Enhancing the environmental rule of law and the interplay between the disclosure of incriminating information and enforcement

• Citation: 2021 TSAR 631
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2021/i4a1
• Pages: 631-655
• Date: 20 September 2021
• Author: Hall, J.
• Published date: 20 September 2021

[ISSN 0257 – 7747]TSAR 2021 . 4

631

https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2021/i4a1

Enhancing the environmental rule of law

and the interplay between the disclosure of

incriminating information and enforcement

JE NN Y H AL L*

SAMEVATTING

DIE VERSTERKING VAN DIE OPPERGESAG VAN DIE REG MET BETREKKING

TOT DIE OMGEWING EN DIE WISSELWERKING TUSSEN BEKENDMAKING VAN

INKRIMINERENDE INLIGTING EN AFDWINGING

Om gevolg te gee aan die oppergesag van die reg met betrekking tot omgewingswetgewing, wat

noodsaak lik is om die talle wêreldwye omgew ingskrisisse die hoof te bied , moet regerings nakoming

monitor en hand hawing verseker. Voor 1994 het Suid-Afrik a dit nie gedoen nie. Plaaslike wetgewi ng

het nie tred gehou me t internasionale tende nse nie, en selfs waar daa r regulering was, het d ie regering

om ’n aantal redes m in belangstelling da arin getoon om afdwin ging ernstig op te nee m.

Die huidige Suid-Afrikaanse regsraamwerk verteenwoordig dus ’n drastiese verandering van

’n historiese benadering tot omgewingsmonitering en –handhawing wat veel te wense oorgelaat

het. Hierdie nuwe regsraamwerk bied ’n goeie basis vir die uitvoering van die nakomings- en

handhawingsfunksies. Bekendmaking van inligting vorm ’n integrale deel van die nakomings- en

handhawingstelsel. Dit is ’n waardevolle hulpmiddel, aangesien dit die potensiaal het om nie net die

nakomings- en handhawingspogings van die regering meer doeltreffend te maak nie, maar ook om

die onvermydelike beperkings op die regering se vermoëns te bekamp. Dit is veral belangrik in die

konteks van omgewingsoortredings, aangesien inligting van besondere belang is in die konteks van

omgewingsbest uur. In teenstelling met baie ander misdade kan omgewingsoortredings potensieel ’n

negatiewe impak hê o p ’n wye verskeiden heid mense, soos werknemers e n gemeenskappe, ver verby

die fabriekshei ning. Bekendmaking s wat inkrimine rend is, kan egter potensie el teenstrydig wees met

die grondwetli ke regte van beskuldigd es, veral die reg teen self-in kriminasie.

Met hierdie bydra e ontleed die outeur die dr yfvere agter die he rvormde benader ing van die regering

ten opsigte van d ie afdwinging van omgewingswetgew ing. Die outeur ondersoek ook die rol wat d ie

bekendmaking van inkriminerende of potensieel inkriminerende inligting kan speel in verbeterde

en geoptimaliseerde handhawing van omgewingswetgewing ten opsigte van besoedeling asook

afvalbestuur-verwante oortredings deur maatskappye. Sommige van die vrae wat ontstaan uit die

wisselwerking t ussen die omgewingsreg, d ie reg op inligting en die re gte van beskuldigdes, word o ok

oorweeg en bespree k veral ten opsigte van die reg teen selnkr iminering. Suid Afr ikaanse howe het tot

dusver nog nie die geleen theid gehad om uitspraa k te lewer op verskeie van hierdie v rae nie.

Die artikel slu it af met die opmerking dat d ie benadering tot d ie bekendmaking va n inligting waa rde

het, maar dat d aar ook struikelblokke is w anneer omgewingsregte en s trafprosesregteli ke waarborge

almal ter sprake is, wat die mate waartoe daarop staatgemaak kan word effens beperk. Daar word

voorgestel om met die da arstelling van ’n adm inistratiewe boet estelsel sommige van hier die knelpunte

aan te spreek .

