Africa Wild

GET’s Response to the Acceptance of the Final Scoping Report for Fuleni

Registered stakeholders received notification on Friday, 17 April 2015, from Lizinda Dickson of Naledi Development Restructured (Pty) Ltd that the Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs (EDTEA) has accepted the amended Final Scoping Report for the Fuleni open cast coal mine on the edge of the iMfolozi Wilderness Area. This authorises Jacana Consultants to proceed with the environmental impact assessment (EIA) that will result in an Environmental Impact Report, the next step in obtaining a mining licence.

Several organisations submitted comments identifying serious inadequacies and major omissions in the amended report. All the input has been disregarded. This is seen as an indication that the authorities appear intent on pushing ahead with the mine, regardless. In response, GET has called for an urgent meeting with the authorities concerned to gain clarity on the reasons for overlooking so many critical factors. The FSR guides the EIA process. By accepting a seriously flawed document to guide the EIA process, the authorities are undermining the EI legislation and encouraging a shoddy EIA process. This is grossly irresponsible, given the sensitivity of the area under scrutiny. GET is determined to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure an adequate FSR.

The main issues are:

1. Lack of water.

The FSR states there is no viable water source. This surely is a fatal flaw of such magnitude that it should not only result in the Scoping Report being rejected out of hand but stop the entire project in its tracks. The report acknowledges that Mfolozi is a water stressed river and that DWA is unlikely to grant a permit to abstract water directly from the river. There is also insufficient groundwater. Suggestions to use water from the Mvamanzi River that feeds the Mfolozi River amounts to the same thing as taking water from the Mfolozi! Impacts on the stressed river reserve have been determined, so on what basis DWA issues water licences remains a mystery. What we do know is that in 2003 the Mfolozi catchment had a deficit of 73 million cu (Basson & Roussouw, 2003) and the situation has deteriorated dramatically since then. There is no baseline information available that informs our understanding of the functioning of the Mvamanzi River and little thought is given to the needs of the Fuleni residents and their livestock.

2. Buffer zones around protected areas.

The Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs (EDTEA) gave a clear directive to the environmental consultant to engage with Ezemvelo, the organisation responsible for managing the Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park (HiP), and to finalise appropriate buffers for the Park before the Competent Authority would reconsider the scoping report. This is stated in paragraph 2(b) of EDTEA’s letter, dated 15 September 2014, rejecting the initial Scoping Report. The revised scoping report does not address the issue of buffer zones in any meaningful way and instead dismisses it. In a letter to the Department in Annexure C of the Scoping Report, Jacana Environmentals states that “in light of the fact that there is currently no legal buffer zone surrounding HiP, it is our opinion that the Scoping Report cannot be rejected on the basis that a buffer zone may be declared at some point in the future.”

It is GET’s opinion that, given the nature of the proposed activity – a noisy polluting open cast coal mine – and the sensitivity of the area – the first wilderness area in Africa and a sanctuary for threatened rhino, and the lack of information relating to coal mining activities on wildlife, the Draft Policy on Buffer Zones for National Parks/Notice 170 of 2010) should be considered in the Plan of Study. Although the document is in draft form and relates to National Parks, it needs to be read with the principles of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) which apply throughout South Africa. Mining activities within 40 meters of a Protected Area cannot be seen as sustainable. All the more so, if no due consideration is given to buffer zones.

Principle 2(4)(a) of National Environmental management Act

4)
(a)
Sustainable development requires the consideration of all relevant factors including the
following:
(i)
That the disturbance of ecosystems and loss of biological diversity are avoided, or, where
they cannot be altogether avoided, are minimised and remedied;
(ii)
that pollution and degradation of the environment are avoided, or, where they cannot be
altogether avoided, are minimised and remedied;
(iii)
that the disturbance of landscapes and sites that constitute the nation’s cultural heritage
is avoided, or where it cannot be altogether avoided, is minimised and remedied;
(iv)
that waste is avoided, or where it cannot be altogether avoided, minimised and re-used or
recycled where possible and otherwise disposed of in a responsible manner;
(v)
that the use and exploitation of non-renewable natural resources is responsible and
equitable, and takes into account the consequences of the depletion of the resource;
(vi)
that the development, use and exploitation of renewable resources and the ecosystems
of which they are part do not exceed the level beyond which their integrity is jeopardised;(vii)
that a risk-averse and cautious approach is applied, which takes into account the limits of
current knowledge about the consequences of decisions and actions; and
(viii)
that negative impacts on the environment and on people’s environmental rights be
anticipated and prevented, and where they cannot be altogether prevented, are
minimised and remedied.

