Miners are ripping up the West Coast

Information and Discussions on Mining Issues
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67570
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Miners are ripping up the West Coast

Post by Lisbeth »

West Coast fishing communities say they were excluded from seismic survey consultations

Image
Small-scale fishers from the West Coast, with environmental groups, protest outside the Western Cape High Court on Thursday, 24 February 2022 against a West Coast seismic survey. (Photo: Brenton Geach)

By Onke Ngcuka | 24 Feb 2022

Fishing communities on the West Coast say they were excluded from meaningful consultation before an Australian company’s seismic surveying programme.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Commercial fishers were consulted in the build-up to Australian company Searcher Geodata’s seismic survey programme off the West Coast, but small-scale fishers were sidelined, the Cape Town High Court heard on Thursday as the case for an urgent interdict, referred to as Part A, ensued.

The case, brought forward by 13 small-scale fishing communities and the civic organisation We Are South Africans, was argued before Judge Daniel Thulare. The matter seeks to have Searcher Geodata’s survey halted until proper environmental authorisation has been adhered to and the small-scale fishing communities have been meaningfully consulted.

Searcher Geodata’s surveying programme was halted after an interim interdict on 7 February. The company has said it will terminate the programme should the urgent interdict be granted.

Searcher Geodata’s seismic survey along the West Coast has been under way since 24 January. The fishing communities, who tie their heritage to fishing and the ocean, have raised concerns over the impact the survey will have on their livelihood, food security and indigenous knowledge.

Christian Adams (43), a small-scale and fourth-generation fisher from Steenberg Cove, St Helena Bay, told Daily Maverick the heritage of the San and Khoi people was tied to the fishing community and passing on that heritage was integral to fishing.

“I am a fourth-generation fisher… and now I want to pass on my fishing skills to my sons. And if Searcher continues with this blasting and they do find oil reserves, we fear that that cultural heritage of passing down the skill of fishing from one generation to another will be irreparably harmed because we can no longer go out into our ocean to fish because of the migration patterns and the spawning patterns of the fish that will be ruined through the blasting and drilling for oil and gas,” Adams said.

Representing the 13 applicants, advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi told the court that the seismic surveying Searcher Geodata had been carrying out was unlawful.

Ngcukaitobi argued on the illegality of the survey on the basis of a lack of consultation with his clients when the company was applying for its permits.

The advocate said that Searcher Geodata had not obtained environmental authorisation under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act and in terms of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998.

A public notice in three regional newspapers (Cape Times, Die Son and Die Burger) and three local papers (Namakwalander, Ons Kontrei and Weslander) was published, informing communities of the commencement of the survey.

A full report was also made available on the website of the environmental advisory firm SLR Consulting, which applicants have previously said was available for an insufficient period considering the volume of the report.

In addition, the report was made accessible on a zero-data website, and on WhatsApp and email via request, with a contact number for SMS or WhatsApp messaging, Searcher Geodata’s court papers showed.

Fabian Mohammed (47), a small-scale fisher from the fishing village of Doringbaai on the West Coast, told Daily Maverick that Searcher Geodata gave the village a presentation on seismic surveys after carrying out prospecting, but when the community challenged the company and posed questions about fracking, the consultation process fell apart.

“This is why we take action to stop this while we are here in court today,” Mohammed said outside the court, where a substantial group of protesters had gathered.

“They were actually doing prospecting in our ocean without consulting with the community first, so in that case, it really disrespects our customary rights as fishers. They are disrespecting our constitutional rights as traditional fishers [who have been fishing] for generations… and we are very unhappy about it.”

Ngcukaitobi said the efforts were insufficient and did not constitute meaningful consultation as required when applying for a permit. This was especially so when commercial fishers, whose fishing areas overlap with those of the surveying, were directly consulted, while some small-scale fishers who were on Searcher Geodata’s database of fishers were not contacted.

Jeremy Gauntlett SC, who represented Searcher Geodata, said claims that Searcher Geodata failed to conduct the required consultation “are simply unsustainable on the facts”.

“The applicants have resorted to pointing out individuals they argue were not consulted, and by virtue of this, and with no regard for proportionality or established principle, assert that the entire consultation process is void,” Gauntlett said.

He told the court that while the applicants had argued that there was irreparable harm to the fishers’ cultural and indigenous heritage, they had provided little proof.

“What the applicants, on the other hand, do not do is show what harm, which is irreparable, would be suffered if the court directs that the matter proceeds to an expedited Part B hearing, in say April, with no interim interdict,” the advocate said.

In Part B of the application, the applicants seek to have Searcher Geodata’s environmental permits reviewed as they say the authorisation was granted without following proper protocols.

Judge Thulare recommended the parties try to resolve the dispute through mediation. Judgment was reserved. DM/OBP


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 76096
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Miners are ripping up the West Coast

Post by Richprins »

Gauntlett makes very good points! :shock: :yes:


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67570
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Miners are ripping up the West Coast

Post by Lisbeth »

Too often the ones in power talk over the heads of the directly interested, most likely sustaining, that they don't understand anything anyway. It is like tramping on their democratical and heritage rights and putting in danger their livelihood 0=


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67570
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Miners are ripping up the West Coast

Post by Lisbeth »

Victory for small-scale fishers after high court interdicts Searcher Geodata’s West Coast seismic survey

Image
A group of small-scale fishers and civic organisations in support of the community raise a banner to protest against seismic surveying along the West Coast outside of the Cape Town High Court. (Photo: Onke Ngcuka)

By Onke Ngcuka | 01 Mar 2022

Small-scale fishers can breathe a sigh of relief after the high court sided with them and granted an urgent interdict to put a halt to the seismic surveying that was being conducted by the Australian company Searcher Geodata along the West Coast.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Small-scale fishers are relieved after an official interdict followed an urgent application to put a halt to seismic surveying by the Australian company Searcher Geodata along the West Coast.

The applicants, 14 small-scale fishers and the civic organisation We are South Africans, filed an urgent application for an interdict against the survey programme.

The applicants cited concerns over a lack of consultation by Searcher Geodata, the effect of the survey on their indigenous and spiritual rights, the irreparable harm to marine life and thus their livelihoods, as well as a lack of environmental authorisation to carry out the survey.

In his ruling, at the Western Cape High Court, Judge Daniel Thulare said: “If Searcher truly wanted to ensure that [small-scale fishers] were included in the consultation process, it would have advertised [notices of the survey] in isiXhosa, English and Afrikaans.”

Searcher Geodata had cited English and Afrikaans notices in local newspapers as sufficient communication, alongside a report on the survey being available on WhatsApp, among other limited means. The judge’s ruling also confirmed that small-scale fishers had been excluded from the consultation process, while commercial fishers were consulted.

The effect of surveys on marine life was of great concern to the fishers, who rely on snoek for nutrition but also have cultural ties to it, more particularly the Khoi and San traditional heritage.

“For these reasons, I make the following order: [Searcher Geodata is] interdicted from continuing the seismic survey of the West and South-West Coast of South Africa in terms of the Reconnaissance Permit granted by [the minister of the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE)] on 18 May 2021,” Judge Thulare wrote in the judgment.

