ENL4801 EXAM PORTIFOLIO 2025 (Answer Guide) – Due 10 October 2025

ENL4801 EXAM PORTIFOLIO 2025 (Answer Guide) – Due 10 October 2025 VERIFIED AND CERTIFIED ANSWERS. WRITTEN IN REQUIRED FORMAT AND WITHIN GIVEN GUIDELINES. IT IS GOOD TO USE AS A GUIDE AND FOR REFERENCE, NEVER PLAGARIZE. Thank you and success in your academics. UNISA, 2025 Contents Question 1: Critically examine the environmental justice and ethical issues raised by the Xolobeni project 3 Question 2: Assess whether environmental justice principles were upheld or undermined in the Xolobeni case 4 Question 3: Identify and analyse South African policies, regulations and constitutional provisions relevant to the conflict in Xolobeni. To what extent do these frameworks address the tensions between mining, community rights, and environmental protection? 5 Question 4: Discuss the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) most relevant to the Xolobeni case. In your answer, evaluate whether mining in this context aligns with or undermines South Africa’s commitments to the SDGs. 7 Question 5 Key stakeholders, competing interests and power dynamics in the Xolobeni case (20 marks) 9 1) AmaDiba local community (AmaDiba / Accoda / ACC members) 9 2) Xolobeni Empowerment Company (XolCo) / local BEE partner 9 3) Mineral Commodities Ltd (MRC) / Transworld Energy & Minerals (TEM) the mining proponent 9 4) Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) / national mining regulator 10 5) Department of Environmental Affairs / DWEA (later DEA) and environmental statutory bodies 10 6) Legal Resource Centre (LRC) and South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) 10 7) Civil society organisations and conservation NGOs (Sustaining the Wild Coast (SWC), WWF, PondoCROP, international donors) 10 8) Local and traditional authorities (traditional leaders, kingship structures) 11 9) National political actors (Ministers e.g., Buyelwa Sonjica; later Susan Shabangu) 11 10) Courts and independent reviewers (e.g., Holomisa task team / Minerals & Mining Development Board) 11 How these dynamics influenced decision-making and conflict outcomes analysis 11 Short conclusion and implications for decision-making 12 Question 6: Reflection on the trajectory of the Xolobeni case — how events might have unfolded differently if governance systems, public participation, and triple bottom line principles were effectively integrated (20 marks) 12 1. Strengthening governance systems 12 2. Deepening public participation and local consent 13 3. Integrating the triple bottom line (TBL) principles 14 4. Reimagining accountability and transparency 14 5. The hypothetical trajectory under effective integration 15 6. Lessons and forward-looking implications 15 References 17   Question 1: Critically examine the environmental justice and ethical issues raised by the Xolobeni project The Xolobeni Mineral Sands Project presents a complex intersection of environmental justice, ethics, and socio-economic development in South Africa. Environmental justice, in this context, refers to the equitable distribution of environmental benefits and burdens among all citizens, ensuring that no group bears a disproportionate share of environmental harm (Cock, 2022). Ethical concerns arise where the state and corporate entities pursue extractive projects that undermine community rights, ecological integrity, and intergenerational equity. 1. Environmental degradation and community displacement The proposed titanium mining along the Wild Coast threatens a globally unique ecosystem that supports biodiversity and sustains the livelihoods of the AmaDiba community. Mining would lead to irreversible ecological damage, destruction of grazing lands, and contamination of water sources (Gqada, 2011). Such environmental impacts directly contradict ethical stewardship principles, which demand that natural resources be managed for the benefit of both present and future generations. These actions violate the community’s constitutional right under Section 24 of the South African Constitution to a healthy environment. 2. Lack of community participation and consent Ethically, meaningful participation of affected communities is a cornerstone of environmental justice. However, the AmaDiba community’s exclusion from decision-making processes reflected a failure of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) confirmed that community consultation was inadequate and that the majority opposed the mining venture (SAHRC, 2018). This demonstrates procedural injustice where decisions were imposed without respecting local autonomy or indigenous land governance traditions. Such exclusion perpetuates power imbalances between rural communities, the state, and corporations. 3. Socio-economic and cultural impacts Mining threatened to undermine local economic activities, particularly eco-tourism and agriculture, which are sustainable and culturally embedded livelihoods. The potential displacement of communities and destruction of ancestral graves further raised ethical issues about cultural rights and dignity (Mnwana, 2021). The state’s prioritisation of profit-driven extractivism over culturally sustainable development reflects