The KwaZulu-Natal Environmental, Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management Bill, 2014 (EPG No.4, 25 February 2015, section 25) provides for the establishment of buffer zones.

Buffer zones
The purpose of a buffer zone is to –
(a) ensure that the environmental purpose for which a protected area is declared
is not negatively affected by development or any other activities in the areas
surrounding the protected area;
(b) protect important areas of high value for biodiversity and to society where
such areas extend beyond the boundaries of a protected area; and
(c) assist local communities to secure appropriate and sustainable benefits from
the protected area and buffer zone area itself by promoting, in accordance
with the management plan for the protected area required in terms of section
39, 40 and 41 of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas
Act –
(i)
a conservation economy;39
(2)
(ii) ecotourism and its supporting infrastructure and services; and
(iii) controlled and sustainable harvesting of natural resources.

While the Draft Policy on Buffer Zones for National Parks and the Draft Bill for KZN are not yet published in law, they show the intent of the KZN legislature regarding the safe-guarding of protected areas. The attitude of the consultant and the developer in ignoring these developments gives cause for enormous concern about their integrity and the regard for the environment should this project be given the go-ahead.

3. Alternatives to mining

The FSR also completely ignores the need and desirability, as highlighted in the Policy and the Bill, to consider acceptable and desirable alternative developments on the boundary of Protected Areas. Mining is not considered an acceptable activity. Suggested feasible and reasonable alternatives need to be assessed and the advantages and disadvantages considered, as well as the impacts of the environment and affected communities. The FSR considers the best option for the applicant, namely mining, and gives no consideration to the “no go” option or a “combination of alternatives” that does not include mining. There has been no assessment of the current land use in the Scoping Report and almost no effort put into the alternative land use options and alternative areas for mining.

4. Lack of consultation

The first Scoping Report was rejected by the Department because of lack of adequate consultation with various government departments, the landowner and the IAPs and stakeholders, particularly the affected Fuleni communities. The consultation to date is still totally inadequate. With the four affected Fuleni communities this is largely the result of the majority of residents being strongly opposed to the mine and having good reason not to trust or welcome the consultants.

5. Lack of transparency about who is behind Ibutho Coal (Pty) Ltd

SA’s mineral resources are public assets and their exploitation is a public issue. We therefore call for the full disclosure of the shareholders of the mining company and the shareholders of the corporate entities that hold shares in Ibutho Coal (PTY) Ltd.

There is no justification for Ms Eksteen’s response that the disclosure of this information is not a legal requirement in terms of NEMA or the MPRDA and that neither Ibutho Coal (PTY) Ltd nor Jacana Environmental cc is under any legal obligation to disclose such confidential information during the public participation process. The public have a right to know who will benefit from the mining activities at Fuleni.

6. The Value of Wilderness and the local economy

The current divestment campaign is affecting fossil fuel markets. Neighbouring Somkhele anthracite mine has experienced a 50% drop in the value of its shares over the last couple of years. In contrast, wild places are becoming increasingly valuable. The FSR has made no attempt to assess the current agricultural value of land or the value of the iMfolozi Wilderness Area in perpetuity. In rejecting the previous Scoping Report the Department of EDTEA identified the need for an agricultural assessment (paragraph 2(a) of letter dated 15 September 2015). A comprehensive resource economics assessment is essential in order to make a comparison between the projected economic benefits of the proposed Fuleni mine, with its predicted 32 year lifespan, and the sustainable benefits of HiP and the traditional lifestyles of the residents of Fuleni. A thorough understanding of the resource economics of the area, as well as its spiritual and psychological value, is essential to assess the currently unknown value of Fuleni and the iMfolozi Wilderness Area.

We believe these are areas of immense value for current and future generations and that we must do all that it takes to ensure they are conserved in perpetuity.

Mining ‘could ruin wilderness’
June 26, 2015

Report warns against iMfolozi damage

By Tony Carnie

ONE of the last truly wild corners of ancient Africa would never be the same again — and could lose its global status as a wilderness area — if a local mining company was allowed to blast open new coal mining pits on the wilderness border.


