One is tempted to call it Pondoland’s long walk for freedom. In essence, it was a coming together of diverse people and communities of the ‘Rainbow Nation’ to express their concern about proposals to open cast mine, for titanium, the coastal dunes of this pristine environment. All expressed apprehension that the mining proposal is an environmentally damaging type of development that none of them wanted, and that none could see much benefit from for their communities.

Eighteen kilometers is a long way to walk on beach sand, but the old and the young, the fit and the ‘could be fitter’, the poor and the better off, joined together in mutual comradeship and peace in an eloquent democratic protest to express support for development that shares prosperity amongst poor communities while keeping the environment intact.

The elders, headmen and chiefs of the five communities who live upon the land to be mined, and who therefore will be most immediately affected by the mining, expressed their concerns most eloquently. They talked of how the forefathers of their forefathers are buried in the earth there; of generational links to the land which the mining will rip apart; of the dependency of their culture and their lifestyle on an undamaged environment, with grass on which their livestock can feed, and healthy soil in which to grow their crops; of how they wish to pass their land and culture intact to future generations. They spoke with pride of a culture with deep connections and respect for the landscape, which was now threatened by a ‘foreign invasion’ from a foreign mining company. They spoke about how poverty prevented them from going to Pretoria in protest so they could have their voices heard, unlike those wealthier ones whose riches enable them to lobby for the mining in the corridors of power.
So it was also a walk about democracy; about the rights of common people and communities to be able to have a voice in the sort of future they want for themselves and their children.

Ironically, these communities managed to survive the worst ravages of the cultural and social breakdown of apartheid and they managed to survive the manipulations of the colonial era which would divest them of the power to choice over their land. Now, in the era of so called freedom, these communities face the greatest challenge yet in the form of a foreign invader who comes to exploit them in the name of ‘economic development’ and ‘poverty relief’, and with decisions made by far away politicians who will never have to live with the immediate consequences of those decisions. Those in the corridors of power who support such environmentally and socially destructive development as the proposed mining favour the foreign cash that the exports of minerals earns, which fills the coffers of GDP and makes the nation’s economy look good. But what those who hold GDP as hallowed neglect to mention, is that GDP does not measure how wealth is distributed, nor does it measure many of the negative costs that are unaccounted for in economic reckoning. Study after study shows that increased GDP does not necessarily result in poverty relief, and in many cases GDP is merely a reflection of increased wealth in some sectors, not necessarily a better quality of life across the board. In many cases, even when GDP is increasing, levels of poverty are also increasing if the wealth reflected by GDP is only going to a few.

Also, as the United Nations Millennium EcoAssessment report states, ‘the degradation of ecosystem services represents loss of a capital asset’, and points out that when the loss of natural capital through unsustainable use is factored into GDP, many countries that show a positive growth in GDP are actually experiencing a nett loss of capital. The impacts of loss of natural capital are felt most keenly and immediately by those with a subsistence way of life whose livelihoods depend most heavily on healthy natural systems.

The common people and elders of the Wild Coast Walk recognized this. They recognized that there can be no future prosperity for all unless there is a respectful use for the environment that upholds us all. They recognize that the mining might bring some wealth to some, but in all likelihood will bring greater poverty to many, and great social and environmental upheaval. They see that poverty relief lies in finding ways of using the resources of the earth with deference and wisdom, so that those natural systems that uphold human life are not destroyed but bring shared benefits to all.

It is a theme that is being repeated by common people in many, many areas of the world who are tired of environmentally exploitative practices that occur in the name of development and economic progress, but in reality leave locals and local environments worse off, while a few make a handsome profit out of the deal.
If authorities continue to take a short –sighted economic view ignores the rights of common people to have a voice in the future they would like to see, and the dependency of the well being of humanity on healthy functioning eco-systems, they do so at their peril.

Val Payn is a founder member of Sustaining the Wild Coast. She writes this in her personal capacity.

Posted on July 30th, 2008 by Louis
Filed under: Related Info | 2 Comments »

July 22, 2008 Edition 1

Tony Carnie

HUNDREDS of people from villages in Pondoland and several towns on the KwaZulu-Natal coast staged a protest march with a difference at the weekend to oppose plans to mine the sand dunes along the Wild Coast.