The judgment also noted that although the independent environmental assessment practitioners SLR Consulting said they would get an environmental assessment and authorisation at the correct time, they had not to date acquired either.

The ruling has been made pending the DMRE’s internal appeal to grant the reconnaissance permit to Searcher Geodata and the outcome of Part B of the application, in which the applicants seek to have Searcher Geodata’s environmental permits reviewed as they say the authorisation was granted without following proper protocols.

“It’s a huge victory for these communities, who are reliant on the ocean and fishing, not just as a source of income but also as a way of life. Thulare did well in the judgment to emphasise the human aspect of that,” said Priyanka Naidoo, a candidate attorney with the Legal Resources Centre, which represented the fishing communities.

“This victory is significant as it highlights the importance of meaningful consultation which is required under our environmental law regulations. This is especially important given the sudden interest in extractive activities off the West Coast and the potential cumulative effect that these activities can have on the marine and birdlife in the area,” Naidoo said.

Thulare had previously granted an interim interdict, prompting Searcher Geodata to halt its survey programme off the West Coast. The company had then continued the programme in international waters.

The judge noted with concern the manner in which Jeremy Blood, an environmental consultant at SLR Consulting, carried out the environmental assessment on behalf of Searcher Geodata. According to the court papers, SLR, and by extension Searcher Geodata, did not deem the small-scale fishing communities as directly affected by the seismic surveying.

The other respondents of the case filed notices to abide by the decision of the court while they carried out internal appeals. Those respondents included the DMRE, the minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, and Petroleum Agency South Africa.

Searcher Geodata had said in their heads of arguments that they would terminate the seismic surveying programme should the urgent interdict be granted. Daily Maverick asked Searcher Geodata for comment but the company had not responded by the time of publication.

“We are South Africans is ecstatic to hear the resounding news from the Western Cape High Court,” said Gilbert Martins, the founder of the organisation, adding that he hoped the environment and communities would come ahead of profits.

“A simple thing like a judgment will remind us that we still have a voice and that we can still change things together, and we will; for the communities, not for our own benefit.” DM/OBP


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67570
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Miners are ripping up the West Coast

Post by Lisbeth »

West Coast activists and mining firm reach agreement over expanded operations

Image
The Australian-owned Tormin mineral sands mine on the West Coast near Lutzville. In the background is Eskom’s Sere wind farm. Tormin shares the beach’s mineral resources with diamond mining company Trans Hex, which is working the excavation in the right foreground of the beach in this picture. (Photo: John Yeld)

By John Yeld | 21 Jun 2022

Mineral Sands Resources has prevented legal action, at least for now, over its West Coast expansion.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For the first time, the cumulative impact of a proliferation of mining, prospecting, and oil and gas explorations, both onshore and offshore, along the West Coast may be subjected to close scrutiny by independent environmental experts.

This comes after lengthy negotiations that have staved off, at least temporarily, a potentially bruising and expensive court case. Environmental justice advocacy group the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) was set to take on national government departments and mining company Mineral Sands Resources (MSR) over expanded operations on the West Coast.

But in terms of an agreement hammered out in talks and made an order of court, the Australian-owned MSR, which operates the Tormin mine near Lutzville, will agree to comprehensive environmental plans to manage its future mining operations, and ask environment minister Barbara Creecy to commission an independent Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the region.

A SEA is similar to an environmental impact assessment but it assesses potential cumulative impacts of development on a regional basis in order to inform planning and policies, rather than only assessing individual projects.

Environmentalists have been lobbying Creecy’s department for several years to commission a SEA for the West Coast.

Image
Researchers from the One Ocean Hub at the University of Cape Town and a GIS expert have produced this map of the plethora of prospecting and mining applications on the west coast. (Graphic: Supplied by GroundUp)

Court action

In early 2019, the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMR) controversially issued an integrated environmental authorisation to MSR for a huge expansion of its Tormin operations on the West Coast.

The go-ahead allowed the company to expand its existing 120-hectare mineral sands mining operation with an additional 188 hectares along 42 kilometres of coastline with ten west coast beaches.

The company was also given approval to extend mining operations inland into an ecological corridor and designated Critical Biodiversity Area.

The CER appealed against the authorisation and applied for the approval to be suspended pending the outcome of its appeal.

However, the DMR has still not ruled on either the appeal or the suspension application.

So the CER in early 2020 appealed to the environment minister, who has the legal authority to uphold the appeal and block environmental authorisation for the Tormin mine expansion. But Creecy dismissed the group’s appeal.

The CER then brought a judicial review application against both the DMR and Creecy, with MSR also cited as a respondent. The case was due to have started in March this year, but before it got underway, the parties agreed to negotiate.

Agreement reached

After lengthy discussions, agreement was reached to suspend legal action if MSR agreed to implement various environmental protection and planning measures. This has been made an order of court.

“The primary consideration for us was that even a court victory would not have secured a cessation of mining by MSR in the immediate or near future, nor would it have secured any additional steps to be taken by MSR to prevent further harm to biodiversity as a result of its mining,” CER attorney Zahra Omar explained.

There is increasing concern about the cumulative impacts of mining on both biodiversity and livelihoods on the West Coast.

“The entire region is under immense pressure from both onshore and offshore exploration, prospecting and mining, while also bearing the impacts of historical and ongoing mining,” said Omar.

“The discussions between MSR, various state departments and CER offered an opportunity to escalate the issue and accelerate action to mitigate these regional impacts.”

The agreement does not prevent MSR from mining in its expanded area. However, the mining company must follow the environmental authorisation process in terms of Nema (National Environmental Management Act) and conduct a meaningful public participation process for any future applications to expand its operations under section 102 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA).

MSR must also conduct a meaningful public participation process on the contents of its Social and Labour Plan, a statutory requirement of mining companies.

MSR has until 13 July to submit a motivation to Creecy’s department for a full SEA to be conducted for the West Coast. The SEA would be commissioned and paid for by the department.

MSR must also prepare and submit a biodiversity management plan for its expanded mining operations. The plan must provide for “no-go areas” and “set-aside” areas for conservation.

“These areas will be identified and prioritised according to actual, on-the-ground sensitivity, with the support of specialist ecologists/botanists, taking account of the Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan 2017, and the areas should contribute meaningfully to the overall network of ecological corridors,” the court order states.

MSR will be responsible for the cost of developing, securing, maintaining and extending the ecosystem on land under its ownership or control, subject to the approved biodiversity management plan.

Omar said the CER was “cautiously optimistic” but the success of the order would “obviously” depend on MSR compliance “which will be closely monitored by CER”.

“It’s important to note that CER has not withdrawn its judicial review application. The application is merely stayed in terms of the order. We are entitled to set the matter down should MSR not comply with the provisions of the order,” said Omar.

She said the response of the national environment minister and the DMR had been “disappointing”. The DMR had not participated in the discussions, and while Creecy’s legal representatives had taken part, the minister had stated that she would only be bound by the court order to the extent that she was legislatively required to respond to MSR’s submission of a biodiversity management plan or motivation for a strategic environmental assessment.

MSR did not respond to our invitation to comment. DM

First published by GroundUp.


