Since it is proposed that the concept of leasing in section 65 be replaced with coastal use permits for activities which are yet to be listed, there is no need to keep existing leases alive. The reason being that some activities which are currently governed by leases may not require a permit in terms of the new section 65. An example of this is the use of slipways, for which there is no real need for a permit as they would already have undergone environmental scrutiny through the Environmental Impact Assessment process. The only value therefore in asking for all existing leases, would be to assist the Department in determining which activities currently under lease (in terms of the Sea-Shore Act, 1935 (Act No. 21 of 1935), would need to be listed as requiring a coastal use permit under the new section 65. It is therefore proposed that copies of all existing leases be submitted to the Minister within 24 months. In addition, more specific subsections have been inserted to clearly indicate what process a person must follow when the section comes into effect and whether their lease lapses or whether they must apply for a permit. 46. Amendment to section 96: Transitional provisions relating to unlawful structures The proposed amendments are consequential to the amendment to section 65 of the Act - i.e. the new regime of coastal use permits which replace leases and explains the detailed processes that must be followed by the public. 47. Correction by deleting section 97 A transitional provision based on earlier versions of the Act, which were subsequently changed, was erroneously retained and is creating confusion. Section 97 currently saves activities which were previously listed in a schedule. It was subsequently decided to integrate these activities with the NEMA EIA provisions and this section no longer serves a purpose. 48. Proposed insertion of new section 97A Parliament excluded certain portions of ports from coastal public property prior to the Act commencing in 2009. The exclusion had unintended and undesirable consequences for both Transnet and the Department. Transnet found itself in a worse position after the exclusion, as the ports which were previously coastal pubic property now became state-owned land, placing them in an equally precarious situation regarding their ownership status. From the environmental perspective, an unintended consequence of exclusion of an area of sea and sea-bed from coastal public property meant that the excluded portion of the sea and sea-bed could be privately owned, thereby subverting the principle established in the Act - that the sea and sea- bed cannot be privately owned and is held in trust by the State. It is necessary to nullify that exclusion in the legislation, as section 7 of the Act dealing with coastal public property, now clearly excludes port infrastructure and structures/assets from coastal public property and there is no longer a need for exclusions from coastal public property. It is important to retain the principle that the sea and sea-bed is not capable of ownership and is held in trust by the State. Allowing for exclusion subverts this principle. 49. Amendment of section 101: Short title and commencement