MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Judiciary's Contribution to Preventing Protected Area Downgrading, Downsizing, and Degazettement: Mining and Environmental Justice Community of South Africa v MEC for Agriculture, Rural Development Land and Environmental Affairs (1322/2021) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 48 (18 July 2024)

2025· article· en· W4410444879 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexander Paterson

Bibliographic record

VenuePotchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureEnvironmental justiceEnvironmental planningEconomic JusticePolitical scienceGeographyEnvironmental protectionLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreed to by parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2022, commits all countries to ensure that by 2030, 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, coastal and marine areas are effectively and equitably conserved and managed in protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. This is a weighty ambition given current global and domestic coverage statistics, and countries can ill afford to lose existing areas through protected areas downgrading, downsizing and degazettement (PADDD). The concept of PADDD has received growing international attention, with calls to implement an array of measures to prevent and track its prevalence. Within the South African context, studies on PADDD are few and far between, but this does not mean that events of this nature are not present. Efforts to establish a coal mine in the Mabola Protected Environment (MPE) in Mpumalanga provide a perfect example of downgrading and downsizing events in action, and the judiciary has been called upon on numerous occasions to intervene to halt these events. This note considers the most recent of these judicial interventions, namely that in Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network of South Africa v MEC for Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs (1322/2021) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 48 (18 July 2024). It critically traverses the array of review grounds invoked by the applicants to set aside a decision of the relevant provincial minister to remove certain properties situated within the MPE from its borders, to facilitate the establishment of the coal mine. It reflects on several apparent frailties in the court's decision relating to most of these review grounds. It concludes by proposing certain simple legislative reforms to the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003, to improve the regulation of future PADDD events in South Africa, and thereby potentially preclude the necessity of disputes of this nature being brought before the judiciary in the future.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.008
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0360.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePotchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese RegsbladSame topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207