**1. South African Constitution (Section 25 - Property Rights, Section 24 - Environmental Rights):**
* **Section 25 (Property):**
* This section states that "No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property."
* Crucially, "Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application— (a) for a public purpose or in the public interest; and (b) subject to **compensation**, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court."
* The compensation must be "**just and equitable**," reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected. Factors to consider include the current use of the property, the history of its acquisition, improvements made, state investment in the property, and the purpose of the expropriation.
* While the 2024 Expropriation Act (which replaces the 1975 Act) allows for nil compensation in *exceptional* cases (e.g., speculative land, abandoned land, state-owned land not used for its core functions), it generally maintains the principle of "just and equitable" compensation.
* **Application to the farmers:** If the increased flooding amounts to a "deprivation" or "expropriation" of their property rights (i.e., making the land unusable for its current purpose), then the constitutional right to just and equitable compensation would likely apply. The fact that the government and scientists *knew* about the potential for flooding strengthens the argument that affected parties should not bear the full financial burden without redress.
* **Section 24 (Environmental Rights):**
* This section grants everyone the right to "an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being" and to "have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that— (i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation; (ii) promote conservation; and (iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development."
* This section places a duty on the state to protect the environment. The iSimangaliso project's aim to restore the wetland's ecological functioning aligns with this constitutional duty.
* However, the conflict arises when the state's action to fulfill its environmental duty negatively impacts the property rights and livelihoods of individuals. The Constitution aims for an "equitable balance" between environmental protection and socio-economic development, and this often involves considering the impact on affected communities.
**2. National Environmental Management Act (NEMA):**
* NEMA (Act 107 of 1998) is the overarching framework for environmental management in South Africa.
* **Polluter Pays Principle:** NEMA incorporates the "polluter pays" principle, but this typically applies to those causing environmental degradation. In this case, the government's action is *restorative* of an environment previously degraded by human intervention (including the farmers' historical practices and the artificial diversion of the river).
* **Duty of Care:** NEMA places a "duty of care" on those who cause or may cause significant pollution or degradation of the environment.
* **Compensation for Damages:** NEMA does allow for a court to award compensation for monetary loss or damages incurred as a result of an environmental incident, but this usually relates to *harm caused by unlawful activities* or *failure to remediate*.
* **Sustainable Development:** NEMA's core principles emphasize sustainable development, which integrates social, economic, and environmental factors. This implies that environmental protection should not come at an undue and uncompensated cost to the livelihoods of vulnerable communities, especially when the impact is a direct result of a government-led intervention for the greater public good.
* **Public Participation:** NEMA strongly promotes public participation in environmental governance. The fact that the flooding was known implies that proper public consultation and engagement processes, including a robust social impact assessment, should have identified and planned for mitigation or compensation for these impacts.
**3. UNESCO World Heritage Convention:**
* While UNESCO primarily focuses on the "Outstanding Universal Value" of a site and its conservation, it also emphasizes **sustainable management** that considers the social and economic well-being of local communities.
* The World Heritage Convention often encourages "participatory approaches" to management, ensuring that local populations benefit from the site's protection and that their rights are respected.
* While it doesn't directly dictate compensation mechanisms for specific national projects, the spirit of the Convention and best practices in World Heritage site management advocate for mitigating negative impacts on local communities and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing from conservation efforts. The "no-go" commitment by the corporate sector (as per search results) aims to avoid harmful industrial activities in World Heritage sites, implying a high standard of care.
**4. The Umfolozi Sugar Planters Court Case:**
* The court case (Umfolozi Sugar Planters Limited v iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority, 2018) is highly relevant. While the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the farmers' appeal on the grounds that the relief sought had become moot (due to the adoption of the Integrated Management Plan and Estuarine Management Plan), it acknowledged that "back flooding of some of the low lying sugar cane farms might occur as a consequence of not artificially breaching the mouth."
* Crucially, the court found that iSimangaliso's actions were "grounded in and sanctioned by law, including the World Heritage Convention Act." However, the ruling primarily focused on the legality of iSimangaliso's management strategy, not necessarily on whether the farmers were *entitled to compensation* for losses arising from a lawful government action. The case demonstrated the tension between environmental protection and private economic interests.
**Fairness and Compensation:**
Given that the potential for flooding and financial loss was **known and anticipated** by the government and scientists, the prevailing view in South African law, particularly under the Constitution's Section 25, would strongly suggest that it is **not fair** to expect the farmers to suffer significant financial loss *without* some form of "just and equitable" compensation or mitigation.
* **Public Interest vs. Individual Burden:** The restoration of iSimangaliso is undoubtedly in the "public interest" for environmental conservation. However, the Constitution seeks to balance this public interest with the rights of individuals. If the public good requires an action that directly harms a specific group, the principle of "just and equitable" compensation usually dictates that the burden should not fall solely on those individuals.
* **Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and Process Framework (PF):** The PAD itself mentioned that an RPF and PF were prepared for the project because "the actions under Component 1 that might result in resettlement (or related economic displacement, due to involuntary taking of land or, within protected areas, restriction of access to natural resources) will only be determined during project implementation." This indicates an explicit recognition of potential impacts on livelihoods and the need for a framework to address them, which would typically include compensation or livelihood restoration measures.
* **Mitigation and Alternative Livelihoods:** The World Bank's safeguard policies (especially OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement) and good international practice for such projects require that even if land is not formally expropriated, if access to resources or livelihoods is significantly restricted due to a project, measures for compensation or livelihood restoration should be provided. The project's Component 2 ("Promoting conservation compatible local economic and cultural development") was designed to offer alternative economic opportunities, which could be seen as a form of mitigation or indirect compensation.
In summary, while the government has a constitutional duty to protect the environment (including through the iSimangaliso project), this duty must be balanced with the constitutional right to property and the principle of "just and equitable" compensation for deprivation or expropriation. The fact that the financial loss was foreseeable strengthens the argument that a failure to provide compensation or adequate mitigation measures would be unfair and potentially unconstitutional. The ongoing legal challenges and the park authority's continued focus on community economic development suggest that this remains a contentious and evolving area.
No comments:
Post a Comment