the failure to consult Tetra4 despite regulatory mandates to do so, as well as the potential sterilisation of helium reserves beneath the solar site. The revocation of the section 53 approval highlights the need for developers to exhaustively identify and consult all rights-holders during the project planning phase.

GUNN BYTES Proposed Amendment to Section 53

In May of this year, the DMPR published the Draft Mineral Resources Development Bill, 2025 (Bill) for public comment. The Bill proposes to amend section 53(1) such that it reads ‘any person who intends to use the surface of any land in any way which may be contrary to any object of this Act or which is likely to impede any such object must obtain comments from the Minister in the prescribed manner.’ This amendment effectively removes the requirement of ministerial consent and instead only requires developers to obtain comments from the Minister of Mineral Resources before development may commence. This is a welcome amendment and will remove some of the regulatory red tape that developers often face when obtaining the consents necessary for projects. However, given that obtaining such comments may still be time consuming, it is recommended that developers approach the Minister of Mineral Resources at an early stage to avoid delays similar to those experienced under the current section 53(1) of the MPRDA. Comments on the Bill may be made until 13 August 2025. Until such time as the amendment has been passed, the current wording of section 53 remains in force.

Disclaimer:

This newsletter does not aim to provide a summary of all legal developments in the environmental, mining and natural resources sectors. For professional legal advice on any particular issue, please contact us.

The City of Johannesburg (“CoJ”) has outlined the legal requirements for property owners seeking to drill boreholes. This follows a recent incident where unregulated drilling caused soil and water to leak into a Gautrain tunnel, disrupting services. The key requirements highlighted are:

• Property owners must obtain written consent from the CoJ in terms of section 14(1)(b) of the CoJ’s Land Use Scheme, which prohibits property owners from digging boreholes or extracting underground water without prior written consent from the municipality.

• Property owners must issue a written notice of intent to the municipality at least 14 days before drilling commences.
• An environmental evaluation must be conducted to assess the potential impact of borehole drilling on the surrounding environment and infrastructure.

• The application is reviewed by the CoJ’s engineering departments and approval is required from municipal stakeholders, including City Power, Emergency Management Services, Johannesburg Water and the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department.

The intention is for the CoJ to ensure that the proposed borehole does not pose infrastructure damage, ground instability or other risks that are commonly associated with boreholes. Unauthorised borehole drilling can lead to significant risks, such as that which resulted in the Gautrain delays, and which can also include damage to underground infrastructure, ground instability and sinkholes, water contamination and safety hazards.

Property owners who drill boreholes without following the regulations may face substantial fines imposed by the CoJ, legal action to stop drilling or decommission an illegally drilled borehole, the imposition of borehole closure costs (including decommissioning and land restoration costs) and liability for damages of underground infrastructure.

These regulations are designed to promote safe and sustainable borehole drilling while protecting underground utilities, public safety, and water resources. Property owners are strongly advised to adhere to the legal requirements to avoid serious consequences.

For further details or assistance with compliance, property owners should contact the CoJ.

Disclaimer:

This newsletter does not aim to provide a summary of all legal developments in the environmental, mining and natural resources sectors. For professional legal advice on any particular issue, please contact us.

President Cyril Ramaphosa (“the President”), recently proclaimed the long-awaited Climate Change Act 22 of 2024 (“the Act”). The proclamation Notice was published in the Government Gazette on 17 March 2025, which marked the official commencement date of the Act. However, not all provisions of the Act are in force.

The Act was previously assented to by the President in GN 5050 GG 50966 dated 23 July 2024, with the draft Bill originally published for public comment on 8 June 2018. The Act is South Africa’s most comprehensive legislative framework for climate adaption and mitigation indicating how the country as a whole (across departments, municipalities, provinces and the private sector) will be moving to tackle climate change and transition towards a more sustainable, low-carbon economy. Noteworthy provisions of the Act which are in force include those dealing with the National greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions trajectory and the National GHG Inventory.

It must be noted that although the Act has come into operation, the commencement of certain provisions of the Act, namely sections 12(6), 13(1), 13(2), 13(3)(b), 14(3)(a), 15(5), 15(6), 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25(4)(c), 26(2)-(6), 27, 28 and 30(2)(a) and (b), has been deferred to a later date. Some of these delayed provisions deal with critical issues including the listing of the Presidential Climate Commission as an independent and impartial legal entity, the national adaption objectives and strategies (which will only be implemented once the National Adaptation Strategy and Plan is completed), GHG Emission Reductions and Carbon Budgets (which require further groundwork) and the regulatory framework relating to carbon budgets and synthetic GHG phase-outs (which require comprehensive regulationsto be developed).

