Tony Carnie

THE decision on whether to allow sand-dune mining near Xolobeni on the Wild Coast has been put on hold again.

The Minerals and Mining Board was due to hear evidence for and against the mining application in Durban yesterday, but the meeting was postponed to a date still to be finalised.

The Congress of Traditional Leaders of SA president and MP, Nkosi Phathekile Holomisa, who was to chair the hearing and hear legal argument, said committee members had not had sufficient opportunity to study the substantial volume of documentation on the matter and a decision was taken to reconvene at a later date.

Journalists were refused entry to the meeting room yesterday and told the hearing was an internal meeting.

They were later advised that the meeting had been postponed.

The application to mine in the environmentally sensitive Xolobeni area, south of the Wild Coast Casino, had been made by the Australian-based company Transworld Energy, a local subsidiary company Mineral Resources (SA) and the shareholder group Xolobeni Empowerment Company.

The application was approved by the Minerals Department in 2008 but was put on hold shortly afterwards following appeals by a number of groups, including the Amadiba Crisis Committee.

The committee has complained that residents of the area were not consulted properly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXQmpSNqH40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDk33tAVpk
 
regards
 
Val Payn
Sustaining the Wild Coast (SWC)
cell – 083 4416961
swcoastval@gmail.com

MINERALS Minister Susan Shabangu has been asked to explain why she is “dragging her feet” in transferring her powers of environmental authorisation for mining to Environment Minister Buyelwa Sonjica.

This follows a bitter wrangle in Parliament last year, when the head of the minerals department refused to relinquish control of environmental impact assessments (EIAs) to the environment department.

Critics have argued that allowing the mining department to give environmental authorisation to mining ventures is tantamount to allowing the proverbial fox to look after the hen house.

For many years, the mining department has retained this power, whereas all other significant development projects – from nuclear power stations to cellphone masts – have to be authorised by the national or provincial environment departments.

Late last year, however, a landmark amendment to national environmental laws paved the way for mining EIAs to be transferred to the environmental ministry in a phased process lasting 36 months.

Now DA environmental affairs shadow minister Gareth Morgan is asking Shabangu for an explanation for the delay in transferring this power. He said although mining EIAs had always been treated differently, his party had helped introduce amendments to introduce a uniform process.

In terms of the amendments last year, the handover of responsibility would begin with the official commencement of the Minerals and Petroleum Resource Development Amendment Act.

Morgan said that although the act was promulgated in April, it had not been brought into effect yet. There has been no explanation from Shabangu for why the transfer had not been set in motion more than six months later.

By holding back on commencement of the act, Shabangu was effectively preventing the transfer of the mining EIA function to Sonjica’s ministry, said Morgan.

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

NEW TOLL ROAD EIA ‘Rank with double standards’

With the deadline for public comments for the Wild Coast Toll road looming on 22 January, Sustaining the Wild Coast (SWC), has condemned the new EIA as ‘still saddled with dealing with the problems of an extensive infrastructure proposal that was developed and promulgated in a manner that was anything but objective and independent’.

In its comment on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), SWC argues that the foundations of the proposal are fundamentally flawed because the SANRAL preferred route was developed as an isolated and unsolicited bid by a consortium of private bidding companies whose primary motivation was profit, rather than arising out of an integrated and comprehensive regional development plan. As the basic premises of the proposal remain unchanged, many of the fundamental concerns that were raised by the public in 2003 have still not been addressed.

SWC lists numerous public and legal concerns that were raised in the 2004 Appeal Review which the new EIA has failed to address. These include unrealistic mitigation measures given the current capacity of local government structures in the Eastern Cape Province; that by excluding the tolling process from the EIA a bias is created in socio-economic impact assessments and that it is still not certain that tolls will be affordable for poor communities, that the need for a Toll road and for a route through the Pondoland Centre of Plant Endemism (an internationally recognized ‘hotspot’ of plant endemism) are still not adequately justified, that the precautionary principle has not been applied, and that public participation processes are still not in compliance of NEMA.
The Appeal Review was commissioned in 2004 by the new Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Minister van Schalkwyk, in response to the large number of public appeals petitioning against the Record of Decision (ROD) made in December 2003 which had approved the N2 Wild Coast Toll Road Environmental Impact Assessment of 2003.
The SWC EIA commentary states that the EIA is ‘rank with double standards’.

The cut-off date for public comment on the controversial Wild Coast Toll Road EIR has been extended to 22 January, 2009.

This follows concern expressed by numerous Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) that the cut off date of 9th January was cutting into the holiday season. The same had been the case with the Record of Decision authorizing the N2 toll road over the summer holiday season of 2003/2004. Many organizations felt this was a ploy to cut out comment as most of South Africa is on holiday over the festive season.