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67570
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Miners are ripping up the West Coast

Post by Lisbeth »

Activists haul diamond-mining company to court to avert ‘moonscape’ fate for sensitive West Coast

Image
To the surprise of locals, Moonstone Diamond Marketing started mining on the Doringbaai beach, Western Cape, in May 2022. (Photo: Sacha Specker)

By Julia Evans | 09 Feb 2023

An environmental nonprofit has lodged a high court application to stop the firm, Moonstone, from mining near the fishing community of Doringbaai and potentially along a stretch of the coast further north that includes biodiversity hotspots such as the Olifants River Estuary and other critically sensitive areas.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
‘For some people, it’s just the ocean,” said Peter Owies, a Doringbaai community leader who grew up and lives in the small fishing community in the Western Cape.

“But if you live along the coastline, for some of us here, it gives you certain answers to certain questions. It’s an area where I used to look, to be quiet and still. No more.”

Owies’s comments come against the backdrop of a case due to play out in the Western Cape High Court between an environmental group and a mining company over continued mining along the West Coast.

Image
Frank Solomon, from Sentinel Ocean Alliance, on the northern side of the Doringbaai Moonstone mine on World Beach Clean-up day, 17 September 2022. (Photo: Sacha Specker)

Environmental NPC Protect the West Coast (PTWC) lodged an application with the Western Cape High Court to stop a diamond-mining company, Moonstone Diamond Marketing (Pty) Ltd (previously Trans Hex), from mining near the fishing community of Doringbaai and potentially along a stretch of coast north of the village that includes biodiversity hotspots such as the Olifants River Estuary and other critical biodiversity areas.

PTWC is arguing that the company, which broke ground last May, is mining with a renewed mining right that is not up to date with current social and environmental legislation nor up-to-date science-based recommendations and rehabilitation measures.

In its founding affidavit, which PWTC filed on 15 December 2022 with the Doringbaai and Olifants River Small Scale Fishing Communities, PWTC’s legal team argue that the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE), which is responsible for granting mining applications in South Africa, was incorrect to renew Moonstone’s mining rights, which are based on a 17-year-old environmental management plan (EMPr) last updated in 2005.



“If we don’t stop the situation, and we don’t stop companies like Moonstone and Trans Hex from operating under an out-of-date EMPr and in the way that they’ve always operated [not sustainable methods], our entire west coastline will start to look like that of the Northern Cape — a stretch of coastline that spans 250km, and it looks like the moon,” said Mike Schlebach, the CEO of PTWC.

Schlebach emphasised that they were not against mining, but that their main aim was to hold mining companies like Moonstone, the DMRE and the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment (respondents in the case) accountable and to prioritise issues such as the cumulative impact of mining and to ensure sustainable mining practices are implemented along with the required social and environmental plans.

Moonstone is partly owned by South African businessman Christo Wiese — his company Cream Magenta is the biggest shareholder.

Image
Environmental NPO Protect the West Coast has lodged an application with the Western Cape High Court to halt diamond mining company, Moonstone Diamond Marketing, from mining near the fishing community of Doringbaai. (Photo: Sacha Specker)

Trans Hex has an old mining site in Doringbaai from the 1990s that needed a renewed right to start mining there again, which it is entitled to apply for under section 24 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act.

It last updated its EMPr in 2005, but South African legislation has since changed.

​​Patrick Forbes, the legal head of PTWC, explained to Daily Maverick that as part of the amendments made to the National Environmental Management Act (Nema) and the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, we now have the “one environmental system”, which lists mining as one of the trigger activities for which a company needs an environmental authorisation. PTWC contends that the outdated EMPr cannot stand as an environmental authorisation and the mining right ought never to have been summarily renewed on that basis.

Forbes explained that “an application for environmental authorisation requires at the very least public participation, something which was entirely avoided with the current renewal, issued behind closed doors for another 30 years. By avoiding the environmental authorisation process Nema makes provision for, the local communities, the environment and fellow South Africans lose out. Allowing mining to take place in accordance with EMPrs that are 17 years old, without so much as calling for an update, is reckless.”

Image
The Olifants River Estuary, only a few kilometres north of Dooringbaai. (Photo: Sacha Specker)

Moonstone’s mining right was renewed on the basis of its old EMPr from 2005, when the “one environmental system” was not in place, so it doesn’t have an environmental authorisation, according to PTWC.

In August 2021, Moonstone started the first phase of obtaining an environmental authorisation by preparing a draft scoping report for an upgrade of its EMPr.

“So they were themselves of the view, at least at a point in time, that they needed to upgrade their EMPr. And then suddenly, that process just stopped,” Forbes said.

As far as PTWC can see, the application for an environmental authorisation was never finished, and the nonprofit didn’t see an environmental impact report circulated for public comment after the scoping report.

Professor Merle Sowman from the Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences at the University of Cape Town and who is on the Advisory Board of PTWC has been providing technical advice on the environmental assessment processes linked to the Moonstone and other cases said: “What was weird about the whole thing was that last year they appointed environmental consultants from Archean resources to start an environmental impact assessment process, which they did begin, and they did prepare what’s known as a draft scoping report [first part of an environmental authorisation process].”

But after the final scoping report had been submitted, in which Moonstone planned to do multiple specialist studies on the beach ecology and fisheries, as well as the impact of aesthetics on tourism, and after the report had been opened for comments (many of which were received on the method of mining and rehabilitation plans), nothing more was heard.

Then, a few months later in May 2022, Doringbaai residents noticed digging on the beaches had started.

Benefit to the local community

Owies said that initially opinion was split in his community when trucks turned up on their beaches in May 2022 — battling extreme levels of unemployment, many people in Doringbaai hoped the mining operation would provide jobs.

But so far only three locals have been hired. What’s more, the small-scale fisheries industry — the main economic activity in the town of 2,500 people — and kelp-drying projects have been affected since the mining prevents access to the beach and the water, while it has had an impact on the area’s ecology too.

“The ecosystem is broken, basically,” said Schlebach, explaining that the excavation of beach sand and disruption of sediment movement can affect various marine organisms, including certain fish species.

“As I grew up, those were areas where we as kids played… that was one of my favourite spots, where I took my dogs for a walk,” said Owies. “Now it is restricted.”



For Owies, the most critical point is to find an alternative that addresses unemployment in the area, but in a way that is meaningful for locals and less harmful to the environment.

He said the government has ignored their socioeconomic problems in the past, and only now that there is an opportunity to mine, has it taken notice.

No benefit for indigenous people

Martinus Fredericks, the leader of the Nama (originally spelt !Aman or Amaqua) people of South Africa (clans that lived in this area for hundreds of years, part of the indigenous Khoikhoi), told Daily Maverick that “very few of the indigenous people are being incorporated into the mining activities, because those mining companies normally come with their own people”.

“The people of the area don’t really benefit from any of the mining activities… [the only impact is] their coastal resources are now further diminished and destroyed.”

Mining companies are supposed to submit a social and labour plan to government departments as part of their application to mine. It is meant to outline job opportunities the operation will bring, any community-building projects they will undertake, and the contribution their activity will make to the locals.

Because Moonstone hasn’t applied for a new mining right, only the renewal of a decades-old one, PTWC claims there isn’t a new social and labour plan.