This was the stark conclusion of scientific consultants who released a draft environmental impact report, funded by the Ibutho Coal mining group.


The consultants concluded that the potential loss of wilderness designation for the iMfolozi game reserve was a potentially fatal flaw that could lead to the project’s being scrapped.


This loss of status for Africa’s oldest game reserve and wilderness area could have far-reaching ramifications by damaging the country’s tourism industry, along with its international reputation as a custodian of some of the world’s last wild places.
It noted that Wilderness areas now made up less than 1% of South Africa’s land surface area and remained under increasing threat from the expansion of industrial and human activity.


The report by the Scientific Aquatic Services consultancy noted that iMfolozi (now part of the larger Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park) was declared as Africa’s first game reserve in 1895, later becoming Africa’s first official wilderness area in 1959.



If the mining company was allowed to blast open six large coal pits on the southern border of Imfolozi, the noise, dust and light pollution from 24-hour mining operations “may result in the possible declassification of the Wilderness area and as such, be a significant setback for the re serve and conservation as a whole”.


“A worst-case scenario would be the complete de-designation of the Hluhluwe—iMfolozi Park’s wilderness status”.


The 480-page draft environmental impact report — open for public comment until August 3 — said the mine would have a “major potential impact” on tourism.


Johannesburg-based Ibutho Coal hopes to export high-quality anthracite coal to industrial furnaces in China, Europe and India.


“It is very difficult to explain or quantify the concept of ‘sense of place’ yet this is a very important concept for tourists.”


Because Hluhluwe-iMfolozi was seen as a tranquil reserve set in a pristine environment, it attracted large numbers of ecotourists, adventurers and birders. However, the combination of light, dust and noise pollution was likely to rob current and future generations of “the true wilderness experience they were seeking”.


No roads, no cars and no permanent human settlements are allowed in the iMfolozi wilderness area. On arrival, visitors are asked to remove their watches for the duration of their wilderness trail and learn how to tell the time by watching the sun and the stars. They sleep in the open, bathing and collecting drinking water from local rivers, and are able to observe wildlife close-up and on foot, rather than from the safety of cars and 4x4s.


Each visitor is also required to stand night-watch, sitting next to a camp fire into the early hours, and if need be, alerting an armed ranger to the presence of lions, elephant, rhino and other dangerous wild animals during their watch. Visitors have to bury their waste using a spade because their are no toilets.

Escape

The report stated that such areas “provide modern man a place to escape to, where he can experience life in its most simplistic form, where a sense of detachment from the world can be experienced”.


“The notion that the game reserve will now have a large industrial mining operation on its border will impact greatly on the environmentally friendly characteristics of the park and in particular the iMfolozi wilderness area.”


Explosives, floodlights and clouds of dust would degrade an area characterised by “silence and solitude, timelessness and unspoilt wilderness, free from the impingement of modern technology”.


The erection of tall mining floodlights was also likely to create “skyglow” common in big cities, reducing visibility of the night skies.


The report suggested that several species of wildlife could also be affected negatively. For example, the loud noise from blasting operations could disturb or mask territorial calls of several species.


Elephants had an extraordinary sense of hearing and emitted infrasonic rumbling sounds that could be heard at least 10km away to convey warnings, greetings, excitement, fear or mating calls. Research on forest elephants in central Africa indicated that they tended to avoid areas where oil companies were conducting blasting operations.


Vultures and other birds were known to abandon nesting sites because of noise disturbance.


Crocodiles were also highly sensitive to blasting operations, while research showed that black rhinos had a better breeding rate inside the iMfolozi Wilderness zone.


The report said a mine on the fence line of the wilderness zone could also lead to increased rates of poaching, especially of rhinos. Poachers would have easier access via new mining roads and could be less conspicuous because of the influx of new workers and job seekers.

This article appeared in the Mercury on Wednesday, 24 June 2015.

https://saveourwilderness.wordpress.com ... ilderness/

How can they get approval to blast new to the reserve

Once again payments underneath the desk

There is a new one almost every day

http://ecodaily.org/zululand-coal-mine-dangerous/

Zululand Coal Mine ‘Dangerous’
Posted by Eco Daily on August 8, 2015

Allowing coal mining just 40m from the borderline of Africa’s oldest game reserve would set a dangerous precedent for other companies to start mining next to, or even inside, any protected environment across the country.

