Africa Wild

24.07.2018

Threats against critics of mining in protected water resource are part of a bigger trend of corporations trying to bully their critics into silence, reports John Yeld


Hot spot: The proposed Yzermyn coal mine lies within the water-rich, protected grasslands of the Ekangala/Drakensberg strategic water source area

Coal mining is a dirty business. As a stream of abuse and insults on social media aimed at those challenging a new coal mining venture in the heart of one of South Africa’s most critical protected water catchment areas indicates, the dirt isn’t always in the coal dust.

Twitter accusations against a coalition of eight environmental and social justice groups and their lawyers seeking to block the planned Yzermyn underground coal mine at Mabola in Mpumalanga include treason, economic sabotage, extortion, bribery, blackmail, duplicity, dishonesty and lies.

They are further accused of being “anti-national, anti-people, anti-development”, and a comparison to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels has been thrown in just for good measure.

As ludicrous as it sounds, it’s no laughing matter, and suggests that a Bell Pottinger-style social media harassment strategy may be under way against opponents of the mine project.

Particularly worrying was a thinly veiled death threat made on Facebook last month, aimed at local farmer Oubaas Malan who also opposes the Yzermyn mine but is not involved in the legal challenges undertaken by the coalition.

The threat was posted by Thabiso Nene, who heads The Voice Community Representative Council, a registered NPO billed as “a community-based organisation that stands for radical economic transformation” in the Dr Pixley ka Isaka Seme local municipality where the would-be mine is located.

What particularly incenses Nene and other supporters of the Yzermyn development is that an open coal mine, Loskop, has been operating on Malan’s family farm on the same area. However, Malan countered by pointing out that this is an old mine, started in the 1980s – three decades before the Mabola Protected Area was proclaimed – and that he doesn’t own the mining right to it.

Although he concedes negotiating a fee from the mining company that most recently owned the mining right and attempted to work the mine, now effectively abandoned, he says it reneged on payments to him and has caused severe environmental damage.

Last month Malan boasted to the Saturday Star newspaper about his tenacity in tackling Atha Africa Ventures, the mining company that plans to develop Yzermyn: “I’m like a Jack Russell terrier fighting a boerbul. I won’t let go,” he was quoted as saying.

Nene’s lengthy Facebook response included what can only be interpreted as a death threat: “As Oubaas say ‘I’m like Jack Russel terrier fighting boerboel. I just won’t let go’ he should watch our community lays Jack Russel terrier to permanent sleep. We r masters in resting dogs with rabies. Obaas can take dat to de bank.”

A formal complaint about the death threat – now apparently deleted from Facebook – was made to the South African Human Rights Commission. The commission described the threat as “naked criminality” but declined to investigate, suggesting instead that the police should handle the matter because of the violence implicit in it.


Dog fight: A formal complaint about Thabiso Nene’s Facebook death threat – now apparently deleted – has been made to the South African Human Rights Commission

Death threat

Many of the offending tweets in the social media campaign against the coalition have been made by Praveer Tripathi, senior vice-president of Atha Africa Ventures. It acquired a mining right in 2015 but the granting of this right and various environmental approvals are now being challenged by the coalition.

Tripathi retweeted, without comment, a tweet by @Madlokovu15 that had in turn repeated the Facebook death threat word-for-word.

Tripathi’s Twitter profile distances him from his employer, suggesting his comments should not be read as signifying his professional position as a senior executive of Atha Africa, a subsidiary of the Indian-based international mining company Atha Group.

The company has also attempted to distance itself from his highly controversial remarks: “Mr Tripathi’s posts on his personal account, are his own personal views and do not mirror the views and opinions of Atha Africa. Accordingly, Atha Africa is not responsible for these comments.” The company has not publicly condemned any of Tripathi’s comments, but asked that questions on the matter be directed to Tripathi himself.

A formal complaint about Tripathi’s earlier social media comments has been lodged with the Minerals Council South Africa (formerly the Chamber of Mines) by the Centre for Environmental Rights, a public interest not-for-gain group of attorneys that represents the coalition. Atha Africa Ventures is a council member and is bound by its mandatory code of ethical business conduct and guiding principles. The council has yet to respond to the centre’s complaint.

Tripathi, who has 70 Twitter followers, failed to respond to emailed questions asking him to explain the accusations in his tweets and to comment on their possible consequences. Instead, he posted correspondence from this writer on his Twitter timeline, accompanied by derogatory comments. His posts prompted some of his followers to post their own abusive tweets.