Daily Maverick asked Trans Hex’s head of legal, Aaron Larkins, on 23 January why Moonstone hasn’t applied for an environmental authorisation, considering the legislation and environmental landscape has changed, why it stopped and started the process of obtaining the authorisation, and what benefit it would provide to the community (and whether it had a social labour plan).

Larkins said “the information appears to be incorrect, in material respects, and in any event premised on a one-sided version of the facts/law”.

He did not clarify which facts were incorrect, but added: “Moonstone Diamond Marketing (MDM), or its predecessors, has been conducting a diamond mining operation in the De Punt area for more than 30 years, subject to the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy and Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment’s oversight — these operations benefit the local community, not only through employment opportunities but also Social and Labour Projects (SLP Projects).”

Larkins did not provide Daily Maverick with a social and labour project outline or plan.

Finally, he said that if Daily Maverick wanted to publish a “well-balanced” version, it should wait for Moonstone’s answering papers.

Moonstone was meant to file answering papers on 25 January, but had not done so by the time of publication.

Daily Maverick also approached the DFFE and DMRE on 23 January, but had not received a response by the time of publication.

Cumulative impacts

Image
Map giving the state of knowledge of prospecting and mining applications on the west coast of South Africa as of 15 September 2022 put together by researchers from the One Ocean Hub research group and Rio Button led by Prof Merle Sowman in the Department of Environmental and Geographical Science at UCT. (Source: Merle Sowman et al)

UCT’s Professor Sowman said the 2005 EMPr was out of date since new laws (such as the Integrated Coastal Management Act, 2009) and updates to the environmental impact assessment regulations had not been considered.

“Additionally, the DMRE has not taken into account the cumulative effects of all the developments (past, present and future planned) nor the new knowledge we have about climate change, impacts of mining on beach and marine environments, as well as coastal communities dependent on the sea for their livelihoods, in their decision to renew this mining right.”

Forbes said that since the EMPr was updated in 2005, “significantly more scientific research has been done, more up-to-date and detailed mapping of the West Coast is available, and there has been an avalanche of new mining and prospecting applications that have been given authority and authorisation to mine up there or are under consideration”.

Sowman explained that the DMRE was responsible for approving applications for prospecting or mining on the West Coast — it granted the environmental authorisation.

“Of course, there is a lot of concern about the minister of DMRE having the authority to give environmental authorisation when DMRE’s main mandate is the exploitation and development of our mineral resources,” she said.

‘Time for change’

PTWC wants the DFFE — also a respondent in the case — to have a coordinated approach with the DMRE, to consider the cumulative impact of all the mining operations that are continually being granted along the West Coast.

“If you look at the Northern Cape — it has just been obliterated in certain areas,” said Forbes. “That’s going to happen on the West Coast as well, if that same sort of dynamic or modus operandi is allowed to take place, where the DMRE just says, ‘go ahead’.”

“This is how mining on the West Coast has happened for the last 100 years — because it’s out of sight and out of mind. It’s time for change,” said Schelbach.

Reflecting on how the cumulative mining operations had affected his clan’s way of life, Fredericks said: “The remnants of our people that are still along the coastline, they live off the sea. They became fishermen, they made their livelihood out of the sea. So if you destroy the coastal areas, you destroy a whole community.” DM/OBP


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67570
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Miners are ripping up the West Coast

Post by Lisbeth »

Diamond-mining operation moves out of Western Cape fishing village – but the fight is far from over

Image
Moonstone Diamond Marketing started mining on the Doringbaai beach, Western Cape, in May 2022. (Photo: Sacha Specker)

Activists who are taking the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) and the diamond-mining company to court say that while Moonstone Diamond Marketing has left Doringbaai, this means nothing for their legal battle and that they expect the miners to pop up further along the coast soon.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In May 2022, locals of the small fishing community of Doringbaai in the Western Cape, were surprised when mining trucks turned up on the local beach without warning.

After getting Environmental NPC Protect the West Coast (PTWC) involved, they managed to find out that Moonstone Diamond Marketing (Pty) Ltd (previously Trans Hex) – which has an old mining site in Doringbaai from the 1990s – is mining with a renewed mining right based on a 17-year-old environmental management plan (EMPr) last updated in 2005.

Their mining right also includes the stretch of coast north of the village (about 15km) that includes biodiversity hotspots such as the Olifants River Estuary and other critical biodiversity areas.

So in December 2022, PTWC along with the Doringbaai and Olifants River small-scale fishing communities lodged an urgent application with the Western Cape High Court to interdict Moonstone from mining in this area.

Then, two weeks ago, locals started noticing the mining operation packing up, and by Wednesday, 1 March, Moonstone was gone.

Peter Owies, who grew up in Doringbaai and is a community leader, said there was no consultation process with the community and that the community has, “the same feeling as when they came in – without a word.

“So the feeling is actually the same, people are asking ‘what happened?’”

Owies said it seemed like “they were in a rush,” and unlike how they left the beach in the 90s, they filled up the holes and the beach is very flat, but not necessarily rehabilitated.

PTWC said in a statement, “Moonstone, we believe, didn’t find what they wanted at the Doringbaai site after they limited access to the beach, destroyed a beautiful trail and defaced a stretch of coastline previously enjoyed by locals and visitors. It is now an obvious eyesore and yet another wound inflicted on the Weskus that is becoming an all-too-common occurrence.

“We have little doubt that they are going to pop up further north because they still have ‘rights’ to mine the land north of Doringbaai, towards the Olifants River estuary, which is the second most important and diverse estuary in the country.”


They came, they destroyed, and then they packed up and left. They filled up and flattened their holes: not much of a rehabilitation job at all.
Moonstone, we believe, didn't find what they wanted at the Doringbaai site after they limited access to the beach, destroyed a beautiful trail and defaced a stretch of coastline previously enjoyed by locals and visitors. It is now an obvious eyesore and yet another wound inflicted on the Weskus that is becoming an all too common occurrence.
We have little doubt that they are going to pop up further north because they still have "rights" to mine the land north of Doringbaai, towards the Oliphants River estuary, which is the second most important and diverse estuary in the country.
We will be sure to follow their movements and hold them to account wherever we can.


“We were not particularly surprised to see them move off from that mine and that stretch of coast,” CEO of PTWC Mike Schlebach told Daily Maverick.

“They ultimately, according to their paperwork, have a 30-year permit to mine that area. So they may feel that they don’t have to rehabilitate that area for the next 30 years, which is kind of how they’ve behaved up in the Northern Cape, and in other areas where they get a permit to mine … they don’t find anything, then they leave it. And then they get a renewal on the permit, and it gives them another 30 years or whatever, to leave that mine unrehabilitated.”

Suzannè du Plessis, from the nearby town Strandfontein, which is 8km from the Olifants River mouth, said, “you can see clearly that they have just left beach sand over the red sand. That used to be a beautiful walking route, a cyclists’ route, people used to run that route, which now is just a big sand patch, and it’s very sad,” reflected Du Plessis.

Before mining started there was sand and vegetation (fynbos and vygies) above the high-water mark.

