[DEBATE] : (Fwd) Wild Coast anti-mining update, by Azad Essa

[Patrick Bond]

Commentary September 2008

Environment
Livelihoods will be ruined

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.