That’s the warning sent to national Environment minister Edna Molewa this week by attorneys acting for the Global Environmental Trust and several mine-affected communities in KwaZulu-Natal.

In a 70-page document objecting to the proposed Ibutho coal mine on the southern border of the Hluhluwe-Imfolozi Park, Durban environmental attorney Kirsten Youens said up to 5 000 tons of coal would be blasted out of the ground every day next to the fence line of the county’s oldest “wilderness zone”.

The historic wilderness zone, set up largely through the determination of rhino and wilderness conservation stalwart Dr Ian Player, includes the former royal hunting grounds of King Shaka.

Youens said there had been a national and international outcry against the mining proposal, yet Ibutho economic consultant Graham Muller had suggested the mining company pay R3 million a year to Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife in compensation and also consider converting “a similar farm, game reserve or piece of land” into a new wilderness zone to compensate for the loss of almost 50% of the park’s pristine wilderness area.

Youens said Muller’s suggestion was “bizarre, naive and ridiculous”.

In her letter to Molewa and Mineral Resources Minister Ngoako Ramatlhodi, she said that allowing the environmental impact assessment to go any further “will set a precedent for other invasive mining activities to take place adjacent to or even within” other parks and protected areas.

Relocation

Quite apart from the environmental impacts inside Hluhluwe-Imfolozi Park, the coal mine would also have “life-changing” implications for thousands of rural villagers.

This included the relocation of hundreds of people from their homes and the loss of farming and grazing land.

Those who remained close to the coal mine would also be subjected to high levels of coal dust pollution, blasting operations and other high noise levels for 32 years.

Despite a number of meetings with affected communities, many residents had still not been told which homesteads would be relocated, where these people would move to and how many local residents would get jobs at the new mine compared with outsiders. “It would seem that an unrealistic perception has been planted (among residents) that should they allow the mining to take place, it will guarantee them employment and a betterment of their lives. This is heavily misleading as the total number of local jobs that the mine has indicated is only 214 in the 10th year of production.”

While Ibutho had predicted a future total of about 300 jobs, Youens noted that opencast coal mining required a larger proportion of skilled workers who would most likely be imported from other areas.

Some people had also complained that members of the tribal leadership had threatened to banish them from the area if they opposed the mine. Others said they were told they would not receive any compensation unless they signed social survey forms and provided their ID numbers.

Youens said an analysis of social survey forms suggested that 35 percent were blank, with just the name of the resident, their ID number and signature.

There was no evidence that consultants had conducted a thorough health impact study to assess the long-term air and water pollution risks.

The mine would also require large volumes of water and the consultants conceded that the Department of Water Affairs was unlikely to allow the mine to pump water from the nearby Mfolozi River.

Some updates here:

https://saveourwilderness.wordpress.com/tag/mining/

Why does the government continue to permit these dangerous mining projects? After all they do not get that much money for the mining rights....or do they Of course one must also consider possible bribes

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/ ... gvg3_ntmko

Ezemvelo says no to coal mining

September 30 2015 at 02:07pm
By Tony Carnie


Durban - Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife has come out strongly against coal mining on the borderline of its flagship Hluhluwe-Imfolozi game reserve, warning that the proposed mine would “destroy” large sections of Africa’s oldest game reserve and wilderness area.

Noting that it had a legal duty and mandate to protect and conserve the biological environment of the province, Ezemvelo said it could not “wilfully sacrifice” a reserve dating from 1895, or attempt to create a new wilderness area somewhere else in the province to replace it.

In a letter to the provincial Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, the conservation agency said it was the primary trustee of the world-renowned park and was duty bound to “manage, conserve, and sustain” biological diversity in KwaZulu-Natal.

Referring to plans by the Ibutho Coal company to set up an opencast coal mine just 40m from the southern boundary of the Imfolozi wilderness area, Ezemvelo acting chief executive Dr David Mabunda said he was “deeply concerned” about the proposal and called on the department to advise Ibutho to drop its plans immediately.

Mabunda said a draft environmental impact assessment (EIA) report by Ibutho consultants indicated that a coal mine so close to the reserve would cause “a significant and probably immitigable threat” to parts of the reserve.