1 Introduction

As governments across the world grapple with nd ing consensual approaches

to regulating the unprecedented environmental challenges that we are facing,

they also need to have the appetite and capacity to ensure that environmental

legislation is complied with, or enforced where it is not. Sadly, many do not. In its

Environmental Rule of Law: First Global Assessment Report, the United Nations

*Senior Lecturer, University of Johannesburg.

2021 TSAR 631

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

TSAR 2021 . 4 [ISS N 0257 – 7747]

632 HALL

https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2021/i4a1

Environment Programme notes that: “[t]oo often, implementation and enforcement

of environmental laws and regulations falls far short of what is required to address

environmental challenges”.1 In some cases the reason for this relates to a lack of

capacity. In others, the underlyi ng cause is a lack of political will. In relation to this

the Environmental Rule of Law repor t notes that passing legislation is one challenge,

but that

“the real challenge arises when these laws are implemented through regulations, policies,

and actions that dire ctly affect stakeholders’ livelihood s, l ands, properties, and prot s. Of ten

environme ntal rule of law falters at th is critical junctu re because of a lack of political wil l to stand

behind impleme ntation of the law throug h clear regulations and p olicies that are enforce d equitably

and consistently.”2

Lack of political will was cert ainly the case in South Africa pr ior to the democrat ic

dispensation. Economic, political and institutional factors all played a role in

contributing to a culture of tolerated non-compliance. While highly polluting

parastatals were specically excluded from the regulatory net of many environmental

obligations, countless environmental transgressions in the private sector – which

was regulated – went vir tually unchecked.3

A key reason for this is that dur ing the period of sanctions, government pr ioritised

the generation of foreign currency over the enforcement of serious environmental

contraventions. As a result, many of the most polluting mining and industrial

operations were not held accountable becau se they generated signicant foreig n

currency.4 However, even where indu strial players were not sig nicant economic

contributors, ofcials displayed a reluctance to take hard enforcement measures. The

infamous situation at Thor Chemicals in which mercur y waste processing resulted

in sever al worker deaths and w idespread water cont amination, for example,

revealed not only a chaotic, or absent, approach to t he co-ordination of enforcement

for environmental crimes across the various departments having jurisdiction, but a

lack of enthusiasm for taking ac tion.5 In the rare instances when en forcement action

did take place, it often resulted in absurd ly low nes as is illustrated by the R600

ne which Sappi received for a spill into a watercourse near its plant in 1989 t hat

resulted in the death of approximat ely a 100 tons of sh, as well as other for ms of

animal life, and ravaged the ecosystems of the Elands and Crocodile Rivers in the

Eastern Transvaa l (as it was then).6

Given this context, govern ment’s ongoing environmental law reform process

since 1995 is to be welcomed. It h as signicantly overhauled pre-democr atic

legislation by providi ng both an expanded body of substantive rules as well as

an impressive array of compliance monitoring, administrative enforcement and

criminal enforcement mechanisms that are designed to optimise government’s

ability to secure compliance and en forcement. However, expanding tradit ional

1 UNEP Environmental Rule of Law First Global Assessment Report (2019) vii.

2 UNEP (n 1) 79.

3 Steyn “Industry, pollution and the apartheid state in South Africa” 2008 History Teaching Review

Yearbook 67 70.

4 Steyn “The lingering environmental impact of repressive governance: the environmental legacy of the

apartheid-era for the new South Africa” 2005 Globalizations 391.

5 See Butler “Lessons from Thor Chemicals: the links between health, safety and environment” in

Bethlehem and Goldblatt (eds) The Bottom Line Industry and Environment in South Africa (1991)

194-212 for a fuller discussion on this issue.

6 Koch, Cooper and Coetzee Water, Waste and Wildlife The Politics of Ecology in South Africa (1990)

10; Steyn (n 3) 67.

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd