Flood of Objections to Wild Coast Toll Road

An unprecedented flood of thousands of objections has poured in to the consultants tasked with writing the final Report on the Wild Coast Toll Road EIA, despite holiday season timing for public comment.
The submissions have come from individuals, communities, businesses,
environmental organisations and civil society groups, while in Durban, where road users are protesting extra toll booths, local government have joined the chorus.
Many of the comments have described the EIAR as ‘fatally flawed” in many ways, but particularly in its lack of compliance with required legal standards and adherence to public participation norms.
It also
* misleadingly characterises the project as a regional social development initiative
* misleadingly assesses the benefits of secondary development
* fails to assess socio-economic impacts
* fails to assess the cumulative effects of mining and the toll road\
* demonstrates inadequate consultation with IAPs.
Specialist studies into relocation, land claims and sacred sites also fall short.
salaamu
Lylie Musgrave
Kibao Communications
On behalf of Sustaining the Wild Coast
tel: 27 31 2613406
fax 27 31 2616232
mobile: 072 2970974
email: kibao@iafrica.com
Full transcripts of comments are available on www.swc.org.za

Click here to read more.

i am a geology student and think that tha wild caost should be mined for the bennefit of the community as it will gain skille and obs to provide for their famalies.

Dear Siyamthemba

Let us look at a bigger picture here. I’m one of the
many local people who are opposed to mining the Wild Coast. Ndikhulele
kulandawo kuthiwa izombiwa, yaye ndiyayiqonda indlala esinayo kwilali
zethu. Kunjalo ndithi mining is not an option. WHY?

The mining in its present format is not going to benefit the people of
Xolobeni. There is the so called XOLCO a BEE company that is
theoretically said to represent the people of XOLOBENI. The people of
XOLOBENi are being offered 26% shares in the venture, for which they are
required to pay about R120 milion. because people of Xolobeni do not have
the money to pay for shares the mining company is offering them a loan.
The lifetime of the mine is 22 years. During the first ten years the BEE
company will not be making any income, because they will be using all
their income to pay back the loan. Then on the 11th year they will start
seeing some benefits. Is this ok by your terms? people will be losing
grazing land and cropland and water on thier land, but re required to pay
for mining of their own land. Is this fair trade? Why should Xolobeni
people pay people to mine their land? The total income to be generated by
the mine is R11 billion. The total local income by the BEE comapany will
be about R500 million. the government will make about R4 billion in tax.
is this benefiting local people.

As for skills you area talking about; the mining process as you might
know as a geologist is highly mechanised and would require educated
people. At Xolobeni only 0.02 people have matric. there is even truck
drivers to deliver the minerals to the smelter. it is therefore very clear
that there will be less than 100 local people employed as security guards
or what? The engineers will be coming from outside. what skills are you
talking about?

It is great that local people are opposed to mining. I would support any
development that would benefit the local people directly.

regards

Sinegugu

I am a tourism lecturer and this topic was discussed with my second year students. It is amazing how much our students are aware of the need to sustain our environment. What is not clear here is how strong is the power of the community? Does the community really have the last say? Those who support the mining should understand that jobs come and go, but once the environment has been destroyed , there is no second chance.

This is a very difficult question with many political and legal levels,and
part of the reason why the mining rights application has caused such
controversy.

Legally, the land in question is not owned by the communities who live
on the land, although they have lived there for many, many generations. It
is communal land held in trust by the Department of Land Affairs on behalf
of the communities and technically therefore, the Department of Land
Affairs (State) holds the ‘custodinainship/ title’ of the land. >
Any decision that the Dept Land Affairs makes about the land is
supposed to be made only after full consultation of the communities who reside upon
the land.

The area falls under the municipal jurisdiction of the OR Tambo
Municipality, which holds the ‘economic power’ of the area, in that
state funds for regional development are directed through local
municipalities, and ‘development’ projects such as road infrastructure/ provision of
electricity etc are controlled from municipal level. Some areas inland
in the municipal area are thought to be in favour of the mining, because
it will obviously not directly affect them ( they do not live on the land
to be mined) and they see benefits in terms of mining revenue’s/ job
opportunities for themselves, but of course mining will mean that those communities living on the mined land will loose many of the benefits they currently get from the land so it will have huge negative impacts on those communities who live on area earmarked for mining.

