, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE ONLY
QUESTION 1
1.1. Consider Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs. Provide a
detailed example of how environmental deterioration or environmental damage has affected
South Africa. In your answer, discuss the legal response to that environmental harm. Use the
case law to substantiate your answer.
Detailed Example of Environmental Harm and the Legal Response: The Earthlife Africa Case
A powerful example of environmental deterioration in South Africa, and the legal response to it, is
the case of Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others.¹
The Environmental Harm
The environmental harm at issue was the potential granting of environmental authorisation for the
construction of a new coal-fired power station, the Thabametsi project. The harm identified was the
project's significant contribution to climate change through its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.²
The court recognised that climate change impacts are not merely an abstract global concern but have
specific, tangible consequences for South Africa. These include changing rainfall patterns affecting
water resources, threats to crop production and livestock, increased insect-borne diseases, reduced
forestry plantations, rising sea levels threatening coastal zones, and negative implications for
fisheries and biodiversity.³
The Legal Response
The legal response took the form of a judicial review application brought by Earthlife Africa
Johannesburg, an environmental non-governmental organisation. The applicant challenged the
Minister of Environmental Affairs' decision to dismiss its internal appeal against the environmental
authorisation granted by the Department of Environmental Affairs.⁴
The central legal argument was that the authorisation was unlawful because the decision-maker
failed to consider the project's climate change impacts. The applicant contended that such impacts
constitute a "relevant factor" that must be considered under section 24O(1) of the National
Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA).⁵
The Court's Ruling
The North Gauteng High Court handed down its ruling on 8 March 2017 and agreed with the
applicant.⁶ The court held that a plain reading of section 24O(1) of NEMA confirms that climate
change impacts are indeed relevant factors that must be considered. The injunction to consider "any
pollution, environmental impacts or environmental degradation" logically expects consideration of
climate change.⁷
¹ LCP4805 Study Guide, 97.
² LCP4805 Study Guide, 97.
³ LCP4805 Study Guide, 94-95.
⁴ LCP4805 Study Guide, 97.
⁵ LCP4805 Study Guide, 97.
⁶ LCP4805 Study Guide, 97.
⁷ LCP4805 Study Guide, 98.
QUESTION 1
1.1. Consider Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs. Provide a
detailed example of how environmental deterioration or environmental damage has affected
South Africa. In your answer, discuss the legal response to that environmental harm. Use the
case law to substantiate your answer.
Detailed Example of Environmental Harm and the Legal Response: The Earthlife Africa Case
A powerful example of environmental deterioration in South Africa, and the legal response to it, is
the case of Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others.¹
The Environmental Harm
The environmental harm at issue was the potential granting of environmental authorisation for the
construction of a new coal-fired power station, the Thabametsi project. The harm identified was the
project's significant contribution to climate change through its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.²
The court recognised that climate change impacts are not merely an abstract global concern but have
specific, tangible consequences for South Africa. These include changing rainfall patterns affecting
water resources, threats to crop production and livestock, increased insect-borne diseases, reduced
forestry plantations, rising sea levels threatening coastal zones, and negative implications for
fisheries and biodiversity.³
The Legal Response
The legal response took the form of a judicial review application brought by Earthlife Africa
Johannesburg, an environmental non-governmental organisation. The applicant challenged the
Minister of Environmental Affairs' decision to dismiss its internal appeal against the environmental
authorisation granted by the Department of Environmental Affairs.⁴
The central legal argument was that the authorisation was unlawful because the decision-maker
failed to consider the project's climate change impacts. The applicant contended that such impacts
constitute a "relevant factor" that must be considered under section 24O(1) of the National
Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA).⁵
The Court's Ruling
The North Gauteng High Court handed down its ruling on 8 March 2017 and agreed with the
applicant.⁶ The court held that a plain reading of section 24O(1) of NEMA confirms that climate
change impacts are indeed relevant factors that must be considered. The injunction to consider "any
pollution, environmental impacts or environmental degradation" logically expects consideration of
climate change.⁷
¹ LCP4805 Study Guide, 97.
² LCP4805 Study Guide, 97.
³ LCP4805 Study Guide, 94-95.
⁴ LCP4805 Study Guide, 97.
⁵ LCP4805 Study Guide, 97.
⁶ LCP4805 Study Guide, 97.
⁷ LCP4805 Study Guide, 98.