No-go: Environmentalists argue that coal mining is not compatible with biodiversity conservation of pristine areas like Mabola that provide invaluable ‘ecosystem services’

Treason accusations

The proposed Yzermyn coal mine lies within the water-rich, protected grasslands of the Ekangala/Drakensberg strategic water source area – one of 22 such areas that collectively comprise just 8% of South Africa’s land surface yet provide half of all surface run-off water in the form of wetlands, streams and rivers.

Environmentalists argue that coal mining is highly destructive and poisonous to the environment, and is not compatible with biodiversity conservation of pristine areas such as Mabola that provide invaluable “ecosystem services” like water.

If the project is allowed to continue, the proposed coal mine in Mabola will set a dangerous precedent that will expose all of South Africa’s protected environments to encroachment from mining and other destructive and non-sustainable land uses, they say.

But Mabola is also within an area marked by extreme poverty and unemployment where many local residents are desperate for jobs. So it’s understandable that the possibility of some 500 work opportunities – albeit unskilled – at the proposed mine is highly attractive to some of them.

The social media invective against coalition members and its lawyers has increased significantly over the past two months as several of the legal challenges to the coal project approach adjudication. The first, an appeal to the Water Tribunal to overturn the water licence granted to Yzermyn, is set down for hearing this week (July 24-26).

Nene’s The Voice organised a public meeting in Volksrust on June 29 that was billed as an open forum debate “to clear misconceptions about the proposed mining project near Wakkerstroom”. Nene posted on Facebook that an invitation had been extended to the management of Atha Africa and that it had confirmed its attendance. “That very progressive Atha management,” he said approvingly.

An invitation was also extended to members of the coalition and the Centre for Environmental Rights but it was declined. The centre told Mining Weekly it would not be appropriate for it to take part in a public debate because of the extensive pending litigation in the matter.

Its refusal prompted a string of Twitter insults from Tripathi, including: “Is the Cenre [sic] for Environmental Rights afraid that it’s lies would be nailed in the #communitywantstoknow initiative by the community? They said the mine will threaten Gauteng and have National and Intntnl impacts. Why don’t they explain the ‘how’ to the community?”

After the meeting, attended by some 1,400 people, Tripathi congratulated Nene for “exposing” the “foreign funded” and “treasonous” organisations “who have no sympathies and respect for the community”. This accusation of treason was picked up and repeated several times.

However, the only “evidence” they produced to back the accusation was publicly available documents from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) detailing some funding for two of the organisations in the coalition. SIDA is an official Swedish government agency of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, responsible for the bulk of Sweden’s official development assistance to developing countries and civil society groups – including South Africa’s democratic government.


Twitter invective: The accusation of treason was picked up and repeated several times

Strong-arm tactics

Social media harassment is becoming increasingly common in South Africa and elsewhere in the world, where vulnerable communities and civil society organisations have been working to protect and promote environmental and social justice in the face of strong-arm and bullying tactics by some governments and big business – notably mining interests.

Threats and intimidation create an emotionally charged atmosphere that makes it harder for communities to achieve resolution, and in some scenarios can result in physical violence, injury, destruction of property and even murder.

A case in point is the tragic death in March 2016 of Sikhosiphi “Bazooka” Radebe at Mbizana in Pondoland, who was leading opposition to the attempt by Australian mining company Mineral Commodities Ltd to mine mineral sands at Xolobeni. Although the Hawks have not made any progress in their investigation into Radebe’s murder – this was confirmed by spokesman Brigadier Hangwani Mulaudzi last week – it’s widely believed that he was assassinated because of his unflinching opposition to the mining proposal.

As recently as this month, two activists opposing the relocation of a community in KwaDube in KwaZulu-Natal, supposedly to accommodate onshore mining operations between Mtunzini and Richards Bay, were shot dead execution-style within days of each other.

Murray Hunter of the Right2Know Campaign says threats and attacks from mining companies are part of a bigger trend of corporations trying to bully their critics into silence: “We know from bitter experience that those who go up against big-money mining projects often face worse than threats in the end.”

Melissa Fourie, head of the Cape Town-based Centre for Environmental Rights – one of the main targets of the Yzermyn invective – says it’s a common pattern in South Africa: “Within our network of environmental rights activists and defenders we see threats and intimidation of activists every day. Most of these not reported or recorded.”

Neither Tripathi nor Nene responded to a question by this writer when asked whether they considered their respective tweets and/or Facebook posts to be inflammatory or possibly fuelling tensions with potentially dangerous consequences.