“That is all lost. You can see it blatantly where the red sand stops and the vegetation begins,” said Du Plessis, explaining that, “the red sand shows how they have mined above the high-water mark, otherwise it would be beach sand.”

“We would like to see the rehabilitation there. But none of us really know, because Moonstone isn’t cooperating with anybody.”

On 2 March Daily Maverick sent questions to Trans Hex’s head of legal, Aaron Larkens, asking why Moonstone moved off and what their rehabilitation plan is, but they have not responded.

In August 2021, Moonstone started the first phase of obtaining an environmental authorisation by preparing a draft scoping report for an upgrade of its EMPr which was compiled by Archean Resources (environmental and geology consultants) and submitted to the DMRE.

In the list of potential impacts, the report has “replacing soil, slope stabilisation, landscaping, revegetation and restoration,” under rehabilitation.

Trans Hex Group’s 2005 annual report – which is the year their EMPr was last updated – states that “EMPs are revised continuously to ensure that they are still in line with current mining operations. The revisions are done in consultation with regulatory authorities and other stakeholders and take into account the provisions of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act of 2002. An environmental implementation system has been developed and provides for regular monitoring of the activities that have potential environmental impacts.”

Additionally, it seems their internal rehabilitation policy at the time was “[total] backfilling of mined-out excavations”, which they seem to have done at Doringbaai, as locals have reported the land is “flattened out” and the holes are filled.

Image
Two weeks ago, Doringbaai locals started noticing Moonstone Diamond Marketing’s mining operation packing up, and by Wednesday, 1 March, they were gone, with the beach flattened. (Photo: Suzanne du Plessis)

Simon Bundy, who specialises in coastal management and conservation programmes and provided expert evidence in the applicants’ founding affidavit, emphasises that the 2005 EMPr only provides rehabilitation objectives for below the high-water mark, and says, “there is no effective determination of where the high-water mark is within the site, and therefore the location and extent of rehabilitation is not known.”

Du Plessis, a member of Olifants Estuary Management Forum and an active environmentalist since 2002, describes what’s happening on the West Coast now as “a free-for-all”.

“For me, the alarming thing could be south of the [Olifants] river mouth, there’s still about another 11 sites that they could move to, and one of them is very close to the mouth of the estuary, which is our biggest concern,” said Du Plessis. “Because people are just starting to mine ad hoc and not looking at the spatial development framework of where it is to residential areas, tourism areas, and environmental areas of high significance.”

On 16 February, nearly a month after Daily Maverick sent questions on 20 January, the DMRE, who are responsible for approving applications for prospecting or mining on the West Coast, responded.

Daily Maverick asked how the DMRE’s continual trend of approving mining activities along the biologically significant West Coast would not be at odds with what the South African delegation just agreed to in December last year at the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15) – where South Africa signed an agreement that is meant to put in place concrete measures that will place 30% of marine and terrestrial ecosystems under protection by 2030.

The DMRE responded, “the DMRE’s consideration of applications is guided by sustainable development factors as provided in section 2 of NEMA [National Environmental Management Act].

“That means the Department must consider a number of issues including protection of sensitive biological features but not in isolation from other factors such as employment and bettering the lives of South Africans.

“The EMPr approved by the Department recognises the impacts to the environment and put forward measures to avoid, mitigate and rehabilitated the disturbance to site. In this way, we can promote socio-economic development and protect the environment.”

Court battle continues

“Legally, it means nothing,” said Schlebach about Moonstone moving off Doringbaai.

“We are taking them to court on the fact that we feel like their renewal of their old permits is invalid. And that still stands.”

PTWC are arguing that Moonstone’s renewed mining right is not up to date with current social and environmental legislation nor up-to-date science-based recommendations and rehabilitation measures, and that the DMRE erroneously renewed Moonstone’s mining rights for extensive stretches of coastline on the West Coast, based on a 17-year-old Environmental Management Plan (EMPr) last updated in 2005 that is “outdated and legally irrelevant”.

Patrick Forbes, the legal head of PTWC, explained to Daily Maverick that as part of the amendments made to the National Environmental Management Act and the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act since the EMPr was last updated, we now have the “one environmental system”, which lists mining as one of the trigger activities for which a company needs an environmental authorisation. PTWC contends that the outdated EMPr cannot stand as an environmental authorisation and the mining right ought never to have been summarily renewed on that basis.

When asked why the DMRE has not upheld current legislation and required Moonstone to apply for an environmental authorisation, they responded:

“Moonstone holds old order rights issued in terms of the Minerals Act, act 50 of 1991, which rights were issued prior coming into effect of the MPRDA [Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act] and NEMA. The Old Order Rights were converted following transitional arrangements in the MPRDA and the EMPrs approved in terms of the MPRDA. It is worth mentioning that the Preamble of the MPRDA including in its objectives make reference to the principles of NEMA.

“Thus, the scope of the MPRDA EMPr is equivalent to that of the NEMA EMPr. An Environmental Authorisation is consent required prior to undertaking an activity, Moonstone mining is an existing development, there is nowhere in law and even as matter of common sense that an Environmental Authorisation should be done retrospectively.”

Basically, because Trans Hex met environmental and social standards when their EMPr was first granted in 2005, and the law doesn’t work retrospectively, their right still stands.

PTWC filed their founding affidavit on 15 December 2022 and initially, Moonstone was meant to file answering papers on 25 January 2023.

Now it seems the matter was not allocated on the urgent court roll, and at this stage PTWC legal team could tell Daily Maverick that Moonstone’s answering papers are not filed and the Western Cape High Court Acting Judge President has set a date for the court case for sometime between 6 and 26 April 2023.

Owies said about Moonstone moving out, “I’m kind of relieved, but I hope that with the court case we can discipline these people and try to get a moratorium on most likely future operations and that the community will be informed and know what’s going on.” OBP/DM


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67570
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Miners are ripping up the West Coast

Post by Lisbeth »

Alert sounded over mining prospectors eyeing treasures of last unspoilt strip along Western Cape’s west coast

Image
The Karoetjies Kop 150 coastal area where prospecting applications have been submitted. Environmentalists says it should be left 'untouched and raw', 'beautiful and pristine'. (Photo: Sacha Specker)

By John Yeld | 04 Jul 2023

Concerns mount over cumulative impact of new prospecting along the last unspoilt strip of the Western Cape’s west coast.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The last, relatively pristine section of Western Cape coastline between the Olifants River and the Northern Cape border is threatened by two new mining-related applications.

The applications to the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) are for prospecting rights on the farm Karoetjies Kop 150, which extends six kilometres inland and 15km along the coast north of the Soutriver.

SRK Mining (Pty) Ltd wants to prospect for diamonds along the coastline, targeting places where diamond giant De Beers had excavated huge exploration trenches during the 1970s.

Nekwana Trading Enterprise (Pty) Ltd ­wants the inland prospecting rights as it eyes the possibility of extracting heavy minerals, kaolin and gemstones.

Environmentalists and residents have raised the alarm over a “tyranny of small decisions”, where numerous prospecting and mining applications and other development activities are individually approved by the government, without a proper assessment of their cumulative impact on the environment.

In its acceptance letter to Nekwana, DMRE says the company is required to “consult” with the department’s regional office or the diamond prospector about operations on the same property. Yet there is no requirement for a combined impact assessment of the two operations.

