A letter sent to various goverment departments expressing reservations about the objectivity of terminology used in public participation meetings re mining, that I attended. ( Val Payn)

Director General
Department of Minerals and Energy

Director General
Department of Public Enterprises

Eastern Cape Economic Affairs and Tourism

Minister van Schalkwyk
National Department of Environment and Tourism

GCS

27/6/2007

Dear Sirs/ Madames

MINERAL MINING -WILD COAST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS

I wish to express my gravest concern at the manner in which certain information was presented at public meetings during the public scoping phase of the EIA of proposed mining by Mineral Commodities Ltd in the Wild Coast area.

For any PP process to effectively identify and critically assess environmental impacts of any proposed developments, it must take place in a real, rather than imaginary environment.

The land on which the mining is proposed does not belong to the mining company, but is communally held in Trust by the Minister of Land Affairs on behalf of present and future generations of people who live there, and has been so for decades. The new political dispensation of South Africa that commenced in 1994 did not change that, but rather reinforced the principle of collective accountability of stewardship of the land and natural environment by enacting legislation that placed ordinary people at the forefront of environmental management and decision making processes. To enable people to exercise this responsibility with due competence and understanding, capacity building processes need to happen prior to the implementation of any development processes so that people concerned can determine as far as possible what is ‘justifiable socio-economic development’.

My experience of the PP process for the Xolobeni MSP is that is does not meet this criteria. That in effect it gives a distorted view of the mining proposal which potentially dis-empowers the ability of rural householders and their leaders to make informed decisions by exploiting their relative material disadvantage and ignorance of scientific environmental and technical matters, in order to market what is essentially a business proposition

During the Public Participation Process I attended 2 public meetings, namely one in Mbizana and one at Port Edward. While I found the meetings to be generally civilly conducted, in my opinion the terminology used in certain instances during the presentation of the project, and certain photographic slides shown, particularly at the Mbizana meeting, was a severe misrepresentation of fact with potential dire consequences for public understanding of the processes, and that this could severely influence public understanding of the viability of mining and possible consequences to the environment of the mining proposal and hence consequences of mining to communal land. Also that in one instance a flagrant misrepresentation of the truth occurred, and that no attempt was made to put the mining into an environmental context which, considering the global significance of the Pondoland centre of Endemism, is a crucial omission.
That this therefore constitutes a breach of the intentions of EIA processes and of NEMA to present an objective appraisal to the public of proposed projects, and impedes public ability to make informed decisions and raise relevant concerns.

My concerns relate to the following.

At Mbizana a composite photograph of various satellite images taken at intervals since the 1970’s was shown which illustrated how the so called ‘red dunes’ had increased in size from the 1970’s until today. The explanation of the photograph given by the presenter was that the dunes were degraded land that had resulted as a consequence of overgrazing by cattle and that after the mining process the dunes would be ‘rehabilitated’. The, admittedly unspoken, implication was that the so called ‘degraded’ dunes could be returned to a suitable state for grazing of cattle through rehabilitation, and that it would only be so called ‘ degraded’ areas such as the red dunes that would be mined, and unless the dunes were ‘fixed’ through rehabilitation, they would continue to increase in size.

At the Port Edward meeting the presenter also made reference to the fact that ‘degraded’ land would be mined and showed a photograph of the ‘red dunes’ to illustrate so called ‘degraded’ land. The presenter also suggested that all mined areas would be rehabilitated after the mining operation. I asked the presenter what scientific criteria were used to determine what constituted ‘degraded’ land. That is, what definition was being used to determine what constituted ‘degraded land’. She had no reply and indeed it transpired that no scientific definition or explanation had been used to quantify what was meant by ‘degraded’ and there appeared to be no conclusive evidence to back up the claim that so called ‘red dunes’ had resulted through overgrazing and not as a result of natural soils, climatic and wind conditions, or other natural phenomenon or a particular combination of man made and natural phenomena.

It is obvious that to date no scientific studies have been undertaken in the area to determine if so called ‘rehabilitation’ is feasible, or indeed whether even ‘revegetation’ is possible. In the minutes it is recorded that my question ‘Have any trials/ studies been done to determine if rehabilitation is feasible in mined areas?’ the response is noted as ‘This issue will be addressed as part of the specialist studies to be undertaken during the EIA phase.” However, the presenter repeatedly used the term ‘rehabilitation’ as an explaination of what would occur on the land post mining operations. As in ‘once the minerals have been extracted, the land/ dunes will be rehabilitated’.

In my view, using terms such as ‘degraded land’, rehabilitation’, as well as the explaination of the ‘red dune’ phenomenon without the scientific background and evidence and defining criteria to back up what is meant by such statements, and considering that it is not only the red dunes that are to be mined, but a considerably larger area that constitutes undisturbed coastal grasslands, (and allowing that the general public usage of the term ‘degraded’ is to refer to land that is spoilt in some way for human use by processes that are not an incident of nature, and that the common usage of the term ‘rehabilitation’ is to restore to a ‘pre-degraded’ or natural state) such terms could lead to a public misconception of potential implications of mining than might occur in reality.

I am also concerned at the Mbizana meeting that it was stated 500 jobs would result from the mining. However, upon questioning it became clear that the mining itself would only provide about 250 jobs, and that the remainder would come from the proposed smelter, of which 3 possible sites where indicated. The smelter, however, is not being assessed under the current EIA proposal and will only be given consideration, as a separate project under a separate EIA process, if the mining application is given approval. There is therefore no guarantee that, even if mining is approved, a smelter would be given environmental approval or that such would be built. At the Port Edward meeting it also transpired that, although 3 potential smelter sites had been allocated in the vicinity of the Wild Coast area, a site was also being considered at Coega.

To therefore suggest that 500 jobs in the area will be created by mining is completely erroneous and a blatant misrepresentation of fact, and could raise undue expectations of possible socio -economic spin-offs of mining that are as yet nothing more than conjecture.

I am also concerned that there was no attempt to place the mining within the context of the ecological significance of the Pondoland Centre of Endemism. There was no explaination of the PCE’s significance either as a regional or international centre of biological bio -diversity, or any expression that mining in such an ecologically sensitive area might possibly go against the ethos of the International Convention of Biodiversity. Indeed, in conversation afterwards with two of the members of local communities who had attended the meeting, it became obvious to me that they had no idea of the biological significance of the PCE, nor of the wealth of plant species it contained and as a consequence were puzzled why the mining had encountered such opposition from the environmental lobby.

I am also concerned that it transpired that the Bankable Feasibility Study will only be conducted once approval for mining is granted. However, the mining is being ‘sold’ to the rural public under the guise that it will provide improved infrastructure for the area, including improved road access. But on the Xolobeni website it is indicated that transport options, including one assumes road infrastructure, will only be considered as part of the Bankable Feasibility study, that is once the mining application has been approved. The only infrastructure that is listed on the website is electricity and a dam for water retention for the mining operation.

My impression therefore, is that the public are being asked to address concerns and base opinions about an issue of which they are not given full and accurate information, which constitutes a clear misrepresentation of fact and is not in accordance with the requirements of EIA processes

To this end I feel the public participation process has been severely compromised and that its neutrality and objectivity is highly questionable, and as a consequence the process is already inherently flawed and biased.

Yours Sincerely
Valerie Payn
Communications
Sustaining the Wild Coast
P.O.Box 44
Harding
4680
Tel 083 4416961
Fax 039 4331217
Email valpayn@gmail.com

Posted on June 27th, 2007
Filed under: Letters