However, Tripathi responded on social media to a letter that was sent to Atha Africa’s attorney by the Centre for Environmental Rights, drawing attention to Tripathi’s “inaccurate and defamatory” statements about the centre. The centre’s letter noted: “Particularly concerning is that some statements are threatening, and have the potential to incite violence.”

On Twitter, Tripathi accused the centre of being defamatory and of “costing South Africa tens of thousands of jobs and development opportunities” – “The responsibility sits on you” he charged.

On July 5, Nene posted a statement on Facebook: “If it’s war they want, it [sic] war they will get”, and added a response to several replies to this statement: “They are busy blocking development that’s suppose to change the life’s. They should just return the damn land once, & they should refrain from threatening us with civil war or economic meltdown.”

‘Corporate bullyism’

Jen Gleason of the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide says attacks on people who stand up for vulnerable communities and the environment are on the rise around the world, and that her organisation works with public interest lawyers around the world who are putting themselves at risk daily.

“Powerful interests, inside and outside government, use violence, threats, prosecution, slander, regulatory burdens and more to cut off those defending human rights,” she says. This exposes grassroots advocates “to great personal risk”.

Hunter of Right2Know says it rejects the “corporate bullyism” of Atha-Africa. “We need to protect… critical voices, not just for the sake of environmental governance, but to ensure that corporations working in South Africa respect free speech and freedom of association.”

John Yeld is a freelance environmental writer. This article first appeared in GroundUp

• Use the #MineAlert tool to track and share mining licences, explore threats to water resources, and read more investigations.

• Find the Yzermyn licences and documents on #MineAlert here

Supreme Court of Appeal sends coal company packing
Jul 24 2019 11:53 John Yeld
1m 18s



The Supreme Court of Appeal has dismissed an attempt by coal mining company Atha-Africa Ventures to appeal a High Court decision that reversed the hush-hush government approval it had for its proposed coal mine in an environmentally sensitive area in Mpumalanga.

Atha-Africa, a local subsidiary of India-based transnational mining and minerals company the Atha Group, says it may now approach the Constitutional Court.



The Mabola Protected Environment is a proclaimed conservation area in Mpumalanga where, under the National Environmental Management Protected Areas Act (NEMPAA), mining is prohibited unless the national ministers responsible for the environment and for mining both grant specific written permission.

In 2016, then Environmental Affairs minister the late Edna Molewa and then Mineral Resources minister Mosebenzi Zwane quietly granted permission for Atha-Africa’s proposed 15-year Yzermyn underground coal mine to be developed within the Mabola protected area.

But in November last year, the North Gauteng High Court upheld a review application brought by a coalition of eight environmental and social justice groups and set aside that decision.

Box-ticking

In that case Judge Norman Davis found that Molewa and Zwane had not properly considered the coalition’s initial challenge to the proposed mine and had just followed a “tick box” process of approval. The ministers had also been procedurally unfair, non-transparent and over-hasty in their decision-making.

Judge Davis set aside the ministers’ approval of the mine and ordered that Atha-Africa’s original NEMPAA application to mine in a protected area be “remitted”: re-submitted to the two relevant ministers for proper re-consideration.

He awarded punitive costs against the two ministers and the Mpumalanga environment MEC, who had also been a respondent. He did not award costs against Atha-Africa, as it had not opposed the main application for remittal.


However, the mining company had opposed certain “ancillary” relief requested by the applicants and granted by the court. This had included an order to the two ministers to defer any decision regarding Atha-Africa’s NEMPAA (re-)application until after the outcome of various administrative appeals against other authorisations for the mine obtained by the company, and until a formal management plan for the Mabola protected area had been approved.

Atha-Africa had been “a necessary, but not voluntary, party to the litigation and had not sought costs from the applicants or the other respondents. It opposed certain of the ancillary relief in the event of remittal but otherwise sought to remain out of the fray. It should therefore be neither liable nor entitled to costs,” Judge Davis said.

Nevertheless, Atha-Africa applied for leave to appeal the judgment.

Undeterred

The two national departments and the Mpumalanga environmental affairs MEC also applied for leave to appeal but withdrew their applications at the 11th hour before the appeal hearing in January.

At that hearing Atha-Africa’s appeal application was dismissed by the High Court.

Undeterred, the mining company then applied to the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal, Judge Mandisa Maya, for leave to appeal Judge Davis’s decision.

Her decision, handed down this month, was short and to the point: “The application… is dismissed with costs for the reason that no exceptional circumstances warranting reconsideration or variation of the decision refusing the application for leave to appeal have been established.”