“We are most grateful to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) who had responded that the comment period must be extended until January 22″, said Bishop Geoff Davies, Chairman of Sustaining the Wild Coast (SWC). “SWC was among many who objected to the short comment period. We are told that all I&APs should now receive notification of the extension by post.

“However, we are surprised that our other concerns have not been addressed, as we cannot comment meaningfully until they have. These are that the public open days were held in KZN and Eastern Cape only, while there are many interested and affected parties who live in Gauteng or the Free State or Western Cape, and that the EIR presentations that were held were inaccessible to the local communities of Pondoland and the Eastern Cape. These are the
people who will be the most directly affected.

SWC wrote to NMA, who is responsible for the public participation process, that the format of the information displays and presentations at the public open days was neither culturally nor educationally suitable as a means of conveying adequate and understandable information to rural communities residing in Eastern Cape. “SWC considers the format used did not enable disempowered, often illiterate, orally based communities to gain an adequate understanding
of the full implications of the road.

“Since the last scheduled public open day was 11 December, we are dismayed that there has been no response to this point. The National Environment Management Act (NEMA) Section 4(2)(f) requires the state to ensure participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons 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´.

Consequently, SWC called for an extension of the Public Comment Period , an extension of workshops and public comment days to other Provinces, and a relook at the presentation format in rural communal areas which would allow for a `community education´ process that
would empower rural communities with the means to become informed decision makers with regard to the proposal.

“There is a great deal of public concern regarding the future well-being of the Wild Coast” commented Bishop Davies who is also director of the Southern African Faith Communities Environment Institute (SAFCEI), “so we look forward to hearing from NMA that they will pay heed to our call which, after all, simply follows the requirements of our National Environment act.”

Draft EIA Open House at the Toti Civic Centre 18th Nov2008 @ 16h30.

Do not waste your valuable time paging through a set of documents presented by the Independent Consultants who get their instructions and payment from SANRAL.
If you have the time the Executive Summary is enough to make you realize that there are many significant facts that affect us here on the Upper South Coast that wont be found in the 1000 pages of considerably biased justification you are expected to swallow, then allow SANRAL to go ahead with making us on the Upper South Coast pay for the 90 km of new road on the Wild Coast.

We will ask the Consultants to try to answer and dispute the following and a whole lot more.

Why no mention:
– Of the fact that a railway link will be the appropriate answer to all the needs of all people rich & poor, particularly in terms of affordable, safe, environmentally friendly transport, reducing heavy traffic on already overloaded roads and move agricultural and other goods and people for the sustainable future without fossil fuels been burnt and polluting our area.
- Of an alternate road around the outskirts towards the west of eThekwini.
- Of the fact that the Toll Gate at Isipingo will collect 86% of the cost of the 90 km strip of road on the Wild Coast at todays prices over 30 years, never mind the escalation in traffic and inflation.
- Of the fact that we are expected to pay 86 % of the cost for a road off which we will at most only use 15 km or only 2.68 %
- Of how the E Tag system is going to know that you came through the Main Toll Gate at Isipingo and left at the Joyner Ramp a distance of less than 1.5 km which will cost you R8 minimum.
- Of the fact that this new road is going to attract a considerable amount of traffic from west of eThekwini and put considerable strain on an already overloaded N3 and the poor unsuspecting motorist who have to access the N2 coming down the N3 and vice versa during peak times already a nightmare how will this be solved..
- Of how widening the N2 between Adams Road and Isipingo is going to be done.
- Of how the additional flow of traffic from the west is going to negate the widening of the road and loose any benefit of cutting down traveling time and justifying the toll payment.
- Of how we as motorists have no other alternative of traveling to and from our work place or schooling because of total lack of reliable safe and affordable public transport have now to bear the additional cost of being taxed to use an existing 60 year old road.
- Of why because our government has failed to provide enough funds to ensure that enough moneys is allocated to the provision and upkeep of our road net work, that SANRAL now feel they have the right to unfairly tax us on the Upper South Coast to pay for a road in another province.
- That if eThekwini had the full say over all the roads in the Metropolitan area as they should have, they would have insisted that the Developers of Arbour Town would have to pay the cost of widening the road from Winklespruit to Moss Kolnik because the shopping centre would be the main beneficiaries and also the cause of increased traffic on the road.