The reason for deferring these specific provisions is that the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment is developing a set of regulations that will enable implementation of these provisions. Some of the draft regulations are at an advanced stage of development and will be gazetted for public input and comment. The National Adaptation Strategy and Plan, which is still to be completed, remains a key aspect of the Act as many provisions in the Act rely on the publication of the National Adaptation Strategy and Plan in order to commence. Climate Change Act 22 of 2024 proclamation Notice and full Act, respectively:

https://www.dffe.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/cca_commencement_g52319pn251.pdf

and

https://www.dffe.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/cca_assented_g50966vol709n5050.pdf

On 31 March 2025, the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (“DFFE”), Dion George granted Eskom limited air quality exemptions for eight of its fifteen currently operating coal-fired power stations. The ‘exemptions’ stem from applications submitted by Eskom in terms of Section 59 of the National Environmental Management Air Quality Act 39 of 2004 (“the Act”). The applications sought relief from the minimum emission standards (“MES”) established under Section 21 of the Act, and following the appeal decision of the previous DFFE Minister, on 22 May 2024. The ‘exemptions’ come with stringent conditions, including emission reduction measures and health interventions.

Two power stations, Duvha and Matla, were granted nine-year MES exemptions until their planned decommissioning dates in 21 February and 21 July of 2034, respectively, aligning precisely with Eskom’s decommissioning schedule. The six other power stations were granted five-year MES exemptions until 1 April 2030, namely Kendal, Lethabo, Majuba, Matimba, Medupi and Tutuka. The decision by the DFFE Minister effectively extends Eskom’s licence to continue operating under the exemption for another five to nine years. However, according to the Minister, the exemptions are not a blanket reprieve and are specifically tailored to each facility in order to mitigate the impacts of non-compliance with the MES.

The various conditions imposed on the eight Eskom power stations include the deployment air quality monitoring stations, appointment of an environmental health specialist, fast tracking of offset programmes, the immediate publishing of real-time air emissions data and a revised cost-benefit analysis for Medupi’s flue gas de-sulphurisation. The Minister indicated that failure by Eskom to adhere to the strict conditions will result in significant consequences, although it was not made clear what these consequences would be.

Eskom has been granted multiple exemptions and postponements from MES over the past few years, notably in 2019 when Eskom applied for exemptions for several power stations. The application was granted in 2021 and set for expiry in 2025, leading to Eskom’s current exemption applications. The continued exemption and non-compliance by Eskom have been described as a regression of South Africa’s air quality laws by several environmental activist groups including JustShare, groundWork and the Centre for Environmental Rights..

The extended duration of the power stations reflects the Minister’s commitment to minimising environmental harm, given prior postponements granted to Eskom, and the urgent need to transition to renewable energy amid climate change imperatives and South Africa’s international commitments under the Paris Agreement 2015 and the recently enacted South African Climate Change Act 22 of 2024.

Disclaimer:

This newsletter does not aim to provide a summary of all legal developments in the environmental, mining and natural resources sectors. For professional legal advice on any particular issue, please contact us.

On 6 February 2025, President Cyril Ramaphosa delivered the first State of the Nation Address under the Government of National Unity at the parliamentary precinct in Cape Town. President Ramaphosa began with a tribute to the 14 South African National Defence Force soldiers who lost their lives in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, last month.

Amongst the various matters discussed by Ramaphosa, the issue of the supply of sufficient and reliable water and electricity in the country received notable attention. Ramaphosa claimed that, starting this year, National Government will work with municipalities to establish professionally managed, ring-fenced utilities for water and electricity services to ensure adequate investment and maintenance.

Ramaphosa emphasised the Government’s commitment to investing significantly in expanding South Africa’s water resources. The Infrastructure Fund, established to assist in facilitating commercial, international and institutional investment into public sector infrastructure projects, has secured R23 billion for seven large water infrastructure projects. Ramaphosa noted major water infrastructure projects such as Phase 2 of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project and the uMkhomazi Dam will proceed following the successful resolution of delays. Work is also underway to prepare for construction of the Ntabelanga Dam on the uMzimvubu River to supply additional water for domestic use and for irrigation in the Eastern Cape. Within the next year, Ramaphosa hopes to complete the establishment of the National Water Resource Infrastructure Agency to

unlock greater investment in water projects. The Water Services Amendment Bill, 2023 will, amongst other things, introduce a licensing system for water service providers and remove licenses where providers do not meet the standards for quality drinking water.

Other notable points in Ramaphosa’s address are the revitalization of South Africa’s port and rail networks in order to significantly expand the agricultural sector. South Africa’s significant mining industry will soon benefit from a new, modern and transparent mining rights system, which will unlock investment in exploration and production.