Although OR Tambo municipality is the means through which state
development is driven, many of the local rural communties still feel more
comfortable with, and have a allegiance to, traditional methods of consultation
where the local chiefs are seen to be the custodonians of communal and
tribal authority. However, in Eastern Cape, unlike Kwazulu Natal, the local
chiefs have no legal title or custodonianship over communal land. ( In KZN
the local chiefs have legal power as custodonians of communal land and
therefore no decisions can be taken about land use without local chiefs
permission). One therefore has a situtation in E Cape where the preferred
historical method of decision making of many traditional rural communities ( ie
by traditional tribal council) is undermined by provincial and state
ordance that gives no recognition to the preferred communal decision making
processes, but gives these powers to municipal and goverment officials
who often do not even come from the local area.

This means that the system becomes highly open to abuse. Although in
theory decisions about land use are meant to be made with the full
consultation and approval of communities, in reality this does not always happen in an unbiased, totally open manner conducive to free public participation
and democratic decision making processes. Part of the reason being that
communities are not always given unbiased/ objective information about
various projects from which they can make an informed, educated
decision. A controversy about the EIA public participation process is that project
proposers ( eg mining company) are required to hire and pay for the
EIA consultants, so, although EIA consultants are meant to be objective,
the fact that they are employed/ paid for by project proposers raises
questions about the extent to which EIA consultants are able to operate in a
totally neutral, objective manner. ( If EIA consultants gave results that
conflicted with too many project proposals they would probably soon find
themselves unemployed!)

The system leaves all sorts of leeway for various parties to manipulate
the situation in various ways, or for correct processes not to happen due
to incompetent/ inefficeient public servants tasked with overseeing the
process. Alleged contraventions and neglect of various of these is why
the HRCommission is now being called to adjudicate the matter. The issue
opens up many questions about human rights and environmental rights as
enshrined in the constitution, state interventions, and the way public processes
of decision making are conducted and organised, and the rights of communal
land dwellers.

It would seem that the current political setup and land rights issue
undermines the ability of communal land dwellers to determine the
future of the land that they have been occupying for centuries, this in
contravention of constitutional rights to self detemination, free information and
expression, education, and other basic human and environmental rights.
Because communities lives are closely intertwined with land use, a
change in land use will have profound impacts on the social
co-hesion, traditions, economies and cultures of Wild Coast
Communities.

Hopes this gives some understanding of the complexity of the
situation. From SWC side, it would be very interesting for SWC if tourism
students could be set a project/ assigment to suggest ways to ‘kick start’
tourism in the Wild Coast region in a way that was conducive to promoting local
communal land rights, local social upliftment and participation, and
conservation. We would be very interested to hear any idea’s along
these lines.

Sustaining the Wild Coast (SWC) wish to lodge a strong objection to the TEM/ MRC/ Xolco proposal to mine dunes along the Wild Coast.

Our opinion is based on the following:-

SWC do not believe this project complies with the notion of sustainable development, nor do we believe it is in the best economic or social development interests of the region.

SWC believes there are serious flaws in the public participation process due to incomplete studies and insufficient data, which, given the unrealistic time frames of the project, compromise the public’s access to relevant information and the public ability to make informed comment about the project prior to the Record of Decision.

The situation calls for the precautionary principle to be applied, as the mining will take place within the heart of the Pondoland Centre of Endemism, an internationally recognised botanical hotspot which has been identified as a key area in meeting South Africa’s international obligations to conserve biodiversity as determined by the Bonn Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The Wild Coast region has been identified as a conservation area of national and regional significance by both DEAT and DEDEA, and all local and regional planning initiatives have taken this into account. It is questionable how the mining falls in line with these? The negative environmental and social impacts of the mining could jeopardize such regional development plans.

It is difficult to determine how this project fits into national and regional planning initiatives when the South African government has recognised that sustainable development is a key component in its integrated national framework on responsible economic and social development.
The definition of sustainable development (“meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”) acknowledges that for development to be sustainable, it cannot take place at the expense of future generations well -being. Underpinning the notion of sustainability is the recognition that social, economic and ecological needs are interdependent and that any deterioration in any one of these ultimately leads to deterioration in the others.
The EIA is certainly not clear whether the benefits of mining will outweigh the negative impacts, and the high environmental impacts, even with mitigations, are likely to see a significant deterioration in the eco-system functioning of the area which, given the interdependency of ecological, social and economic spheres, could have a negative domino affect on the social and economic spheres.

SWC are extremely concerned that several key legislative issues are not resolved, which affect authorisations of the project.

SWC are extremely concerned that several key infrastructural issues are not resolved, including electricity supply, road infrastructure, and water reserves. Without these being resolved the mine is inoperable, which amounts to a fatal flaw in the planning domain and hence in the EIA.

