Sustaining the Wild Coast (SWC) campaign, a loose coalition of
organisations continue to lobby government to overturn the decision to
permit open cast dune mining in the Pondoland Wild Coast region. The SWC
argue that not only was the decision making process flawed but mining the
region would have grave consequences for the ecology of the region. But
the campaign continues to face a number of obstacles, from stakeholders
with different agendas to accusations of the campaign being ”a white
elitist concern” , to approving authorities lacking sufficient clout to
make a difference, Azad Essa speaks to the SWC communications officer, Val
Payn to get a better understanding of the issue.

The SWC is a collection of organizations and individuals opposing the
proposed open cast mining of the Wild Coast. Can you briefly outline the
issue at hand?

SWC is a registered Section 21 NGO. However, we collaborate and co-operate
with, and lend support too and are supported by, a large number of
organisations and individuals who are opposed to the mining, including the
communities along the Wild Coast who will be directly affected by the
mining.

Is it a local consortium?

Under the Xoobeni Sands Dune Mining proposal, Australian Mining Company,
Mineral Resources Commodities LTD (MRC) and its local subsidiary,
Transworld Energy and Mineral Resources and Black Economic Empowerment
(BEE) associate Xolco ( 26% shareholding) have ambitions to mine some 346
million tons of minerals in a lease area known as the Xolobeni Mineral
Sands. Mining over the entire area is estimated to last for 22 years. To
date they have been given authority to mine, by DME , the centrally placed
Kwanyana block, one of the four blocks demarcated for mining over an
approximately 22km stretch of coastal dune in the heart of the Pondoland
Centre of Plant Endemism.

Is it an issue that a foreign mining company together with a BEE partner
has the contract, or is it the mining per se?

In SWC opinion both of these are issues.

The mining is not part of the original Wild Coast SDI proposal for this
region, which had proposed community based tourism as the appropriate
driver of development. Also, studies undertaken as part of the Wild Coast
Conservation and Sustainable Development Plan showed that, in the long
term, the development of community based eco-tourism and sutainable
livelihoods projects would bring far greater socio -economic benefits to a
broader range of people, than the mining. That is, most of the benefits
that mining brings are unlikely to be benefits to people who live in the
area, and any benefits, such as jobs, will be of short duration for the 22
years lifespan of the mine. On the other hand the social and environmental
upheaval that the mining is likely to create for those who occupy the land
earmarked for mining is likely to be immense. It is questionable whether
any so called ‘benefits’ will outweigh these negative impacts. That a
foreign mining company will be the greatest beneficiary of this proposal
simply compounds the issue.

Key Areas of Concern

Fundamental human rights enshrined in the South African Constitution have
been violated by the mining company and its supporters.

The public participation process for the conduct of the EIA was grossly
biased in failing to ensure those residents most affected by the mining
proposal were capacitated to participate meaningfully.

Relevant authorities have not been in full compliance with the relevant
statutes: the Mineral and Petroleum Resources’ Development Act (MPDRA),
the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), and the Interim
Protection of Indigenous Land Rights Act (IPILRA).
Major contradictions exist between DEAT and DME interests. For example,
the DEAT report has advised 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,” concluding with a strong recommendation
that the mining license should not be awarded, given available
information.

The mining venture will destroy the local resource base upon which
community based sustainable development is dependent.

The mining venture is in conflict with several of South Africa’s agreed
international obligations to sustainably conserve and manage our
biodiversity and ensure benefit-sharing from such use, including under the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Suggested mitigations of environmental impacts are not viable or possible
(given the available data and information on which they are based), which
will therefore result in the destruction of a unique, internationally
recognized centre of endemism – with the risk that this will push a number
of threatened (red data) endemic species to extinction due to their
restricted ranges within the centre of endemism.

MINERALS and Energy Minister Buyelwa Sonjica admitted a few days back that
the consultation process with the local community was flawed. Has there
been any indication to suggest the mining permit will be revoked?

The Minister has indicated that she will not execute the mining right on
31 October in light of the appeal, but will hold an appeal hearing in due
course.

Is this a battle being fought by concerned citizens or has the issue been
taken up by traditional leadership and/or local government in the region?