One is faced with an obvious question and that is seeing that there is a Government legislation that requires all these facts to be considered why this has not been done

I.e. National Environmental Management Act (NEMA)
Chapter 1 – Principles – sub section 2
Chapter (4) (i) The social, economic and environmental impacts of activities, including disadvantages and benefits must be considered, assessed and evaluated, and decisions must be appropriate in the lights of such consideration and assessment.

USCATA Nov 2008

Over three and a half years ago the previous EIA was turned down by the Minister of Environment Affairs because of “inappropriate links” between environmental consultants Bohlweki and the consortium of construction companies proposing the unsolicited bid for a high speed link between Durban and East London.

The EIA was met with a storm of protest from varied groupings, including KZN provincial government and the Ethkwini Municipality, taxi association, residents and environmental groups. Many felt that the road’s route pointed to the underlying rationale behind the road was to facilitate the transport of the products of the controversial Pondoland dune mining proposal by an Australian junior mining company.

This week, advertisements appeared calling for public comment on a new EIA. “Although we cannot yet comment on the Report as it is due to be published on November 9, we do strongly protest the manner in which the crucial Public Participation Process is being handled.”, said a SWC statement..

“Firstly, Interested and Affected Parties have not been informed, and the timing period for objections is just not acceptable, with the closing date for objections – January 9 next year – falling within the Christmas holiday period. This is not the first time such a devious tactic designed to stifle public comment has been employed”.

SWC is very much in favour of developing infrastructure on the Wild Coast, but this must be done in ways that benefit both local communities and their rich and varied heritage, both cultural and ecological.

Further comment will follow once those most affected have had a chance to study the report.

On 14 July 2008, the Director General decided to grant a mining right under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA) to TEM in the Kwanyana Block of the Xolobeni tenement area. It is anticipated that TEM’s Environmental Management Programme will be approved on 31 October 2008 and that the mining right will become effective on that date.

The Xolobeni area is the traditional homeland of the AmaDiba people, a traditional community under the leadership of King Sigcau and Queen MaSobhuza of Pondoland. The AmaDiba people have occupied the area for centuries, which area is part of the Pondoland region acknowledged to be one of the most important centres of plant diversity in South Africa. Since the land is registered in the name of the State, the AmaDiba community is deemed to be the co-owner of the land.

However, repeated requests by the LRC, on behalf of the ACC, to the various government offices involved, including the Department of Minerals and Energy (the Department), the Minister, the Director General and the Regional Manager, requesting information about and a copy of the decision to grant the mining right to TEM did not elicit a response. The Department failed to inform the ACC timeously of the decision or to provide the record of the decision.

Should the Xolobeni Mineral Sands mining project proceed as planned, the AmaDiba community faces permanent and significant changes to their traditional way of life and their connection with the land. Such changes would involve forced evictions, loss of access to farmland, meansincome and of subsistence, relocation of ancestral graves, destruction of culturally important archeological sites and negative impacts on the residents’ health and quality of life. In short, the mining will result in unacceptable levels of pollution and damage to the environment and its residents and will fundamentally alter the life of the community to its detriment.

In its appeal, the ACC submitted that the grant of a mining right without sufficient and reasonable notice to, consultation with or invitation for comments from the community, as an interested and affected party, is unlawful. A large number of community members directly affected by the mining were not properly consulted. The Traditional Leadership structures represented by the King and Queen and the Chief or Nkosi of the AmaDiba Administrative Area Lunga Baleni, son of the late Mshoba Baleni of the Amopondo, have been deliberately sidelined in the consultation process as they are opposed to the mining in this area.

The ACC’s appeal was also based on the grounds that the Xolobeni area is part of the Pondoland Marine Protected Area. Under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003, commercial mining cannot take place at all on any marine protected area.

The AmaDiba community also has a right to legally secure tenure of their communal land under the Constitution and the Communal Land Rights Act 11 of 2004. Therefore mining can only take place once a mining company has acquired a Community Resolution, which is issued by the Department of Land Affairs and the traditional authorities of the community, consenting to the mining and setting out the compensation to be paid to the community. Such a Resolution was not obtained.

Throughout the application process, TEM has inaccurately and misleadingly suggested that the Black Economic Empowerment company Xolobeni Empowerment Company (Pty) Ltd (XolCo), which holds a 26% stake in the project, represents the AmaDiba community. However, XolCo is a private company that is commercially reliant on TEM and does not and cannot represent community members living in the mining area.

The ACC also contends that the Director General was not properly authorized to grant this mining licence. The ACC requested that the Minister notify the LRC on their application to suspend the decision to grant TEM the mining right by 1 October 2008, and submitted that if the appeal to the Minister is not successful, it will be required to approach the High Court to set aside the decision to grant the mining licence.

The full text of the appeal is available on www.lrc.co.za