DEAT objections to Xolobeni mining proposal on Wild Coast
With respect to the attached report obtained from the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) I have the following statement to offer, in my capacity as a professional social worker contracted by members of the affected community to advocate for “social justice and uphold and protect fundamental human rights as enshrined in the South African Constitution” (Policy guidelines for Course of Conduct, Code of Ethics and Rule for Social Workers, SACSSP).
DEATs evaluation of the proposed development by Australian mining exploration company MRC Ltd, resonates with a report by the Human Rights Commission issued last year that observed that DEAT and DME “are not on the same page about to the development of the Xolobeni Community”. Unfortunately the inter-departmental differences and competing claims for jurisdiction over the vast natural assets of the area have only served to aggravate conflict in the community by polarizing residents between pro and anti mining positions.
To reduce the climate of hostility, and in the hope that the issues would be reframed in terms of pro human rights rather than another anti mining crusade by “greenies”, a complaint was lodged with the HRC on behalf of local residents in July last year alleging that no less than seven of the fundamental human rights enshrined in our constitution had been violated by supporters of the mining proposal, including the right to an “environment that is not harmful to peoples health, and to have the environment protected and conserved for the benefit of present and future generations” (Section 24).
The HRC have been investigating the allegations and have subpoenaed both the minister of Minerals and Energy and the minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to respond to the HRC demand for evidence that shows compliance with all relevant legislation governing the processing of Mining license applications under both the provisions of MPRDA and NEMA . The ministers concerned will apparently respond to the HRC subpoena’s “shortly”, according to the HRC.
Using the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, access was gained to DEAT’s internal submission to DME commenting on the EIA and EMP reports done on the Xolobeni dune mining proposal. The attached report is the culmination of this process.
I regard the DEAT submission to DME as incontrovertible evidence that the proposed venture does not meet the criteria for “ecologically sustainable development”. DEAT have therefore provided the requisite impartial scientific evaluation to support our complaint that the mining proposal as presently conceived cannot be regarded by any stretch of the imagination as “justifiable social and economic development”.
I hope the HRC will now see its way clear to make an immediate finding that the proposed development constitutes a violation of environmental rights, as alleged by my clients.
Moreover, even though the DEAT evaluation amounts to the final nail in the coffin for MRC’s ambitions to mine the Wild Coast I have urged the Chair of the HRC, Mr Jody Kollapan to still convene hearings so that alleged violations in respect of six other human rights can be aired (human dignity, freedom of expression, assembly, freedom of trade, occupation and profession, property, and access to information) that my clients have experienced, and for the HRC to speedily complete its investigation. It is in the interests of both the victims and perpetrators to be afforded the opportunity to confront and cross examine one another, if reconciliation and peace building is to occur.
Peace building is an indispensable precondition if the enormous potential for nature based tourism and other sustainable livelihoods can be realized by the residents of the Wild Coast. The HRC has a vital role to play by convening such hearings and helping the community move forward in internalizing a human rights culture. Not only will community hearings enable the residents of a very traumatized community to achieve closure and get on with their lives, but it will establish a vital precedent to ensure that in future any mining exploration company operating in South Africa will know that obtaining the manipulated consent of vulnerable rural communities by violating their fundamental human rights will never succeed.
John GI Clarke
Social Worker.
Board member. Sustaining the Wild Coast (SWC)
Posted on April 14th, 2008
Filed under: Newspaper and Media
I am so happy that you are doing this work to protect this amazing area of South Africa. Please know that people all over the world are cheering you on.
Erelah Gafni
Oakland California
[...] http://www.swc.org.za/deat-objections-to-xolobeni-mining-proposal-on-wild-coast.htm [...]
I believe in weighing up the potential economic benefits for this impoverished community against its costs. There is no romance in poverty alongside of ‘pristine’ Nature. And of course it is not pristine at all. Moreover, mineral sands mining, if well planned and executed, offers environmental recovery that may actually benefit tourism and recreation. There is no room for black and white depictions, or passionate advocacy; this issue is too serious. We need dispassionate analysis, sober considerations of the costs and benefits. Anything else is self indulgent.
Indeed, it is imperative that the matter needs sober and dispassionate reflection that looks at development from a holistic point of view. It is not as simple a matter as weighing up the economic costs and benefits of mining against the economic benefits and costs of other alternatives, for how does one determine what constitutes economic costs and benefits, or the ‘economic value’ of ‘ free natural services’ that are provided by healthy eco-systems, (e.g.unpolluted water, rich biodiversity, a stable ecological system that has established itself over millions of years and that provides many benefits to communities in terms of ‘free’ resources use). How does one ‘economically value’ a traditional way of life that communities still value and uphold and which is integrally interlinked with land?
Yes, there is no ‘value’ in poverty, and nobody is advocating that Wild Coast Communities should be doomed to a life of poverty. But it is not as simple a matter as saying the mining will produce x tons of titanium over 25 years sold at x amount while tourism will produce x amount of visitors, and
generate x amount of capital, therefore mining is preferable (or not) to eco- tourism or vice versa. A selective economic view that equates ‘value’ purely in terms of market price has contributed to a world system where the poorest 3 billion people in the world ( more than half of humanity) only
share 1.4% of global wealth( Institute of Policy Studies 2004), as such a view neglects to include many aspects of eco-system benefits that contribute to improved life quality. Degrading eco-systems that the poor depend upon
has immediate impoverishing repercussions for the poor and exacerbates poverty.
Even if mining was shown to be more ‘economically profitable’ than alternative forms of development, a primary consideration is ‘who will benefit?’. Alternatively, what sort of development would bring the most economic opportunities to the greatest number of people? Indications are
that, under current mining policy, very little of the benefits of mining will go back to those communities who will loose the benefits of the land they presently occupy and have occupied for centuries.
One also has to ask, in the event of mining being approved, what vestiges of ‘development’ would be left after the 25 year lifespan of the mine. South Africa has many ‘ghost towns’ where ‘development’ that has been centred around mining collapses once mining operations wrap up.
In terms of environmental recovery, there is no case study that has been undertaken to indicate that rehabilitation as proposed by the mining company will be successful or even possible, and every indication that the mining will lead to irreversible, large scale, environmental damage of an
internationally recognised ‘botanical hotspot’ which is still remarkably intact and pristine.
Incidentally, a cost benefit analysis conducted as part of the Wild Coast Conservation and Development Plan indicates that in the long term, well planned eco -tourism development of the region would bring far greater and
more sustainable economic prosperity, with benefits spread over a wider population, than mining.
Wild Coast Communities who live on the land proposed for mining are strongly opposed to the use of the land they occupy for mining, as it is currently advocated. For anyone to disregard this is, in my view, tantamount to perpetuating ‘forced removals’ of the apartheid era.’
Australian musicians Paul Kelly and Kev Carmody sing of the struggle by Aboriginals against land exploitation in the song ‘From Little Things, Big Things Grow’. Isn’t it ironic that South Africa’s Pondo people are now engaged in a similar struggle against an Australian mining company?
Val Payn