Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Information and Discussions on Mining Issues
User avatar
Toko
Posts: 34047
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:29 pm
Country: -

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by Toko » Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:39 pm

In other words: if you destroy or damage biodiversity you have to compensate `= give something of at least equal value in return.

I wonder what SANParks will do with R55 million compensation. Something of equal value would be for example to incorporate additional land into the National Park. If they use the money to develop tourist infrastructure, it would be a trade-off or sort of transformation of natural capital into social or man-made capital.

Appropriateness of offsets must be defined and there should be guidelines or legislation for the offset design and management process :-)

I hope DEA will come up with a good guideline \O

User avatar
Toko
Posts: 34047
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:29 pm
Country: -

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by Toko » Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:38 pm

I still fail to understand the buffer zone issue 0'

Government stated that mining and propsecting is not allowed in the buffer zone, but within the revised buffer zone, there are prospecting and exploration licenses have been issued.

-O- -O- -O-

User avatar
Toko
Posts: 34047
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:29 pm
Country: -

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by Toko » Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:40 pm

The World Heritage Committee of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco), which held its 38th Session in Doha, Qatar, from 15 - 25 June 2014, approved the buffer zone.
Committee Decisions
38 COM 8B.48

Examination of minor boundary modifications: Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape (South Africa)
The World Heritage Committee,
Having examined Documents WHC-14/38.COM/8B.Add, and WHC-14/38.COM/INF.8B1.Add,
Notes the confirmation by the State Party that mining activity is legally prohibited in protected areas, including in World Heritage properties;
Approves the proposed buffer zone of Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape, South Africa;
Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre the Environmental Management Framework for the proposed buffer zone as soon as it has been finalised including land uses and approved regulatory tools;
Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre information about the ‘off-setting’ in relation to the Vele Colliery, as previously requested by the World Heritage Committee.
Link

User avatar
Toko
Posts: 34047
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:29 pm
Country: -

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by Toko » Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:08 am

Media Release: Save Mapungubwe Coalition calls the biodiversity offset agreement for Vele colliery “vague, inadequate and unenforceable”

OCTOBER 30, 2014 AT 11:44 AM

The Save Mapungubwe Coalition raises serious concerns with the offset agreement, and requests public access to finalised annexures

On 8 October 2014, after several postponed signing ceremonies, Coal of Africa (CoAL), the Department of Environmental Affairs and SANParks signed a biodiversity offset agreement for CoAL’s Vele Colliery mine near the Mapungubwe World Heritage Site. The conclusion of this agreement within six months is a condition of the authorisation given to the mining company in July 2011 to continue certain activities which it first began at the Vele Colliery without permission in 2010.

Nothwithstanding the timeframe specified in the licence, and repeated requests from the Save Mapungubwe Coalition regarding the status of the agreement, it has taken more than three years to conclude. To our knowledge, no opportunities have been provided to any interested and affected parties to provide input into this agreement.

Moreover, the agreement eventually signed on 8 October 2014 is vague, inadequate and largely unenforceable. The content of the mining company’s strategy for restoring the environment, as well as timelines for the various offset projects, have not been included. These details are contained in two annexures to the agreement, neither of which have been made available. The agreement does not appear to provide for any actual offset but rather a payment to SANParks. The primary purpose of the condition requiring the offset agreement was to increase the conservation area of the Mapungubwe National Park and World Heritage Site (Clause 29 and 29.1 in the Section 24G Authorisation dated 5 July 2011). No mention is made in the agreement of any increase in the conservation area.