Traditional leadership in the region, right up to the level of the King
and Queen is very concerned about the issue, and has sought legal advice.
Local Wild Coast communities have also elected a representative delegation
from local community leaders, the Amadiba Crisis Committee (ACC), to voice
opposition to the mining agenda. With the support of the Legal Resources
Centre in Grahamstown, the ACC have lodged an appeal against the DME
decision. They have also sought the advice of human rights lawyer Richard
Spoor, in order to protect community interests.

As far as SWC are aware, local government has been very reserved about the
issue, with the exception of Mayoress Capa of O.R Tambo District, who is a
vocal supporter of the mining.
Who are the winners and losers of this deal? If a Social Impact Assessment
(SIA) is completed, and a sustainable industry is assured with long-term
jobs, will this be acceptable?

Unfortunately the way an SIA is conducted in terms of the Mineral and
Petroleum Resources development Act (MPRDA), this seems to leave little
room for democratic consultation processes. If one is talking of
democratic development processes as being driven by a community having a
say in the way that development unfolds, then the processes outlined in
the MPRDA leave much to be desired.

Under MPRDA processes, an SIA is simply a way to ‘mitigate’ any
undesirable social effects that might be caused by the mining. It does not
raise the ‘grassroots’ issue of whether the mining is the best development
option for affected communities in the first place, but merely imposes a
‘solution’ on community after the decision to mine has already been made.
The power of the community to thus determine what type of development
would be in their best interest is totally undermined. An SIA under MPRDA
processes does not allow the option to prevent the mining should the
social impacts be deemed unreasonable, but merely seeks to alleviate
these. But the means by which they are ‘alleviated’ are at the discretion
of the mining company, which basically sets the rule book.

The EIA indicates that only about 80 jobs for unskilled workers would be
created by the mining. The rest, about 200 jobs, would be for skilled and
semi -skilled labour. As the population of the region is largely
illiterate and unskilled, the benefits of jobs for local populations is
negligible. On the other hand, many families that are dependent upon
subsistence agriculture would be deprived of their means of livelihood for
the duration of the mining.

Some critics have labeled this an elite ‘white’ concern for the
environment when there are poor communities desperate for jobs. How did
‘race’ get tangled into this issue?

The issue of race seems to have been raised by BEE supporters of the
mining agenda, such as the Chair of Xolco (the BEE partner), Madiba Qunya,
as well as by various politicians who are in favour of the mining
proposal, such as Minister Sonjica and Mayoress Capa.
If Eco-tourism is the more logical and sustainable industry for the
region, why is it proving so hard to convince the necessary authorities?

I am not sure that it is so much a case of convincing the necessary
authorities, as of different rules applying to different authorities, and
of different authorities having different conflicting agenda’s. The
development of tourism, under DEAT, has to fulfill the requirements of
Environmental Impact Assessment’s (EIAs) which fall under NEMA, as well as
comply with LED’s. These are more strident in their conditions, and thus
take more time to comply with in order to ensure that development is
indeed ‘sustainable’, than the DME requirements to get a mining license
under MPRDA. The approval for mining is thus easier to come by, as it is
not conditional on the project being put to the scrutiny of an EIA. The
EIA process under MPRDA is merely a ‘benchmark’ from which a mining
company has to indicate that it will comply to address ‘mitigations’; it
does not necessarily judge the effectiveness of stated ‘mitigations’ or
the broader socio-economic impacts of the proposal. In this case the
project also seems to have been rushed through.

The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) have voiced
their disapproval of the mining, but do not seem to have the ‘legislative
‘teeth’ to prevent it under current policies at this stage.

The SWC lobbys for “ecologically sensitive economic solutions for the Wild
Coast region”. What are these solutions if economic development is to take
place?

Any ‘sustainable’ solutions for development would have to achieve a
balance between economic, social and environmental considerations. The
Wild Coast Conservation and Sustainable Development Plan has already
outlined a process that would allow leeway for development in an
‘ecologically sensitive’ manner, but this seems to have seen little
action.

Whether this is due to government indifference, government ‘bungling’, or
government incapacity is a matter of debate.

Where to from here? If the mining goes ahead in October, how does the SWC
plan on tackling it thereon?
SWC are preparing to take the matter to court of lodged appeals fail.
However, in this we would be lead by the wishes of those Wild Coast
communities who will be most directly affected by the mining.

Posted on September 26th, 2008
Filed under: Articles