From a study of the specialist reports in the Xolobeni Mining EIA, and the mitigation measures, it is extremely difficult to see how the mitigation measures outlined in the report meet the stated objectives of the EIA to ‘ensure satisfactory environmental (social, economic and biophysical) management of the mining area and the potential cumulative effects on the surrounding environment.’

DETAILED COMMENTS
1 – Bankable Feasibility Study not undertaken
· Without a bankable feasibility study how can the economic and socio –economic projections of the mine be adequately assessed?

2 -Lack of planning detail
· Many planning details relating to the mining operation have not been finalized or are inadequate due to insufficient data, conflicting data or lack of planning detail. These include socio –economic policies, internal road networks, issues around compensation for loss of land use, water extraction and water reserves, proven rehabilitation, upgrading of local infrastructure to cope with traffic flows, ability of local and regional electricity network to cope with increased demand, issues of compensation and proven rehabilitation.
· The lack of planning is dismissed with the flippant suggestion that these will be determined once the mining rights application is granted. Surely the purpose of an EIA is to determine the overall impacts of a project? With so many key details of the project not finalized, the draft EIA is seriously incomplete. To expect informed public comment at this stage, with no further public input allowed before the ROD, is a serious flaw.

3 -Lack of data
· The majority of specialist studies of the Xolobeni mining EIA acknowledge a huge lack of information about many aspects of the region, including how the various eco-systems function and relate to each other. Many of the specialist studies indicate that more data and research is needed for any definite conclusions to be drawn about the impacts of mining.
· Given the interdependence of eco-system functioning, and given the lack of any objectively assessed field trials into the success of rehabilitation, and the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of many of the mitigation measures, any mitigation measures are likely to contain a very large margin for error.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
4 -Large ecological cost
· The EIA shows that the mining will come at a huge environmental cost, even if mitigating measures are strictly applied and enforced.
· Many of the stated objectives of the EIA operate under an assumption that rehabilitation is a given and is entirely possible, and mitigations are based on this assumption. Without proven rehabilitation, a number of the objectives of the EIA cannot be met, even with mitigation measures. However, insufficient knowledge about the vegetation and interdependence of ecological systems in the area mean that the effectiveness of rehabilitation cannot be wholly known without further studies. Assumptions about the possibility of rehabilitation are gathered from a field study in Australia. It is questionable, given the unique ecology of the Pondoland centre, and the unknowns about the endemic system functioning, whether data from Australia can be applied to the Pondoland region without on site field trials.
· Mitigation measures that rely on an assumption that rehabilitation will be effective include erosion control, long term topographic and visual impacts, impact on vegetation and aesthetics, long term impacts on grazing and eco –tourism, dust control, long term effects on estuaries etc.

5 -Soils rehabilitation
· how is this assured, given the lack of field trials for rehabilitation, the unique geophysical structure of the area, and unknowns such as interdependence of eco-system functioning. Lack of data about germination phases of endemic species could retard rehabilitation of indigenous vegetation or reseeding.

6 -Erosion control and soil degradation–
· no field studies undertaken about practical implementation of rehabilitation measures therefore how can this be assured. Introducing alien vegetation into the area in an effort to control erosion, given the lack of data about many aspects of the area could have unforeseen consequences on biodiversity and natural flora. Given the unknowns about propagation needs of endemic species, changing the structure of soil e.g. by adding artificial fertiliser, could impact on endemic vegetation rehabilitation.
· Effectiveness of mitigations relying on rehabilitation of indigenous vegetation is therefore based on assumptions, rather than on proven fact.

7 -Fauna and flora
· Not enough is known about the propagation/ growth requirements of a number of floral endemics for a nursery to guarantee survival without further research. Issues raised in the ppp process about unknowns e.g. insect pollination of endemics and inter-dependency of systems etc have not been addressed in the EIA , and without this data, stated mitigations about the effectiveness of nurseries to propagate endemics etc are no more than guesswork.
· There are no specialist studies to investigate invertebrates or amphibians, or the role these play in the eco-system which amounts to a huge gap in data. Insects often play a key role in plant regeneration, and in an area of high plant endemism one could find a symbiotic inter-dependency between endemic plants and endemic invertebrates.
· It is of grave concern that so many red data species of fauna, flora , birds and fish are likely to be affected ( 15 bird, 5 mammal, 2 fish, 12 plant) How are impacts on red data fauna species going to be mitigated?
· No follow through on relocation of red data species i.e. if red data species are ‘captured’ as a mitigation measure, where are they going to be relocated to, what will be done with captured creatures? What impacts will removal of fauna have on eco-system functioning? It is of grave concern that so little thought seems to have been given about this aspect. Many species of fauna ( and flora) are entirely dependent upon (and adapted to) the environment in which they occur, and destruction of that environment is liable to promote species decline.
· Who is going to police/ enforce mitigation measures aimed at control of hunting fires etc, e.g. banning mining workers from hunting/ access to dune forests? This sounds good in theory, but what planning policies have been put in place to enforce or ensure these?