Professor emeritus Merle Sowman, former head of Department of Environmental and Geographical Science at the University of Cape Town, has repeatedly called for a strategic environmental assessment of the cumulative impacts of the expanding mining footprint along the entire West Coast.

She has warned that applications are being assessed on an individual basis without the government understanding the overall impact and net effect of all its various approvals.

Sowman says an overall, long-term and strategic decision-making process to guide where and when human activities can occur in South Africa’s ocean areas is underway, as required by the Marine Spatial Planning Act, which came into effect in 2021.

Yet because so many approvals have already been given for prospecting and mining applications, as well as other coastal developments, she says, an overarching strategic environmental planning process to facilitate sustainable development in the west coast will be undermined.

“It’s very worrying. There is massive pressure to allow more mining because the government sees this as economic growth potential, but no one is seeing the big picture,” she says.

Nekwana’s application

Nekwana Trading Enterprise (a company with a Polokwane, Limpopo postal address) wants to prospect for sillimanite, monazite, manganese ore, leucoxene, kaolin (clay) and garnets.

In its documentation, the company states that part of the prospecting work will involve drilling operations with boreholes limited to a depth of 20 metres. Twelve boreholes will be drilled initially to test target areas with up to ten or so more boreholes, depending on initial results.

The company says mining already contributes to the economies of surrounding towns, such as Nuwerus, Bitterfontein, Lepelsfontein and Rietpoort, and it will attract foreign investment through transportation and beneficiation. It says it will improve social cohesion for local communities.

The company says mining operations will boost local business and SMMEs and reduce youth and general unemployment.

It says a one-kilometre “buffer zone”, where no drilling or activity will take place, will be placed around the river estuary and coastline.

Its final Basic Assessment Report and Environmental Management Programme documentation, including public comment, was submitted to DMRE on 19 May.

Image
Proposed select target areas for new diamond prospecting, marked in red, at Karoetjies Kop 150. The yellow lines show old De Beers exploration trenches dating from the 1970s. Source: SRK Mining (Pty) Ltd, Draft Basic Assessment Report and Environmental Management Programme.

SRK’s application

SRK Mining (Pty) Ltd, based in Koekenaap, wants to prospect for “general” and “alluvial” diamonds on 296 hectares and the adjacent surf zone.

Its application was accepted in April. A draft Basic Assessment Report and Environmental Management Programme was released in June to interested and affected parties for comment, closing 15 July.

SRK says it is applying for the area where De Beers/West Coast Resources held diamond prospecting rights in the surf zone — up to about 32 metres out to sea from the low water mark, and an average 800m wide coastal strip.

In December 2022, De Beers/West Coast Resources rights lapsed, and SRK Mining took the opportunity to apply for a new prospecting right over a small portion of the historic right.

“The only land use [in the area] is uncontrolled recreational activities with ad hoc campsites during the crayfish season … The environmental impact will be the same as for the informal campsites,” argues SRK.

It says there will be no prospecting during the summer and Easter holidays and all excavations will be made safe to allow for open access during these periods.

“The presence of an authorised and environmentally responsible company on site will also help to mitigate the problem of illegal diggers, crayfish poaching, littering, illegal hunting, and plant (firewood) collection, a common occurrence along the west coast,” SRK states.

According to the company, the preliminary evaluation will involve 20 sample pits with a footprint of 11 by eight metres and 6.5-metres deep. The pits will be filled and rehabilitated after the assessment.

If the results are promising, bulk sampling will be done from much bigger trenches, but this will involve additional authorisation, including a different environmental impact assessment and specialist studies.

Environmentalists voice concerns

Mike Schlebach, managing director of not-for-profit organisation Protect the West Coast (established in 2020) writes on its website that the entire West Coast is in “danger of becoming one massive mining site, all the way from Lambert’s Bay to the Namibian border” — more than 500km of coast.

Environmentalists say that where prospecting is approved, mining permits are inevitable if the value of deposits is deemed profitable.

Communications specialist Miles Masterson wrote on the website: “While not quite as disruptive as full-scale mining operations, the prospecting activities, such as collecting sediment samples and conducting heavy mineral separation, may involve the digging up and disturbance of coastal ecosystems and habitats. Moreover, given the mineral-rich quality of the area, the likelihood of these prospecting activities leading to actual mining is extremely high … in this pristine, untouched coastal zone.”

Schlebach describes coastal zone mining as “an outdated and destructive form of mining, which rips up beaches to extract minerals for everyday use such as cosmetics with little to no rehabilitation”.

“It means the loss of heritage sites, the degradation of biodiverse areas and fragile ecosystems, the pollution of the surrounding marine environments, the loss of livelihood to local fishers and a general decline in nearby communities.”

Allen Lyons, a retired geologist and former chair of the Strandfontein Ratepayers Association, says, “It’s a bit like a feeding frenzy, and we are not winning any battles. It’s also a very expensive process, and by the time any of our appeals reach the minister’s desk, the fight is usually already lost.”

Image
Old rustic huts are still scattered over the Karoetjies Kop 150 farm’ coastal area. They are used by surfers and other travellers to the West Coast for shelter. (Photo: Ant Fox)

First published by GroundUp.


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67570
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Miners are ripping up the West Coast

Post by Lisbeth »

Environmental activists challenge 30-year extension of West Coast diamond mining rights in court

Image
Damage to the West Coast north of the Olifants River estuary caused by previous diamond mining operations (before Trans Hex). (Photo: John Yeld)

By John Yeld | 28 Aug 2023

Fishers say they were ignored when the original rights were awarded between 1994 and 1998.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Legal action that could profoundly impact the future regulation of mining in South Africa, in particular environmental approvals and public participation, is scheduled to start in the Western Cape high court this week.

On Tuesday, the first part of an application will be heard challenging the awarding of 30-year extensions to 10 diamond mining rights on the West Coast held by the Trans Hex group.

The applicants are environmental non-profit organisation Protect the West Coast, two groups of small-scale fishers from Doringbaai and the Olifants River estuary, and two individual fishers from Doringbaai.

They argue they were not informed about, nor given an opportunity to comment on, these lengthy mining rights extensions. They were also ignored when the original rights were awarded between 1994 and 1998.

They argue the environmental management programmes (EMPs) on which these mining rights are based are more than 20 years old and hopelessly outdated. They argue new authorisations are required in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Nema) and other legislation that came into effect after the original rights were granted.

The application is being opposed by Trans Hex Operations (Pty) Ltd.

Read more in Daily Maverick: Trans Hex seeks legal costs from environmental non-profit that took it to court to stop West Coast mining

The respondents are the national mining minister (currently Gwede Mantashe); regional manager of the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE); Moonstone Diamond Marketing (as Trans Hex Operations was still named when the application was filed); national environment minister (currently Barbara Creecy); the Western Cape provincial MECs for transport and public works, and the environment; and the Matzikama local municipality.

Mining operations

Trans Hex Operations — called Moonstone Diamond Marketing (Pty) Ltd between February 2020 and February this year — currently holds 10 mining rights along an 85km stretch of the West Coast, between Lamberts Bay and Sout River to the north.

