The Herald April 20, 2007.

By Guy Rogers  Environment & Tourism Editor

IF an Australian application to mine Pondoland‘s coastal dunes is approved, short- term benefits to locals will be ensured and the value of eco-tourism enterprises will not be undermined, regional minerals and energy director Nomvuyo Ketse said yesterday.

Port Elizabeth-based Ketse is one of the key officials who will be guiding the department‘s decision on the controversial R1,4-billion application to mine the Xolobeni dunes, south of Port Edward, for ilmenite.

She was responding to questions from The Herald in an interview at the Port Elizabeth airport yesterday.

Last week, two communities affected by the mine, represented by high-profile human rights attorney Richard Spoor, filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission about MRC‘s Pondoland activities.

Their complaint relates to their right to have their environment protected and to their right to access information on the MRC project.

The move echoes a call from Sustaining the Wild Coast – a loose coalition aimed at increasing public participation in local development projects – for the application to be “rejected out of hand”.

The coalition says it is making the call because the department‘s evaluation process does not insist on a cost/benefits analysis of various development options for the region.

The group says this analysis should be a prerequisite, as there are clear indications that mining will severely undermine the unique environmental value of Pondoland – and any opportunity for local communities to benefit through eco-tourism from this asset.

It charges that, if mining is allowed, the government “will be accountable for the possible extinction of at least 196 endemic plants”.

Confirming receipt of the MRC application two weeks ago, Ketse said evaluation of it would now take about a year.

“We are satisfied we have received the necessary initial documents, but receipt does not mean granting of the application.

“We will now be scrutinising this documentation, which includes social, labour and environmental plans, and calling for any further work that needs to be undertaken by the applicant.”

Asked about the opportunity for public participation, she said this would be a “big part” of the process.

She said the environment and tourism department had a huge role to play in the evaluation process, although its reasons would have to be made clear.

Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk‘s environment department has on a number of occasions stated its opposition to mining in Pondoland, saying that eco-tourism holds much better prospects for local community upliftment.

Asked about the concern of Sustaining the Wild Coast that water for the mining would be drained from estuaries like the Mnyameni, disrupting ecosystems and fish stocks, wild harvest potential for communities and eco-tourism potential, Ketse said the department of water affairs and forestry would be asked to guide the minerals and energy department on this issue.

Sustaining the Wild Coast contends that the movement of heavy trucks alone would destroy the character of the area. This character was integral to the value that could be sustainable tapped by responsible eco-tourism.

Ketse said she disagreed, as “it depends on how the project is managed”.

The areas the applicant was proposing to mine were already denuded and the department had sufficient capacity to monitor the project and ensure that the company stuck to these areas only, she said.

Monitoring would come from the department‘s newly established Mthatha office and would be done in partnership with environment department officers, she said.

Ketse said her department understood Sustaining the Wild Coast‘s concern about the Pondoland Centre of Endemism – which has 2 253 plant species, more than the whole of Britain, and is one of only 235 floral hotspots in the world – and the charge that allowing mining would be a violation of South Africa‘s commitment to the international Convention on Biodiversity.

“I want to remove the perception that the department wants to go ahead hell or high water. But why can‘t we do both? There is tremendous environmental potential, but we cannot disregard the huge mineral potential.

“We have to address the poverty in the area and the situation where children do not go to school because the distances are too great.”

She said that while she accepted as “valid” the argument by Sustaining the Wild Coast that social and economic upliftment could come from protecting Pondoland‘s environment and saying no to mining, she was not convinced that eco- tourism was a viable option.

grogers@johnnicec.co.za

Posted on April 20th, 2007
Filed under: Newspaper and Media