8 -Wetlands
· Mitigations rely on re-vegetation with suitable indigenous plants to control dust and sediment blow off/ run off, but rehabilitation of indigenous vegetation is not proven in field studies, therefore this mitigation is only an assumption.
· There is every likelihood that the change in groundwater levels due to mining activities will impact on geomorphology and aquifers, and hence on wetlands and other systems connected to groundwater distribution. Extraction/ pumping of groundwater could therefore have far reaching impacts on the viability of eco-systems in the region and may have possible impacts on vegetation distribution patterns and on ground and surface water patterns outside of the mining area. This issue has not been investigated in studies.

9 -Estuaries
· Mitigations rely to a large extent on possibility of successful rehabilitation of indigenous vegetation which is not proven.
· Flows are not based on measurements in affected rivers, but in extrapolations from other rivers in South Africa, therefore flow data is not conclusive to determine that estuaries will not be affected by damning of rivers near source.
· Even with mitigations, impacts are moderate to high, therefore mitigations only partially effective.

10 – Water reserves.
· There is no confirmation that water reserves in rivers will meet the mine demands for water, particularly in dry seasons.
· Water reserves still need to be examined and approved by DWAF therefore claims that water is adequate are simply based on assumptions.
· Rivers to be damned are not yet determined. How are the public to assess impacts of this? i.e. lack of planning detail in water extraction processes

SOCIO –ECONOMIC EFFECTS
11 -Negative impact on tourism
· The high environmental, visual, noise and dust pollution impacts of mining, many of which cannot be adequately mitigated, or can only be partially mitigated, make it highly likely that mining will have a very depressing effect on eco- tourist development in the region for the duration of the mining activities.
· There is no study on whether negative effects of mining such as dust pollution, traffic volumes, visual impacts could also potentially negatively impact on established tourism in surrounding area’s, such as Port Edward and the Wild Coast Casino. The EIA has inconclusively addressed these issues, if at all.
· Mitigation measures rely heavily on the assumption that rehabilitation is possible, but no objective field studies have been conducted to prove the practical viability of rehabilitating endemic vegetation, therefore the stated effectiveness of mitigations based on rehabilitation are questionable.
· Unless rehabilitation is entirely ensured, the impacts of the mining, due to a scarred landscape, could have a long term depressing effect on other land use options (including eco-tourism) that extends far beyond the lifespan of the mining operation.

12 -Social and Economic impacts uncertain
· It is very difficult to determine from the EIA exactly what social and economic benefits the mining will bring to local Wild Coast communities. The EIA contains many contradictions and assumptions in the economic and social development plans, including a lack of data in the planning domain, and a frightening volume of unproven and unsubstantiated assumptions in the EIA about the supposed economic and social benefits of mining, and a lack of clarity and decisive policy about numerous issues, including the issue of compensation for communities for loss of land use, land use rights etc.
· There are no concrete plans in place that spell out what the mine must do to address issues of land compensation, grazing compensation, loss of livelihoods etc. To merely say in the EIA that these must be addressed is not a solution to a problem, it is merely recognition that there is a problem, and is therefore not mitigation at all!
· What recourse will communities and society have to address grievances pertaining to the mining operation once the mining licence is granted? What standard of compliance is in place to measure effective mitigations? To approve the mining right application prior to these issues being properly addressed, and negotiated solutions found, would be the gravest injustice to the people who stand to be most affected by the mining.
· Due to the lack of data and concrete planning to back many of the assumptions included as ‘mitigating measures’, the social and economic benefits studies sound more like propaganda than objective assessments. Just because the EIA says, for example, that the loss of grazing needs to be addressed and that insurance must be made that livelihoods are not negatively affected by the mining, does not make this concrete until and unless comprehensive and consulted plans, in conjunction with the communities affected, are included about how the mine intends to address these issues. Surely these issues should have been properly addressed prior or during the public participation process. These are fundamental human rights issues that will have a huge impact on the well –being of the communities that will be directly affected by the mining. How are communities meant to determine the effects mining will have on them and their livelihoods if such basic issues as compensation are not included prior to the Record of Decision?
· How can the socio –economic impacts of mining be properly determined if there are such huge gaps in the socio –economic planning domain? If matters of compensation etc are not addressed prior to the ROD, how can the economic and social impacts of mining on the communities, (and hence the benefits or not) of mining be properly assessed? With the huge lack of detail in the planning domain, listed socio –economic impacts of mining are merely unproven assumptions.
· The extent to which benefits will trickle down to benefit the local communities is not at all certain. Questions at the public participation meeting revealed that only 80 to 100 jobs will be available to unskilled workers, which is a negligible amount.
· The EIA contains no definite plans about how the mining will address negative social impacts. Mitigations on social impacts are based on recommendations rather than detailed socio –economic planning, which allows no standard against which to measure adequate compliance. Given the uncertainties and unproven assumptions, and when weighed against the potential costs i.e. huge ecological and social impacts which are not easily reversible or mitigated against, it becomes difficult to determine how the mining fits into the concept of sustainable development.

