Section 24 of the constitution and renewable natural resources.

 Greetings and thanx for reading here.

In my last post I said I would discuss section 24 of the constitution, so here we are.... 

Section 24 of the South African Constitution covers our Environmental rights. Section 24 is in  chapter 2, the bill of rights. This section covers both natural folks rights as well as juristic folks rights.

Quote section 24 of the South African  Constitution

 Environment (section 24)

Everyone has 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 ­

prevent pollution and ecological degradation;

promote conservation; and

secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development. 

END QUOTE

There are some serious economic rights, social rights and other rights  that come along as Ryders which are sometimes not that obvious, but that does  mean that they should be ignored but rather that these are special cases that need extra vigilance from the holders of these rights.

In our case here in the Greater St. Lucia Wetlands park and surrounding areas, the economic, social and  Environmental rights are very entertained, and #Section24 of the South African Constitution caters for all these rights, and a few other hidden rights which we will be discussing in more detail within the social media environment within the coming weeks as we slowly start to dismantle the Andrew Zaloumis management erra public perception management STRATEGIES, where the use of natural renewable resources were seen as property of the IWPA and not for public consumption or public utalisaion. 

   if we take a closer look at section 24 in the South African Constitution,  then we may read chapter 2, section 24 (b) iii as "Every one has the right to have the environment protected, for benefit of present and future generations through reasonable legislative measures that secure ecological sustainable development and the use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development 

Now the key here is the the aim, which  is to ensure that local communities have the right to make use of natural resources, while justifiable social development and economic issues are also included as special Ryders.

Here at Nibela these economic and social rights have been violated and erroded by the environmental policies and practices of the Andrew Zaloumis estuary management STRATEGIES as approved and implemented by the ministers instructions through the actions of the IWPA or iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority.

So our beef about section 24 of the South African Constitution is with the minister of environmental affairs, coz this is an environmental issue, where bad faith and poor oversight has been applied.

Basically our economic rights as associated with the trade of the natural renewable resources of lake St Lucia and the St Lucia Estuary systems have been erroded past the point of sustainability, as a result of the  collapse of the biodiversity within the St. Lucia estuary and lake systems. 

This collapse of the natural renewable resources within the Greater St. Lucia Wetlands Park is as a direct result of the poor / bad estuary management strategies of the Andrew Zaloumis management team during their reign of terror as the IWPA MANAGEMENT TEAM 

The current managent team at the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority have rather different views than the past (Andrew Zaloumis) management team at the IWPA. Their attempts to fix the issues around community benificiation are not going un-noticed, but they are very slow, and also rather subtle and in the background.  These attempts to restore community access rights are not very  public, and that needs to change. 

Our collective rights in terms of section 24 of the South African Constitution need to be investigated, and we as citizens of South Need to be vigilant when it comes to economic rights associated with harvesting of natural renewable resources

This is a complicated matter, which is headed for the constitutional court in the not to distant future.

Please comment and share further.

Regards  #Frankie2Socks

 

Biodiversity problems in the iSimangaliso Wetland Park

The current situation within the Greater St. Lucia Wetlands Park is not one that folks want to hear about,  as it is both  depressing and infuriating at the same time.  The main  issue is that the IWPA or iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority have been mandated to manage the iSimangaliso Wetland Park  World Heritage Site, in terms of the WHCA  ( World Heritage Convention Act ) and associated legislations, but have failed to take local communities into consideration, causing many strange problems, with the largest impact being the dramatic collapse of the biodiversity within Lake St. Lucia and the St. Lucia Estuary system.

The knock on impacts of this collapsed biodiversity are quite substantial, and the negative impact on the Umkhanyakude district municipality is growing at an alarming rate as communities no longer have access to the vast renewable resources that sustained them in the past. Expanding Poaching,  excessive harvesting of wild fruits, and generally living off the land in a non sustainable manner are also part  of the impacts associated with the collapse of the biodiversity within the St. Lucia Estuary System and associated waterways within the Umkhanyakude.

The tourism losses that are directly connected to the loss of biodiversity within the St. Lucia Estuary system and surrounding rural areas is substantial, as the boating public along with their friends, family and associates are no longer visiting our region.  The passing trade associated with the boating fraternity is quite substantial, and this really needs to be addressed at 1) National level, 2) Provincial level, 3) district and local municipally level.

The 4U2FISH campaign is in place to address these issues and help government connect the dots between poor biodiversity management within the iSimangaliso Wetland park and poverty on the ground in the Umkhanyakude district municipality.  The fact that local communities are excluded from the many mandated planning procedures within the IWP is of grave concern.  Our collective rights in terms of section 24 of the   South African Constitution are quite extensive and include but are not restricted to :

1) economic rights
2) social rights
3) land access rights
4) access rights to renewable natural resources

These are very important rights that communities have lost due to the manner in which the IWPA administer their mandate to manage the first world heritage site in South Africa. There are many acts and a host of related legislations which mandate how the park should be managed, but the IWPA has acted as if their decisions are outside of the South African laws, and they are not responsible to the South African public for the economic and social devastation  that follows their actions, policies, activities and decisions.

The 4U2FISH campaign has been established to mobilise the public into taking actions to remedy the situation.  This public mobilisation has become essential because the IWPA management policies some how seem to exclude public participation processes that are mandated in terms of various acts and associated legislations with the NEMA or National Environmental Management Act being the true tool that we need to use, in conjunction with SECTION 24 of the South African Constitution as quoted below.

Quote
Environment

Everyone has the right

a. to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and

b. 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.

End quote....

So effectively section 24 \  b \ iii states     

Everyone has the right to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development. 

Now the rights in the bill of rights are not exclusive to natural persons,  and JURISTIC PERSONS also have recourse in terms of these rights.  This implies that the various impacted communities which have lost economic, social and environmental rights as a consequence of the management strategies implemented by the IWPA have recourse in terms of section 24 of the South African constitution.

Please join us in the debate around this issue on our FACE BOOK PAGE

#Frankie2Socks
#4U2FISH
#RestoreStLucia
#HerstelStLucia