Ezemvelo said the report appeared to contain “significant bias, gaps and shortcomings”, some of which seemed so significant that they warranted a full peer review process.

Nevertheless, based on Ibutho’s own version of the likely environmental impacts, it was now apparent that mining could create serious and irreversible damage.

Mabunda said that Ibutho’s consultants had suggested the destruction of significant areas of the Imfolozi wilderness area could be “offset by finding new areas of wilderness”.

The 32 000ha wilderness area was formally established largely through the efforts of legendary conservationist Ian Player, on land previously reserved as a royal hunting ground for King Shaka.

Mabunda said it would be “impossible” to simply create a new wilderness.

“No equivalent wilderness area exists, nor can one be created… It is our formal position that, even if the wilderness is wilfully sacrificed - which it cannot be - the nuisance posed by the mine to its established neighbour, the Hluhluwe-Imfolozi Park, cannot be avoided, minimised or remedied and therefore cannot be lawfully allowed.”

Mabunda said Ezemvelo was reluctant to engage any further with Ibutho.

“We therefore earnestly request that Ibutho be advised to withdraw its application to avert any further costs and the unnecessary angst and expectations.”

Ezemvelo was also concerned about the potential for significant social and civil unrest on its boundaries since coal mining would involve the relocation of significant numbers of people “either forcibly or through coercion”.

It is understood that several members of the board of Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife also have serious concerns about the mining proposal.

But board chairman Comfort Ngidi told The Mercury last week that the board wished to engage with Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs MEC Mike Mabuyakhulu before making any public statements on the Ibutho controversy.

A spokesman for Ibutho Coal said that they would respond to Ezemvelo’s criticism on Wednesday.

The Mercury

KZN members must address this...utterly confusing!

https://saveourwilderness.wordpress.com ... and-plans/

Mining company reconsiders Zululand plans
November 24, 2015


This article appeared in the Mercury on Tuesday, November 24, 2015

By Tony Carnie

A MAJOR public outcry over coal mining next to Africa’s oldest game reserve and wilderness area has forced a local mining group back to the drawing board to consider its alternatives.

Two years ago, the Johannesburg-based Ibutho Coal group announced its ambition to blast coal from the ground less than 100m from the southern boundary of the Imfolozi game reserve and wilderness area in KwaZulu-Natal.

The game reserve dates from 1895, and was established to protect the world’s last remnant population of the southern white rhino. In 1959, largely because of the determination of the late Ian Player, the southern part of the reserve was set aside as a “wilderness area”, largely offlimits to human disruption, roads or permanent tourist camps.

Ibutho, however, hopes to mine and export anthracite coal via the nearby Richards Bay coal terminal and applied for mining rights in August 2103.

Forced to leave

During the mandatory environmental impact assessment, it also emerged that several hundred people living on the boundaries of the reserve would be forced to leave their homes. This was because dozens of homes lay directly in the mining path or because they would be affected by flying rocks, dust, noise and other mining impacts.

Ibutho’s environmental consultants have announced that after “due consideration” of public reaction, the company has decided to suspend the EIA process for the time being and to identify various options to address the concerns and complaints from a large variety of interest groups.

The new “action plan” was expected to include further consultation with affected communities, including the residents of the Ocilwane and Ntuthunga villages.

It would also include “additional studies” and a “revisiting” of the original mining plan to reduce the zone of influence of opencast coal mining.

“You will be notified of Ibutho Coal’s decision in this regard once the plan of action has been formulated. As a result of the additional work planned for the project, no immediate engagement sessions will be scheduled, apart from ongoing community consultation,” Ibutho consultant Lizinda Dickson said last week.

Kirsten Youens, an environmental attorney for the Global Environmental Trust, has hailed the latest development as “a significant victory”.

“It means there will be a long delay and almost certainly (if there is a change in the mining area) the need to go back to scoping phase.”

The Save Our Imfolozi and Communities Campaign, the main umbrella group spearheading campaigns against the mining, has not commented yet on the latest developments.

Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, which is in charge of the reserve and wilderness area, repeated its strong opposition to the proximity of the proposed mine to the Hluhluwe-Imfolozi Park in a statement last month.

It said that it would be a “travesty” if the mining plan was approved.

Its major concerns included noise, vibrations, dust, water and light pollution that would affect tourism and cause “devastation”.