13 -Traffic impacts, R61 and N2, and general capacity of infrastructure to cope
· There are contradictions in data and much of the so called ‘mitigations’ are based on an unsubstantiated assumptions that ‘it is very likely that the R61 will be improved within the project life cycle…… or ‘If the N2 Wild Coast Highway is constructed there will be no need for mitigation measures…..’ This is purely speculative as the N2 Highway EIA is still being undertaken and no decision has yet been made in this regard.
· The report states that increased demand will not have any impact on existing traffic, but immediately negates this by saying that the required upgrade will ‘be adequate to mitigate any impacts of traffic generated by mining operations’. It is therefore not clear whether this means mining operations will impact on traffic or not. The ‘mitigations’ based on the assumption of an upgrade seems purely speculative at this stage.
· What plans have been put in place to upgrade the R61? Have the costs of the upgrade been calculated? Who is going to finance these? Has SANRAL yet been consulted about the possibility of an upgrade to the R61? SWC understands that as a Provincial road the R61 is the responsibility of the Eastern Cape Province, in which case the EIA contains incorrect information.
· Inconclusive and contradictory statement. The EIA states that the additional truck traffic access to Port Shepstone does not require mitigation measures, but then negates this by saying further investigation is needed to confirm this.
· Contradictory statements about the volume of heavy truck traffic make it very difficult for the public to determine exactly what the impacts of increased traffic will be. In different sections the EIA states that a maximum of 12 truck trips/hour will be made to the siding ( total 288/ 24 hr) and then again that 2.7 trips/hour is estimated (total 64/ 24 hour). Which is the correct figure?
· It is a concern that at every public meeting different figures have been presented about the number and weight of trucks carrying minerals. This also impacts on the accuracy of the economic projections of the mine based on quantities of minerals extracted. There is a great difference in volume of minerals carted between 48/ 50 ton trucks (2400 tons /day) (figures given at ppp focus group meeting, and 64/ 30 ton trucks (1920 tons/day) which over the projected 25yr lifespan of the mine would amount to a difference of mineral tonnage extraction of 175 200 tonnes. These inconsistencies call into question the validity of the data about economic projections of the project
· The EIA does not address how the impacts of ‘140 -180 one way trips, including 62 daily trips by 30 tonne payloads’ on the tourist based seasonal flows of traffic will be mitigated, or the effects this might have on the lower South Coast, i.e. a region that is highly tourist dependent?
· Internal access roads – the lack of finality in the planning domain means the EIA has not adequately addressed issues relating to internal roads or the impact these might have on communities or ecology.
· Electricity – it is not yet determined whether Eskom is able to meet the demand or upgrade the local infrastructure to provide electricity for the project.
· Water reserves. These have not yet been adequately addressed or determined

14 -Employment
· In answer to public questions, only 80 -100 unskilled jobs ( less than Grade 10 education requirement) will be provided by the mine. This makes the statement that the mine will support 1735 numbers of dependents highly questionable, bordering on propaganda. If locals are not employed then, based on a figure of 100 unskilled jobs and average of 5 dependents/ employed person (based on EIA figures for average number of dependent per employee), only 500 local dependents might benefit. The benefits for locals and their dependents in terms of employment opportunities will therefore be negligible.
· Mitigation measures to optimize local employment opportunities are nothing more than a list of recommendations. There are no ‘working plans’ that outline exactly how TEM are to enact the mitigation measures, therefore no policy against which non –compliance can be measured or addressed.
· It is of concern that figures about employment opportunities that the mine will create keep changing.