The Save Mapungubwe Coalition is concerned about:

the extraordinary delay in finalising this agreement in accordance with the licence condition;
the exclusion of all interested and affected parties from the development of the agreement contrary to the licence conditions;
The failure to include the increase in the conservation area of the Mapungubwe National Park and World Heritage Site as an objective of the agreement;
the possible dangerous precedent set by the lack of clarity of the offset created by this agreement. The offset agreement is an important tool for ensuring that CoAL restores all of the ecosystems that have been depleted as a result of their mining activities; and
the relatively low value of the offset. R55 million in five equal instalments over 25 years (according to media reports) is not substantial in 2038 terms.
The agreement terminates at the end of the “Life of Mine”, a term that is not defined, and which may mean “when CoAL decides to close the mine”. It is not clear what impact that would have on any funds still unpaid at that point.

“The offsets agreement is vital to protecting the integrity of Mapungubwe and keeping the impacts of open-cast coal mining on the area to a minimum,” said Robert Krause, researcher at the Centre for Applied Legal Studies which represents the Save Mapungubwe Coalition. “Given the push to accelerate mining in Limpopo, these measures will become increasingly important in safeguarding the archaeological heritage and unique physical environment of this region.”

“Given CoAL’s well-publicised financial constraints, it is also not clear how payment of the instalments will be guaranteed, and how the DEA and SANParks will compel payment should CoAL fail to perform under the agreement,” said Melissa Fourie, executive director of the Centre for Environmental Rights.

The Save Mapungubwe Coalition – which consists of the Mapungubwe Action Group (MAG), Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA), the World Wide Fund For Nature South Africa (WWF SA), BirdLife South Africa (BLSA) and the Wilderness Foundation South Africa (WFSA) – is calling for the finalisation of all annexures to the biodiversity offset agreement and public access to these documents. The Coalition is represented by the Centre for Applied Legal Studies and the Centre for Environmental Rights.

For inquiries, please contact:

Yolan Friedmann – CEO: Endangered Wildlife Trust yolanf@ewt.org.za 011 372 3600

Simon Gear – Policy and Advocacy Manager: BirdLife South Africa advocacy@birdlife.org.za 011 789 1122/ 0860 BIRDER

Dean Muruven – Water Source Areas Manager: WWF South Africa dmuruven@wwf.org.za 011 447 1213

Melissa Fourie – Executive Director: Centre for Environmental Rights mfourie@cer.org.za 021 447 1647

User avatar
Lisbeth
Global Moderator
Posts: 63914
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by Lisbeth » Fri Oct 31, 2014 3:43 pm

The World Heritage Committee:

............
9. Reiterates past decisions regarding gas exploration and exploitation in World Heritage properties as well as the International Council on Mining and Metals’ (ICMM) Position Statement on Mining and Protected Areas to “not explore or mine in World Heritage properties”, and therefore requests furthermore the State Party to ban any development of the coal/gas field in the property and to halt any development of the coal/gas field in the buffer zone until a Heritage Impact Assessment has been undertaken and submitted to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies;
10. Requests moreover the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2014, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 38th session in
The mining permit attracted opposition from conservation stakeholders, including the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). At the time Unesco considered the mining right area to be part of a future buffer zone area envisaged at the time of world heritage listing.

The chairman of the SANParks Board, Mr Kuseni Dlamini, said through the processes to revise the Mapungubwe World Heritage Site buffer zone, SANParks had expressed the view that it was possible for the mine to continue with its operations without impacting negatively on the protection Mapungubwe, provided an appropriate framework is put in place to manage the interface between mining operations and the World Heritage Site.

“There are those who have insisted on seeing conservation as being opposed to development and job creation, but this is certainly not the case. SANParks has long held the view that our national parks should serve as catalysts for local economic development, particularly in some of the more isolated rural areas where opportunities are limited,” said Mr Dlamini.
I wonder if the requested report has been send to the World Heritage Committee :-?

What is "an appropriate framework is put in place to manage the interface between mining operations and the World Heritage Site."?? Something like the Chinese Wall -O-

Have they made the buffer zone smaller in a way that the mine is outside? -O-

.... development and job creation = mining on the border of the National Parks. That's what it sounds like to me O/
"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
Toko
Posts: 34047
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:29 pm
Country: -

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by Toko » Sat Nov 01, 2014 4:19 pm

The buffer zone is large to the south but very small to the east where the Vele coliery is.