These rights, granted between 1994 and 1998, were so-called “old order” mining authorisations issued under the Minerals Act of 1991. This act was replaced by the Mineral Petroleum Resources Development Act of 2002 (MPRD) and the authorisations converted to mining rights.

Three of the 10 areas are for mining in the shallow sea, from about 32 metres to about a kilometre offshore.

The other seven are associated rights in the coastal strip, extending from the edge of farm boundaries to about 32 metres offshore, including the beach and surf zone.

Two project-specific EMPs covering the 10 mining concession areas were approved and published in October 2002, and revised and updated (but not formally approved) in 2005, without any public consultation.

In 2015, the DMRE extended the existing mining right in one of Trans Hex’s three sea concessions for 30 years, and in October 2021 extended the mining rights in all its other nine areas, also for 30 years. There was no public participation in, or announcement of, these awards.

Although in 2021 the DMRE directed the mining company to update the two 2002 environmental management programmes that regulated their activities in the three sea concession areas and related surf and beach zones, no deadlines were imposed for such an update and no restrictions on mining in the meantime were applied.

Court challenge

After failing to get crucial information about the rights extensions from the DMRE, including through a Promotion of Access to Information (Paia) application, the applicants launched urgent court action on 18 December 2022.

Their application is in two parts. Part A, being heard on Tuesday, is for an interdict to halt any mining activities by Trans Hex and its contractors in the sea concession areas where rights were renewed, pending the resolution of Part B of the application which challenges the legitimacy of those rights.

Part B consists of three applications: for a final interdict to stop all mining in the sea concessions until Trans Hex is granted Environmental Authorisations under Nema; for the court to review and set aside the original decisions to grant mining rights in the three sea concessions; and to review and set aside the most recent decisions to renew these mining rights and all previous renewals.

In his founding affidavit, Mike Schlebach, director of Protect the West Coast (the first applicant), argues there have been “significant and material” changes in the legal framework governing mining and the environmental impact of mining since the advent of democracy.

The environmental obligations for the mining are based on “outdated and wholly inadequate” EMPs dating back to 2002, states Schlebach.

The applicant’s challenge is also based on the claim that there was no public consultation before the extensions to the mining rights were granted. It happened “unbeknownst to the public and behind closed doors”.

“Given that South Africa is now a world leader in coastal zone assessment, it is unacceptable that renewals of mining rights were approved in 2021 for an 85km stretch of coast — scientifically acknowledged to be a national mining-conservation hotspot — based on an outdated EMP from 2005 lacking critical information for sound decision-making when new instruments are available to secure sustainable coastal development and management,” states Schlebach in his affidavit.

He points out that some of the other applicants — the fishers at Doringbaai, a small West Coast fishing village about 15km south of the Olifants River estuary — only became aware of the 30-year renewal through a local newspaper article on 12 August 2022. This was the so-called 13A sea concession.

Others in the community heard about it for the first time in a meeting with the Legal Resources Centre on 26 October 2022.

“The last 17 years saw significant changes in the socio-economic conditions of Doringbaai, and it is inconceivable that mining as invasive as what is happening on the beach can commence without a contemporary understanding of its potential impacts on the host community.

“The same can be said of the Olifants River Estuary and the impact that mining will have on the livelihoods of the Olifants River fishers who fish there,” states Schlebach.

Image
Trans Hex mining the beaches for diamonds near Doringbaai on the West Coast in September last year. This particular operation has since been stopped. (Photo: Sacha Specker/Protect the West Coast)

Trans Hex responds

In an answering affidavit, Trans Hex operations director Ian Hestermann states the group has been engaged in the exploration, mining and marketing of West Coast diamonds for almost 60 years.

Arguing that Part B of the application has “no prospects of success”, he states the applicants “raise a number of unsubstantiated allegations”, and that the company’s operations in terms of its mining and prospecting rights and the 2002 EMP are lawful.

“Trans Hex has and maintains an impeccable record of environmental compliance and has taken seriously the obligations to comply with its EMPs and to undertake rehabilitation wherever necessary… The applicants’ challenge to the original grant of the mining rights is unsubstantiated and baseless and their challenge to the renewals of those rights is wrong in law and in fact,” states Hesterman.

Although both applicants and Trans Hex have filed voluminous papers setting out their respective arguments in respect of Part B of the application, Tuesday’s hearing will only relate to the interim interdict application of Part A.

One of the crucial legal requirements for obtaining an interdict is reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm if it is not granted.

Schlebach argues that “reliance on the 2005 EMP as the management tool for the current mining operations is unlawful and presents a grave threat of irreparable harm. Significant and material environmental impacts have simply not been assessed at all, and where they have been, the information and assessment tools are dated. There are therefore major limitations on the present knowledge of the impact and consequences of the mining on the environment”.

“Once this coastline area and the Olifants River estuary have been damaged or destroyed, they are lost not only for present but also future generations.”

But Hestermann countered that the applicants offer “only speculative, broad and generalised contentions about the environmental nature of the concession areas”.

In negotiations leading up to Tuesday’s hearing, the mining company gave several undertakings which, it argues, “render the allegations of harm redundant”.

These include that beach mining operations between the high-water and low-water marks at Doringbaai will not recommence until both Part A and Part B of the application have been finalised; all beach mining operations will be confined to its Bethel and Weskus mining rights and it will not increase the size of these operations; it will not conduct any mining operations of any type within a significant area surrounding the Olifants River Estuary — the so-called “Olifants River Estuary no-go zone”; and it will not undertake any land-based mining operations in several conservation worthy areas along the West Coast adjacent to its three sea concession areas. DM

First published by GroundUp.


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67570
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Miners are ripping up the West Coast

Post by Lisbeth »

BIODIVERSITY WIN

Environment one, mining nil — partial settlement victory on contentious West Coast’s Olifants River plan

Image
A drone image of the Doringbaai coastal mining site, a few months after Trans Hex restarted operations, on 16 September 2022. (Photo: BlackBean Productions)

By Julia Evans | 01 Sep 2023

Diamond mining giant Trans Hex has been prohibited from mining along selected areas near the Olifants River estuary and is now required to update its decades-old management plan, following an out-of-court settlement agreement reached with Protect the West Coast.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Eight months after filing an urgent interdict with the Western Cape High Court, Environmental NPC Protect the West Coast (PTWC) has secured an out-of-court agreement with Trans Hex Operations, one of South Africa’s largest diamond-mining entities. It prohibits them from mining around the Olifants River estuary – a biodiversity hotspot – with the company agreeing to update their environmental management plan.

This saga began in May 2022, after locals from the small fishing community of Doringbaai in the Western Cape were surprised to find mining trucks on their beach without warning.

After getting PTWC involved, they discovered that Moonstone Diamond Marketing (Pty) Ltd (now called Trans Hex) – which has an old mining site in Doringbaai from the 1990s – was mining with a renewed mining right based on a decades-old environmental management plan (EMPr) last approved in 2003.

This outdated mining right also included a stretch of coast north of the village (about 15km) that incorporated biodiversity hotspots such as the Olifants River estuary and other critically sensitive areas.