Disclaimer:

This newsletter does not aim to provide a summary of all legal developments in the environmental, mining and natural resources sectors. For professional legal advice on any particular issue, please contact us.

Following our recent post, earlier this week, on the topic of shared watercourses, Gunn Attorneys received many requests for more information relating to the various international treaties on shared watercourses. We have compiled a list of some of the most prominent international shared watercourse treaties together with links to these treaties, below:

The Amazon Cooperation Treaty, 1978:

Amazon Cooperation Treaty

The Mekong Agreement, 1995:

https://www.mrcmekong.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/MRC-1995-Agreement-n-procedures.pdf

Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework, 2024:

https://nilebasin.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/Announcement%20of%20the%20Entry%20into%20force%20of%20the%20CFA%20%20on%2013%20October%202024.pdf

Agreement on the Establishment of the Zambezi Watercourse Commission, 2011:

https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC180628/

The Revised SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems, 2000:

https://www.sadc.int/document/revised-protocol-shared-watercourses-2000-english

The Orange-Senqu River Commission (ORASECOM) Agreement, 2000:

Home

On 13 February 2025, President Cyril Ramaphosa assented to the Plant Health (Phytosanitary) Bill, marking a significant step to strengthen international agricultural trade and biosecurity in South Africa. Officially the Plant Health (Phytosanitary) Act 35 of 2024 (“the Act”), the Act provides measures to control and prevent the introduction, establishment and spread of regulated pests in the country by managing the movement of plants, plant products and other regulated articles, into, within and out of the country. The Act replaces parts of the Agricultural Pests Act 36 of 1983 , specifically Section 3(1) relating to powers of the Minister of Agriculture (to the extent that these powers relate to plants) and Section 6 (relating to powers of the Executive Officer).

The Act seeks to address gaps and challenges in South Africa’s current legislation, including constitutional issues and alignment with the international prescripts and provisions of export in the phytosanitary system. Notable changes provide for the establishment of the National Plant Protection Organisation of South Africa, to oversee phytosanitary activities. Additionally, the Act will provide for the development of new regulations to facilitate exports, in-transit and re-export of plants and plant products, establishment of pest free areas and areas of low pest prevalence, the provision of which is an obligation in terms of South Africa’s signatory membership of the International Plant Protection Convention.

Any person who wishes to import and/or export any plants, plant products and other regulated articles will need to monitor relevant Regulations and Notices to be published under the Act in the future. These will define the limits of what may or may not be imported without a permit and will regulate how the permit process is administered.

Disclaimer:

This newsletter does not aim to provide a summary of all legal developments in the environmental, mining and natural resources sectors. For professional legal advice on any particular issue, please contact us.

Introduction

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) practices have become a cornerstone of modern business operations in South Africa. As the country grapples with challenges such as climate change, social inequalities and governance issues, embracing ESG principles is not just a moral imperative but a strategic necessity for long-termsuccess and resilience.

Environmental Stewardship

South Africa’s rich biodiversity and natural resources are under threat from climate change and unsustainable practices. Companies are now recognising the importance of environmental stewardship. This includes the adoption of renewable energy, with businesses increasingly turning to solar and wind solutions given the frequent power outages in the country. For instance, major retailers like Woolworths and Pick n Pay have installed solar panels on their stores, reducing reliance on the national grid and lowering carbon emissions. Companies are also implementing innovative water-saving technologies, with major entities like South African Breweries significantly reducing its water usage though efficiencymeasures and wastewatertreatment plants.

Social Responsibility

Addressing social inequalities and promoting inclusive growth are critical for South Africa’s stability and progress, with companies focusing on creating job opportunities in marginalised communities, focusing on skills development and gender equality.

Corporations are also investing in education initiatives, helping to bridge the gap in critical sectors. This approach not only provides employment but also contributes to broader social and economic development.

Governance and Transparency

Good governance practices are essential for attracting investment and building trust.

While voluntary, stakeholders are increasingly expecting South African companies to align with the King IV Code on Corporate Governance, which emphasizes ethical leadership, sustainability, and stakeholder inclusivity. More companies are also publishing comprehensive sustainability reports. In fact, 56% of companies in the Middle East and Africa now reportsustainability-related information.

The Business Case for ESG

Embracing ESG is not just about compliance; it’s a driver for innovation and competitive advantage. Companies with strong ESG performance are more attractive to investors. The Johannesburg Stock Exchange has introduced ESG disclosure guidance, reflecting the growing importance of these factors in investment decisions. ESG practices also help companies anticipate and manage risks related to climate change, resource scarcity, and social unrest, which are particularly relevant in the South African context. In addition, sustainability challenges are driving innovation. For instance, South African tech companies are developing AI-powered solutions for energy management and water conservation, creating new business opportunities while addressing environmental issues.