That's exactly the point, Lis. What's the purpuse of a buffer zone if it is designed to allow for mining :-? ?

As said on another topic, I think the entire buffer zone exercises are nothing than a waste of human and monetary resources, if the underlying principle is not the biodiversity value.

User avatar
Toko
Posts: 34047
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:29 pm
Country: -

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by Toko » Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:40 pm

COAL OF AFRICA LIMITED - Interim financial statements announcement
2015-03-13 09:01:00
Vele Colliery

During the period a historic Biodiversity Offset Agreement (“BOA”) was signed by the Department of Environmental Affairs (“DEA”), South
African National Parks Board (“SANparks”) and CoAL to the value of R55 million ($4.7 million) over a 25 year period. The BOA is intended
to promote the development of Mapungubwe so that it benefits the environment, the local economy and resident communities and provides
an appropriate framework to manage the interface between mining operations and the Mapungubwe World Heritage Site, located
approximately 30 km from the mine.

The BOA is based on the ecosystem approach to biodiversity management, promoting the integrated management of land, water and
natural capital and enhance co-operation between the three parties towards the conservation and sustainable development of the
Mapungubwe World Heritage Site, safeguarding its integrity and ensuring that the negative impacts of development are avoided or
minimised. It is the first of its kind in the mining industry.

The Company previously submitted applications to amend the colliery’s Environmental Authorisation (“EA”) to include the proposed plant
modifications. These applications were approved by the DEA in early CY2015. Subsequent to the receipt of the amended approval, an
intention to object was lodged with the regulatory authority. The Company has also submitted applications to amend and renew Vele’s
Integrated Water Use Licence (“IWUL”) and CoAL is confident these will be received during H1 CY2015. The current Vele Colliery IWUL is
valid until March 2016. Further approvals will be required with respect to a stream diversion, a process which the company envisages
commencing shortly. The Company has delayed the commencement of the plant modification construction pending the receipt of these
approvals, which also gives the Company further time to assess the outlook for coal prices.

The Front-End Engineering Design (“FEED”) process for the Vele Colliery plant modification project undertaken by Sedgman South Africa
was completed during the period. Changes to the plant modification design have resulted in a shortened construction period with the
improvements resulting in the simultaneous production of semi-soft coking coal and thermal coal and the next stage of detailed design will
commence upon project go ahead which is envisaged to be shortly after the receipt of the approvals applied for.
http://today.moneyweb.co.za/sensview?id=247276

User avatar
Toko
Posts: 34047
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:29 pm
Country: -

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by Toko » Fri Mar 18, 2016 10:12 am

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/de ... hs_emf.pdf




State of conservation report by the State Party for the Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape and Biodiversity Offset Agreement

http://whc.unesco.org/document/139929




Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape - minor boundary modification: new map for the revised buffer zone

http://whc.unesco.org/document/134439

User avatar
Toko
Posts: 34047
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:29 pm
Country: -

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by Toko » Fri Mar 18, 2016 10:36 am

The easternmost boundary of Mapungubwe National Park is situated approximately 5 km to the west of the westernmost boundary of the Vele project area. The new buffer zone only includes the small area between the National Park and the Mining area. So nothing has changed and the outline of buffer zones follows landuse plans (mining and agriculture) instead of conservation concerns.

The ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK says it very clear:
According to the audit of land use activities (DEA, 2013), there is a strong view that the 2009 Proclaimed buffer zone is too large and therefore not practical for a coherent environmental management plan as well as for a balanced approach considerate of the South African development priorities around the world heritage property, in the context of competing land uses.

Buffer zones are a very weak conservation tool 0'

User avatar
Lisbeth
Global Moderator
Posts: 63914
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by Lisbeth » Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:23 pm

Especially if the size can be changed according to the fancy/interests of who is in command 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

Return to “Mining Issues”