Instead of marching to the city hall or Pretoria, the protesters spent their Sunday morning on a leisurely picnic walk along an unspoiled stretch of coastline.

Carrying placards declaring, “No to mining” and “Yes to ecotourism”, many of the protesters expressed opposition to an Australian company’s plan to mine the sand dunes for heavy minerals, in conjunction with a local empowerment group.

John Clarke, a social worker acting for locals in the Xolobeni, Mnyameni, Sigidi, Mtentu and Mphahlane areas, estimated that about 1 000 residents of the South Coast had gathered at the Wild Coast Casino and walked 2km to the mouth of the Mzamba River.

About 200 of them had crossed the river and walked a further 7km to Mnyameni River, about midway along the 22km stretch of coastline that has been earmarked for mining by the Australian group, Mineral Resource Commodities. They were joined by several hundred residents from the affected communities.

Two months ago, a rival group of community members and leaders travelled to Pretoria to urge the minerals and energy and transport departments to authorise the mining project, as well as the N2 Wild Coast toll road proposal.

Posted on July 28th, 2008 by Louis
Filed under: Newspaper and Media | 2 Comments »

Posted on July 8th, 2008 by Louis
Filed under: Articles | No Comments »

By John Clarke. Sustaining the Wild Coast

Holiday makers and South Coast Residents have been invited to join a Spring Tide Beach March on Sunday 20th July from the Wild Coast Sun resort to Nyameni Estuary, to show their solidarity with the five communities of the Amadiba Tribal Area on the Pondoland Wild Coast who are vehemently opposed the dune mining venture.
For the benefit of those eager to join the march, Sustaining the Wild Coast social worker John Clarke explains what has happened since Australian mining exploration company, MRC Ltd, submitted a Mining License Application over a year ago to the Department of Minerals and Energy, seeking permission to remove approximately 346 million tons of non-renewable mineral resources from rich deposits of heavy minerals found in coastal dunes along a 22 km stretch between the Wild Coast Sun resort and the Mkambati Nature Reserve.

Two years ago the MRC Ltd website spoke of the Xolobeni Mineral Sands venture as “the catalyst for socio-economic development of the impoverished area” and claimed “unanimous support” from the municipal authorities, local residents and even King and Queen of the AmaPondo. It also claimed to be fully supportive of eco-tourism development, maintaining that its mining operations would in fact “rehabilitate the degraded dunes” and stem the silting up of the estuaries “due to poor agricultural practices”.

When the Mining Rights Application was submitted on 30 March last year, MRC proclaimed it a “milestone”. Its share price reached an all time high of 36c, but this was quickly followed by a steady decline as institutional investors started having second thoughts after it became clear that MRC was grossly exaggerating the merits and appeal of the venture, and as media reports began to expose the manipulation, dishonesty and intimidation by mining company employees in their efforts to obtain the manipulated consent of the local residents for the mining scheme.

The MRC share price is currently hovering at around 14c, with the only recent significant trade coming from the purchase of 200 000 shares by Gregory Steemson – who happens to be a non-executive director of MRC, and therefore obliged to disclose personal trade in company shares. The above chart shows MRC’s share price and volumes movement since April 2005 to the present.

DME imposed extremely tight deadlines for the completion of the Environmental Impact Assessment