Challenges and the Way Forward

While progress is being made, challenges remain. These primarily relate to greenwashing concerns, implementation costs (especially for small and medium enterprises), and the skills gap, with the need for more ESG professionals in South Africa becoming more and more evident. Companies and educational institutions should therefore collaborate to develop relevant curricula and training programs.

Conclusion

As South Africa strives for sustainable development and economic growth, ESG principles offer a framework for responsible business practices that benefit both companies and society at large. By embracing ESG, South African businesses can enhance their resilience, attract investment, and contribute to the country’s transformation towards a more equitable and sustainable future.

Disclaimer:

This newsletter does not aim to provide a summary of all legal developments in the environmental, mining and natural resources sectors. For professional legal advice on any particular issue, please contact us.

Rewilding is a concept which has gained popularity recently and involves a broad range of concepts and initiatives.  It can include rehabilitation of degraded land and habitat and presents opportunities to mitigate environmental impacts and then to go further by re-introducing species.  It may even extend to climate change and sustainability initiatives.  Therefore, it’s a very broad concept with huge potential and has even been termed progressive or sustainable conservation.

With its incredible biodiversity and mega-fauna, Africa presents amazing opportunities in this regard.  One such initiative which has been groundbreaking is the rewilding of 2000 southern white rhinos.

The rhino story will be familiar to many who follow African conservation, as these rhinos, the result of a private captive rhino breeding operation, have been looking for a sustainable home for a few years.  

Eventually and mainly as a result of financial stress, “Platinum Rhino”, in the North West Province of South Africa, which held in excess of 2,000 white rhino, was put up for auction on 26 April 2023. Having failed to receive any bids, the rhinos were facing serious risk of poaching and fragmentation, as they may have been sold off incrementally as part of a liquidation process and would have been lost to conservation forever.

African Parks came to the rescue and in September 2023 became the official custodian of 2,000 southern white rhino, with one, clear intent: to rewild these rhinos over the next ten years.

African Parks’ vision for the rhino is “to translocate them to multiple well-managed protected areas across Africa, establishing or supplementing strategic populations, helping to secure the future of the species across Africa.”

Credits and for more information:

www.africanparks.org

Dear Readers

It has been some time since we last communicated and we have decided to restructure the way that we communicate.  We will be doing less of the traditional “newsletter” based content and more theme-based, focused communication.  This will be done both through the Enviro-Byte forum and also via my Linked-In profile.

Our first theme is the fascinating field of conservation.  Conservation and law are inextricably linked as law underpins all conservation.

Fore those readers who have been following our newsletters over the years, you will remember a reference to the iconic wording of the Proclamation of the Kruger National Park (now contained in Schedule 1 to the National Parks Act 57 of 1976):

“From the confluence of the Limpopo River with the Luvuvhu River (Pafuri River) generally southwards along the boundary of the Province of the Transvaal and Mozambique) to the point where the last-named boundary of the is intersected by the right bank of the Komati River …….

Or in respect of the Kgalagadi National Park “From the point where the extension of the western boundary of the farm Unions End …. Intersects the middle of the Nossob River; from there in a southerly direction along the middle of the said river to the point where the extension of the southern boundary of the farm Twee Rivieren crosses the middle of the Nossob River”

Hugely powerful words creating South Africa’s two most iconic conservation areas.

With increasing pressure from competing land uses, not only do we need our national parks to thrive but we also require the involvement of the private sector to identify, fund and sustain other projects to enable the preservation of Africa’s biodiversity.

Why?

Because the conservation of biodiversity is critical to the health of the planet and its socio-economic growth.

This landscape is a complex one but it is also rich with opportunity.  Creative thinking is required to breathe life into these projects and a myriad of different structures and solutions is possible given the complexities of each one.

The African Parks investment in a significant White Rhinoceros breeding population is one example. Due to the sheer size and genetic importance of this super-herd, it has the potential to contribute to the re-population of the species in Africa.

Or the pioneering work being done by the Endangered Wildlife Trust (backed by investors The World Bank and Rand Merchant Bank) in issuing wildlife bonds that offer returns based on endangered species population growth for wild dogs and lions.

Or the re-wilding of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves such as the Waterberg, by dedicated conservationists and the Waterberg Alliance.

While exploring this theme, we will focus on the exciting legal, financial and commercial issues and opportunities associated with the future curatorship of existing biodiversity resources and the development of new projects. In addition, we will highlight some of the unsung heroes, particularly in respect of the smaller reserves, as they often have an interesting legal history and play an important role in biodiversity preservation.

Adam Gunn