15 -Monitoring
· It is of concern that much of the monitoring of mitigations takes the form of self monitoring i.e. that there is no objective third party who will be involved in monitoring. What guidelines, base lines have been put in place to ensure the effectiveness of monitoring?
· What objective, uninvolved third party will assess the effectiveness of self monitoring?

16 -Alternative developments
· Alternative development options to the mining proposal have not been investigated.

17 -Uncertainty in the legal domain
· There are unresolved legal issues in terms of authorisation of the various mining activities under NEMA and the Constitution. Clarification is needed on the legislation that enables DME to make the Record of Decision.
· It is questionable whether the mining complies with Section 24 of the Constitution which articulates the ‘environmental right’ as a basic human right. (Section 24(b) – “the right to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation; promote conservation; and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development’.
· It is questionable how the mining complies with The National and Environmental Management Act (NEMA) which decrees that:
Everyone has the right
(a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being, and
(b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that-
(i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
(ii) promote conservation; and
(iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.
· The Constitutional requirement of the state to take ‘other measures’ to ensure the protection of the environmental inter alia to give effect to the statement in the preamble to NEMA, states that ‘the law should establish procedures and institutions to facilitate and promote public participation in environmental governance’.
· Section 2(4)(h) of NEMA prescribes the following additional measures to ensure the protection of the environment: ‘community well-being and empowerment must be promoted through environmental education, the raising of environmental awareness, the sharing of knowledge and experience and other appropriate means’.
· Section 4(2)(f) requires the state to ensure participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons in environmental governance.
Section 2(4)(a)(viii) requires (as a principle of sustainable development) that ‘negative impacts on the environment and on people’s environmental rights be anticipated and prevented, and where they cannot be altogether prevented, are minimized and remedied’

In the notice that lists mining as an activity requiring an EIA, the competent authority for mining environmental authorizations is the (environment) Minister or “an organ of state with delegated powers in terms of section 42(1) of the Act”. Section 42(1) states:

The Minister may delegate a power or duty vested in him or her in terms of this Act or a specific environmental management Act to—
(a) the Director-General;
(b) an MEC, by agreement with the MEC;
(c) the management authority of a protected area; or
(d) any organ of state, by agreement with that organ of state
It is not clear how this has been complied with.

Section 39 of the Transkei (Environmental Conservation) Decree 9 of 1992 creates a Coastal Conservation area 1 km wide (excluding Municipal land) extending along the entire length of the former Transkei coast. This is measured from the high water mark of the seashore and relevant tidal estuaries to 1 km inland. The administration of this Decree is the responsibility of the Eastern Cape Department of Economic Affairs Environmental and Tourism.

In terms of this Decree, the following activities are prohibited within the declared Coastal Conservation area, except under permit:
* the clearance of land or the removal of sand, soil, stone or vegetation;
* the development of picnic areas, caravan parks or similar amenities;
* the erection of buildings;
* the construction of railways, landing strips, slipways, landing stages or jetties;
* the building of dams, canals, reservoirs, water purification plants, septic tanks or sewage works;
* the laying of pipelines or the erection of power lines or fencing;
* the establishment of waste disposal sites or the dumping of refuse;
* the construction of public or private roads or any bridle paths or foot paths; or
*the undertaking of any other activity which disturbs the natural state of the vegetation, the land or any waters which may occur in the demarcated area.

· The mining application seems to have been made without the requisite authorisation in terms of Decree 9.

Yours sincerely

Compiled on behalf of Sustaining the Wild Coast (SWC) by

Val Payn
P.O Box 44
Harding
4680
Email swcoastval@gmail.com

Tel 039 4331494
Cell 083 4416961
Fax 039 4331217

Please note the alarming report about proposed amendments to Environmental regulations which could have serious repercussions for the Wild Coast as well as the South African environment as a whole, as reported in the Mercury article below.

Actions you can take on this matter:

SWC call upon anyone with an interest in the matter to respond in all urgency
(no later than 22 August) and call for a revision on the bill and amendment, and a process of due public consultation before adoption, by sending objections to the amendment to the following:

d.zoekop@lando.co.za

mariette@acmegraphics.co.za

If you would like an e- copy of the bill, please contact:

Val Payn
SWC communications
Box 44
Harding
Tel 082 4416961
valpayn@gmail.com

While SWC welcomes the fact that the FSR admits to a need to further investigate deviations to the SANRAL ‘preferred’ route that would pose less of an environmental risk, and welcomes the call for more specialist studies in numerous fields, SWC cannot in any justification condone the report or its recommendations.