So in December 2022, PTWC, along with the Doringbaai and Olifants River small-scale fishing communities, lodged an urgent application with the Western Cape High Court to interdict Moonstone from mining in the area.

Hasty out-of-court agreement

This week – right before the matter was set to be heard in court – an out-of-court agreement was reached, and a last-minute order of the court was granted in the Western Cape High Court on Tuesday 29 August.

As per the agreement, Trans Hex and its contractors are prohibited from mining around the Olifants River estuary, including the shoreline and beach, and offshore to a distance of 500m from the high tide mark.

This 2.8km no-go area is 300m of coast north and 2.5km of coast south of the estuary. The other no-go areas are for land-based mining: 11km of coastline from the Olifants River to Strandfontein; 1.8km of beach between De Toring and Skuit Bay, and at Duiwegat, which is about 200m of coastline.

Image
The “no-go” areas marked in red indicate where Trans Hex and its contractors are prohibited from mining around the Olifants River estuary, as per the agreement. (Map image: Trans Hex)

Professor Merle Sowman from the Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences at the University of Cape Town, who is on the Advisory Board of PTWC, noted that the areas in this map “do not include the entire area that a group of experts consider to be necessary to ensure proper protection of the Olifants estuary mouth area”.

Patrick Forbes, legal head of PTWC, explained to Daily Maverick that Trans Hex has 10 mining rights that fall into three concessions, spanning approximately 85km of coastline, and they can still continue to mine outside of the no-go areas.

“The order taken, however, is not determinative of the legal position on whether mining ought to continue when you have renewed mining rights based on a 20-year-old EMPr,” explained Forbes. “The order is an agreement reached between the parties on the further conduct in respect of mining for this area and the upgrade to the EMPr that must now be done.”

Environmental victory

A significant victory for PTWC is that Trans Hex has agreed to update their 20-year-old EMPr, and submit it to the DMRE within a period of six months. And to specifically include public participation as part of that process, and certain specialist studies.

In its founding affidavit, which PWTC filed on 15 December 2022 with the Doringbaai and Olifants River Small Scale Fishing Communities, PTWC’s legal team argue that the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) – responsible for granting mining applications in South Africa – was incorrect to renew Moonstone’s mining rights, which are based on a decades-old EMPr from 2002 that granted them permission to mine for an additional 30 years.

PTWC argued that Moonstone’s renewed mining right is not up to date with current social and environmental legislation, nor up-to-date science-based recommendations and rehabilitation measures.

Trans Hex is currently in the process of updating and amending their EMPr for diamond mining, and they have undertaken to submit this to the DMRE within six months.

Forbes said that since the EMPr was updated in 2003, that “significantly more scientific research has been done, better rehabilitation methods have been developed, more up-to-date and detailed mapping of the West Coast is available, and there has been an avalanche of new mining and prospecting applications that have been given authority and authorisation to prospect or mine up there or are under consideration”. As one example, Mineral Sands Resources and Trans Hex have overlapping mining rights covering the very same beaches.

Trans Hex is also ordered to separately identify the impacts and mitigation measures required in respect of beach-, shore-based and vessel-based mining in all its operations.

Trans Hex response

Trans Hex do not view this agreement as a loss, with its CEO Marco Wentzel stating in a letter to shareholders: “This case law authority is also supportive of Trans Hex’s position that it was entitled to continue mining whilst it undertook a process of updating its EMPr to account for the most recent amendments to NEMA, which is reflected in the settlement agreement that was made an order of court.”

He added, “In terms of the Applicants application and the settlement thereof, from the settlement reached it is quite clear that the application did not achieve its principle aims as the mining operations are continuing and the mining rights remain in good standing.”

The court order states that pending the approval by the DMRE of the application, all Trans Hex mining will be undertaken in terms of the existing approved EMPrs (from 2003), but will confine their beach mining to outside of the no-go areas agreed upon.

Wentzel said that despite what has been implied, Trans Hex operations have not been extremely destructive, as “Trans Hex has been undertaking mining operations in the De Punt area for more than 30 years, which have been confined to the area below the high-water mark. The disturbances that remain above the high-water mark were left by other mining companies and fall well outside Trans Hex’s mining areas”.

He said, “It should further be noted that Trans Hex already, since 2005, undertook and honoured the undertaking not to mine in certain ‘conservation areas’ constituting approximately 14km of coastline, which were now formalised in the court order.”

Where’s the community involvement?

As part of updating their EMPr, Trans Hex must consult communities as part of its public participation, consider cumulative impacts, and undertake specialist studies that address the interests of small-scale fisheries.

Forbes previously explained that “an application for environmental authorisation under the one environmental system requires, at the very least, public participation, something which was entirely avoided with the current renewal, issued behind closed doors for another 30 years”.

Peter Owies, who grew up in Doringbaai, and is a community leader, said there was no consultation process with the community. He said when the mining operation moved off the beach in February that the community had “the same feeling as when they came in – without a word”.

Owies said that initially opinion was split in his community, when trucks turned up on their beaches in May 2022 — battling extreme levels of unemployment, many people in Doringbaai hoped the mining operation would provide jobs.

The small-scale fisheries industry — the main economic activity in a town of 2,500 people — and kelp-drying projects were affected during the mining operation (May 2022 to February 2023), since the mining prevented access to the beach and the water, while it had an impact on the area’s ecology too.

Martinus Fredericks, the leader of the Nama (originally spelt !Aman or Amaqua) people of South Africa (clans that lived in this area for hundreds of years, and part of the indigenous Khoikhoi), told Daily Maverick that “very few of the indigenous people are being incorporated into the mining activities, because those mining companies normally come with their own people”.

“The people of the area don’t really benefit from any of the mining activities… [the only impact is] their coastal resources are now further diminished and destroyed.”

Wentzel said in his statement to shareholders that “we should not ignore the positive impact that the De Punt operation has had on the local community, not only through contributing substantially towards community upliftment and the social and labour projects, which form part of conducting a mining operation in South Africa, but the so-called indirect impact. The De Punt operation contributes millions towards the local community, through employment and the payment of contractors, for an area where financial opportunities are hard to come by”.

And added that “as part of its commitment to the Matzikama Municipality, Trans Hex also assisted in preparing the area [Doringbaai] so that the municipality could establish an abalone factory on this site”.

Cumulative impact

Sowman said “the DMRE had not taken into account the cumulative effects of all the developments (past, present and future planned), nor the new knowledge we have about climate change, impacts of mining on beach and marine environments, as well as coastal communities dependent on the sea for their livelihoods, in their decision to renew this mining right”.

“While this outcome is certainly a victory,” said PTWC CEO Mike Schlebach, “it is just one small battle won in the ongoing war against inadequately regulated mining in the region. There is still much work to be done and the fight against unlawful mining on the West Coast is far from over. But this victory has shown us what is possible in our mission to Protect The West Coast on behalf of its communities, and voiceless natural spaces, flora and fauna.”

Wentzel said that they “implore individuals to not only consider the environmental value of an area and their right to an environment (which is not absolute), but to take a balanced view, as part of a larger community, where locals benefit from economic activity and experience a better life – something they may never have the chance to enjoy without mining activity in the area.” DM


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
Post Reply

Return to “Mining and Other Extraction Issues”