Report (EIA) and the formulation of a satisfactory Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for mitigating the negative impact of the envisaged 22 year open cast dune mining operation, known as the Xolobeni Mineral Sands venture. Effective processes for meaningful Public Participation were therefore seriously constrained, as the Environmental Consultants, GCS (Pty) Ltd, worked to complete their work before 21st December 2007. It was expected that DME would announce their decision in early January 2008. Contrary to expectations, no announcement was made then, and at the time of writing (1 July 2008) DME was still non-committal.
The following facts help contextualise the current state of affairs.
· In response to a complaint lodged last July by local residents alleging that seven of the fundamental human rights enshrined in the South African Constitution had been violated by the mining company and its supporters, the SA Human Rights Commission concluded in a report released in November 2007 that DME and DEAT “were not on the same page with respect to the proposed development”, and that the “overwhelming majority” of the approximately 3000 directly affected local residents “were opposed to the venture”.
· The HRC asked for documentation from these departments, as well as from the Department of Land Affairs, to convince them that all relevant authorities had been in full compliance with the relevant statutes: the Mineral and Petroleum Resources’ Development Act (MPDRA), the National Environmental Managment Act (NEMA), and the Interim Protection of Indigenous Land Rights Act (IPILRA). The departments only responded after the HRC was forced to issue the respective ministers with a subpoena compelling them to comply.
· The three departments eventually complied on 20th April 2008, hours before the ministerial subpoena hearing was due to start. The hearing was adjourned to give the HRC time to study the 11th hour submission by DME. The SAHRC refused our request for access to the documentation submitted by the relevant departments, and it is therefore not known what the departments are claiming with respect to compliance with legislation.
· Shortly before the HRC Ministerial Subpoena hearing, an application was made under the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), for a copy of DEAT’s evaluation of the EIA/EMP reports, which it had compiled as a summation of comments received from a range of environmental and tourism specialist officials employed in government service at both the Eastern Cape Provincial and the National level. The DEAT report confirmed that a major contradiction existed between DEAT and DME interests, with DEAT advising that “The mining is a short-term economic activity with long-term negative impacts whereas the ecotourism in the area has an unlimited life span. One of the economic activities of the area may not impact negatively on other sustainable activities in the area” and concluding with a strong recommendation that the mining license should not be awarded, given available information.
· It subsequently emerged that the DEAT evaluation report was not in fact submitted to DME before the deadline of 21st December 2007 due to “an administrative error that occurred during the festive season, and could in all likelihood be attributed to the fact that we were at the time functioning on a skeleton structure”, according to the Acting DG at the time, Ms Nosipho Jezile (now recently confirmed as DG of DEAT).
· After being questioned by opposition spokesperson on Environmental Affairs Gareth Morgan, the Ms Jezile apologised for this, and assured parliament that “failure to submit on time was due to an administrative error. Whilst the response was signed by the Acting Chief Director: Environmental Impact Management and uploaded on the departmental electronic document management system on 20 December 2007 for the Director General’s consideration, senior management was not alerted to the urgency of the matter due to staff being away over the festive season. Follow-up was only made after the due date.
In light of previous refusal by the DME to extend time frames or to accept late comments, the comments were only submitted to DME in March after verbal agreement was reached with the DME in this regard.
Corrective measures have however been put in place to prevent such an error from re-occurring.”

What next?
It is rumoured that DME are about to announce their decision this week. If it is positive, not only will it enable SWC and the Amadiba Crisis Committee to finally proceed with the planned court action to convince the High Court to set aside the decision, but perhaps it will also explain why MRC director Gregory Steemson was so eager to buy 200,000 shares at rock bottom prices, hoping for an immediate surge in the share price when the announcement is made.

It is also rumoured that DME have told MRC that they will only approve the application on condition that the block between Sikombe and Kwanyana estuaries is excluded, – effectively halving the area to be mined – and only if MRC ensures more local beneficiation, (i.e. a smelter).

If this information is correct, it suggests that DME may be looking to find a compromise in response to DEAT’s strong objections, notably to the perceived threats to the Mkambati and Mntentu eco-tourism activities.

Moreover, it is likely that by having DME insist that MRC also include the construction of a smelter in the Eastern Cape in their plans (as originally envisaged), the financial feasibility of the controversial proposal to construct a new high speed Toll Road along the coast will be enhanced. Trucking the concentrate to a site in the Eastern Cape (with East London the most likely) will lead to a mutually reinforcing synergy between the interests of the construction, trucking and mining interests.

For such corporate enterprises sustainability means the continuing financial and commercial sustainability, by maximising the profitable return on investment as quickly as possible.

In contrast Sustaining the Wild Coast pleads for a far sighted vision that, while recognising the advantages of a system of free markets, seeks to optimise benefits to all stakeholders in a restorative economy that serves life, rather than the reverse.

“Sustainability is an economic state where the demands placed upon the environment by people and commerce can be met without reducing the capacity of the environment to provide for future generations. It can also be expressed in the simple terms of an economic golden rule for the restorative economy: Leave the world better than you found it, take no more than you need, try not to harm life or the environment, make amends if you do.”

Paul Hawken, The Ecology of Commerce

Posted on July 2nd, 2008 by Louis
Filed under: Newspaper and Media | No Comments »