SWC are of the opinion that the report does very little to address major legitimate public concerns raised in the last EIA or in the Draft Scoping Report, and that the report is so full of contradictions and inconsistencies that it can hardly be taken seriously, and resembles more a poor quality justification process for SANRAL’s preferred route than a legitimate and neutral assessment of whether another EIA conducted along what is basically the same route would serve the best interests of the region or of state financial expenditure. SWC are of the opinion that unless the fundamental planning flaw that underlies the whole project is addressed (namely the lack of any regional development plan that supports the need for a toll road or major new highway through the Pondoland Centre of Endemism) a new EIA as outlined by the FSR would merely be an renewed process of covering old ground and hence would amount to nothing more than an attempt to plaster ‘cracks in a wall’, when it is ‘faulty foundations’ that need attention.

SWC opinion is based upon the following;-

Contradictions and inconsistencies of fact

1- The FSR makes recommendations about the need to investigate alternative minor deviations from the SANRAL preferred route through the PCE but dismisses, for various reasons (social functioning, economic, loss of access routes etc) further investigation into any proposed alternative routes. Yet the report also lists numerous specialist studies that it considers to have been inadequate in the last EIA and that need further investigation, or that have not been done and would no doubt have a bearing on impacts of the road.

These studies are listed as

vegetation and flora; fauna; aquatic eco-systems; soils land use and agriculture; social; tourism; cultural and historical, heritage; noise; air quality; visual; traffic; planning/development; impacts on by -passed towns etc

How then, when there is an acknowledgement of a huge dearth of information that could impact on environmental, economic and social effects of any planned route, does the FSR come to the conclusion that only a limited number of alternative options are feasible for further investigation, namely, ‘do nothing’, SANRAL’s preferred alignment, SANRAL’s preferred alignment with minor deviations, and SANRAL”s preferred alignment with a larger deviation named ‘Coastal Mzamba’ route?

As the FSR points out, key principles of NEMA are that development must be socially, economically and environmentally sustainable. But it is becoming increasingly clear in the current world situation, that unless the environmental base is secured and maintained in a sustainable manner, then the principles of social and economic sustainability are compromised to the extent that the environment is compromised. In order, therefore, to maintain any sort of sustainable development, a pre-requisite is that the environment is secured. With so many key questions and unknown factors affecting environmental (and social and economic factors) acknowledged by the FSC as needing further study, and pertaining to the effects of a Toll or national rd or any particular route on that environment, to make assertions as have been done in the FSR as to the ‘benefits’ or ‘negative impacts’ of any particular route over any other route is premature, to say the least, and was one of the biggest causes of public contention in the last EIA.

There are no indications whatsoever in the FSR as to how any adverse environmental impacts (and by implication adverse social and economic impacts) of any routes will be mitigated except for vague references to the WCCSDI and the Pondo Park. This despite one of the main concerns of public misgivings about the routing of a national road through the PCE being the question of how the environmental base will be secured from secondary effects of the road e.g. by encroachment, ribbon development, invasive species that commonly occur along road verges or as a result of disturbed habitats etc. Authorities to date have made very little leeway with either the Pondo Park proposal or implementing the WCCSDI, so to pre -suppose that these will provide adequate protection for the bio-diversity of the PCE when they do not yet exist beyond concept stage is entering the realms of fantasy. The WCCSDI in itself does not specifically approve of a toll road routed through the PCE. To maintain that measures to ‘mitigate’ adverse effects will be undertaken does not give any explanation whatsoever about how such measures will be implemented, though it is hardly surprising that the answer is not forthcoming considering the dearth of available information about the nature of the environment ( in its fullest sense) SANRAL is dealing with.

2 -Public consultation process

The FSR goes to great lengths to justify that the Public Consultation Process (PCP) of the old EIA was adequate and met legislative needs and therefore could inform the basis of a new EIA. However, the greatest number of public complaints pertaining to the PCP where not of quantity of response or inadequate number of meetings, but quality of unbiased information made available to the public, and willingness for Sanral to engage with public concerns. SWC cannot see any change in this attitude in the FSR by the simple fact that the FSR has not adequately addressed a large number of public concerns, namely protection of environment of the PCE, tolling, purpose of the road, neutrality of SANRAL in the issue i.e. satisfactory explanations to the debate of whether SANRAL is principally serving public interests rather than the vested interests of tolling and road building consortiums.

