(a) the grant of rights of occupation and the allocation of sites within the coastal conservation
area by individual chiefs, headmen to private individuals which result in effect to a disposal
of the land in question for a relatively small consideration;
(b) the construction of shacks, dwellings and other structures on such sites aforesaid resulting in
environmental degradation and detracting from the aesthetic qualities of the coastal
conservation zone;
(c) the construction of roads, pathways and tracks along cliff edges through forests and other
environmentally sensitive areas causing permanent damage to such areas and which again
detract from the environmentally aesthetic qualities of the coastal conservation zone;
(d) the insensitive and unsustainable exploitation of the resources in such areas.
These practices occur along and within almost the entire Transkeian coastal conservation zone
established in terms of the Decree. In some instances in return for the allocation of a site to a
particular individual, the headman involved was paid an amount in the order of approximately
R200 together with a bottle of brandy. Neither chiefs nor headmen have authority to allocate
sites.
First respondent admits all these averments.
Applicants have set out in great detail specific instances of such abuses, which have been and are
occurring within areas falling with in the coastal conservation zones. The abuses are graphically
illustrated in the photographs annexed both to the founding affidavit and to the replying affidavit
attested to by third applicant, Mr. Mac Robert. The destruction of natural vegetation; of
indigenous bush; of coastal dunes and forest; and of mangrove areas, in order to clear the way for
construction to take place, is clearly depicted. It is clear therefore and this is not denied by the
respondents that considerable and irreversible environmental degradation of the Transkei coast
with in the coastal conservation zone has been and was occurring at the time of the institution of
these proceedings on 7 th September 1995 in blatant contravention of the provisions of S. 39 of
the decree.
Second applicant avers in his affidavit that he has been both personally and in his capacity as
conservation director of first applicant. Closely associated with and interested in the
environmental and nature conservation priorities along the wild coast for more than 20 years. He
was the chief architect of a report published by first applicant during April 1977 at the request of
the Transkei government in which a preliminary survey of the wild coast was undertaken order to
assist that government with its development plans. During 1992 first applicant was retained by
then Transkei government to compile a survey of Transkei forests, including all the coastal
forests, and second applicant was again involved in the publication thereof.
Because of the concern of the applicants at the unabated environmental degradation observed by
them, they together with certain others instructed their attorneys to address a letter on 16 th May
1995 to inter alia first, second and third respondents in which attention was drawn to the unlawful
practices which were occurring and in which the respondents were requested to take the requisite
action in order to put a halt to such practices. On 17 th May 1995 fourth applicant, Mr. Taylor and
his attorney Mr. Ridl, attended a meeting at Bisho with third respondent, Minister Delport at
which inter alia third respondent indicated that he wished to cooperate with the efforts made by
applicants to halt the unlawful practices but that he had no success since taking office in
preventing them. It was agreed that Mr.Ridl would prepare a memorandum for third respondent,
detailing the law applicable and setting out the steps which could be taken by him. Such a
memorandum was duly prepared and delivered to third respondent. Mr. Ridl referred there in
specifically to s 39 of the Decree and urged inter alia that criminal prosecutions should be
instituted with out delay against identified offenders.