The large public interest and number of IAP’s registered in itself is indicative of public dissatisfaction with the whole process. Public do not generally go to much trouble to comment, protest and engage with issues if they are satisfied with the outcome.

3 -Unsolicited proposal process

FSR goes to lengths to explain that where there is an established need for a certain developments, i.e. ‘where proposal meets the requirement of policy’ then government agencies can award ‘scheme developer status’ to private consortiums to further develop proposals.

The contradiction is that in the case of the N2 toll THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED CRITERIA THAT REFLECTS THE N2 AS BEING IN CONFORMANCE WITH GOVENMENTAL PROPOSALS, AS THERE ARE NO ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENTAL DEVELOPMENTAL PLANS FOR THE REGION THAT REQUIRE a Toll road routed through the ‘Greenfield’s’ section. As there is no regional development plan that necessitates a toll road through the PCE, there can be no independent concrete proof other than SANRAL CLAIMS that it is in the best public interest, and there is therefore no justification to claim that N2 reflects environmental, social and economic sustainability, especially as the FSR acknowledges huge gaps in relevant information upon which to base such decisions.

In light of the above, it is difficult to support claims other than the view that the N2 toll road is nothing more than a business venture by consortium of private companies into whose thrall SANRAL appears to have fallen.

4 -Tolling

FSR goes to lengths to explain legislation that exempts tolling from EIA processes. However, this does nothing whatsoever to alleviate public concerns that by excluding effects of tolls from the EIA process, the full social and economic impacts of the road on communities cannot be quantified or assessed and is therefore in contradiction of the ethos of NEMA.

5 -Benefits of road

FSR makes sweeping statements about national road networks linking main cities and economic regions of a country. However, there is no assessment of specifics of how the N2 will realize regional economic growth i.e. no regional development plan that might maximize benefits of any new road. (See point 3)

FSR says the former Transkei has ‘few economically realizable natural resources’. This of course is a hugely subjective and debatable question (and other propaganda type statement), but it seems ironic that if one takes the statement as fact, then the one internationally recognized ‘natural resource’ that the coastal area does have, i.e. an unspoilt, species rich, scenically unparallel coastline, is now to be sullied and threatened by a national road whose purpose remains undefined.

The FSR again makes contradictory and unsubstantiated statements about ‘regional benefits’ while simultaneously alluding to the fact that the road is to serve as a high speed throughway linking major centres. It is difficult to see how the N2 toll rd can serve two conflicting purposes, i.e. high speed inter -city highways are not designed to serve the interests of small regional centres.

FSR maintains the N2 toll would ‘would enhance the region and would facilitate development of the eco-tourism of the region’. These are unsubstantiated claims which completely contradict evidence from major road developments elsewhere. No regional plans exist to underpin this and no evidence exists to support these statements.

6 -Empowerment strategy

FSR maintains that N2 toll would provide jobs and empower communities within the project area. So would a road along any other alternative route or upgrading of existing routes for the duration of the construction at least, so this can hardly be justification to select any particular route or SANRAL’s preferred route. What is of greater significance is the effects of the legacy that will remain once construction is complete, which information is acknowledged to be incomplete (see point 1)

7 – Environmental values in relation to economic consideration

FSR does not begin to address the key question of how the loss of eco-systems or biodiversity as a result of a road through the PCE is quantified. That is, what economic price is placed on the value of eco -systems and biodiversity in relation to other criteria used in the assessment of value of alternative alignments? (Table 11, 12, 13, 14).

This has a huge bearing on economic and social implications of the road and any economic, social and environmental assessment should be considered incomplete without it.

In conclusion, SWC maintains that in light of the above, to continue any further with the charade of pursuing another EIA along what is principally the same route, will do nothing more than compound an already fatally flawed process and waste further taxpayers money.

If SANRAL wish to pursue a national road through the Eastern Cape Province, they should start the process afresh and begin at base level by first ascertaining, (in collaboration with national and regional authorities) regional needs, and by gathering all relevant data in an unbiased process before determining what routes and which transport means would best serve the interests of the region. Without this baseline work, fully substantiated by factual analysis, the process is once again fatally flawed and a despicable waste of taxpayers money. The DEAT needs to halt this project immediately, and make it clear to SANRAL that the only process that will be considered further is to restart the process from a strategic regional transportation needs perspective. No further project level road proposals should be entertained without this.

Compiled on behalf of Sustaining the Wild Coast (SWC) by

Val Payn
Box 44
Harding 4680
Tel 083 -4416961
valpayn@gmail.com