Asked by GroundUp whether it wanted to comment, Atha-Africa said its leave to appeal had “raised valid constitutional concerns”. Because of this “the matter would be escalated to the Constitutional Court”.

https://www.fin24.com/Companies/Mining/ ... g-20190723

First round won

It is a scaly Gupta-type company - one just wonders how much money has been paid over in kickbacks for govt officials already?

That's probably part of a calcolated risk

https://cer.org.za/news/constitutional- ... ected-area?

Constitutional Court rules against coal mining in Mpumalanga Protected Area
18 NOVEMBER 2019 AT 9:52 AM


The Constitutional Court has had the final say on the approvals for a coal mine inside an Mpumalanga Protected Area and Strategic Water Source Area. Earlier this month, the Constitutional Court refused the mining company’s final challenge of a 2018 High Court decision to set aside Ministerial approvals for the proposal coal mine.

The Mabola Protected Environment near Wakkerstroom, is part of more than 70 000 hectares of grasslands in Mpumalanga, that was declared protected under the Protected Areas Act by the Mpumalanga provincial government in 2014. This followed years of investment, including extensive research and planning by a number of government agencies, including the then Department of Environmental Affairs, the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) and the Mpumalanga Tourism & Parks Agency.

South Africa has 22 Strategic Water Source Areas (SWSAs) which comprise 10% of the land area that produces 50% of the country’s fresh water. They supply water to South Africa’s largest urban centres, agricultural areas and support downstream economies and ecosystems. The Enkangala-Drakensberg Strategic Water Source Area specifically supports the economic hub of Gauteng as well as various towns and agricultural regions in Mpumalanga, KwaZulu-Natal and the Free State.

Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (Atha) was granted a mining right for coal after this area had been identified as a SWSA and after the Mabola Protected Environment (Mabola) was declared. Alarmingly, after the mining right was granted, the various government departments responsible for the environment and our water resources issued the other authorisations Atha requires for its proposed mine.

This is why a civil society coalition went to court to defend the area from proposed new coal mining.

In November 2018, the Pretoria High Court set aside the 2016 decisions of the then Ministers of Mineral Resources and Environmental Affairs, Mosebenzi Zwane and Edna Molewa, to permit this new coal mine to be developed inside Mabola, with a punitive costs order against the Ministers and the MEC for Environment in Mpumalanga.

Mining company Atha attempted four times to challenge that judgment. The Constitutional Court was the mining company’s last hope. The civil society coalition defending Mabola was obliged to oppose all of those challenges and is delighted that the 2018 judgment remains intact. The Constitutional Court also awarded costs against the company.

“This is a significant victory. Our courts continue to recognise the importance of the protection of the environment, and our strategic water resources, especially at a time when we are already suffering the impacts of climate change. Decisions to authorise coal mines should be critically scrutinised and questioned,” said Elton Thobejane, Chairperson of Coalition member the Mining and Environmental Justice Communities Network of South Africa (MEJCON-SA).

Coalition member groundWork’s Director Bobby Peek said: “Defending the Mabola Protected Environment is more than an attempt to mitigate further climate change impacts. It is also about defending the rights of communities who will be impacted by the proposed mining activities. groundWork applauds this decision as it sends a strong message to decision-makers that mining and profits cannot come before communities and their sustainable livelihoods.”

“The Endangered Wildlife Trust applauds this decision by the highest court in our land, in a time when upholding the rule of law has never been more important. South Africa has a strong and robust environmental legislation framework which is often not implemented by government departments and it is gratifying to see that our courts are prepared to stand firm in their application of the law to protect not only current generations but also future generations, from irreparable harm to our environment. In an era when coal mining is being phased out globally for its devastating environmental and climate impacts, it is high time that South Africa’s focus was on strategic resource management and not short term wealth at the cost of livelihoods and a healthy future. The EWT hopes that this decision marks this much needed new direction,” said Yolan Friedmann, Endangered Wildlife Trust’s CEO.

To proceed with its proposed coal mine in this Protected Area and Strategic Water Source Area, Atha would require a fresh approval under the Protected Areas Act from the new Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, Barbara Creecy, and the new Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, Gwede Mantashe.

However, they may not consider giving permission until the Director General: Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) has decided the Coalition’s Appeal of Atha’s Environmental Management Programme (EMPR) for the proposed coal mine, which the DMR approved in 2016.

Through the Coalition’s challenges, records have revealed that officials in various government departments had recommended that approvals for the mine be refused, but these recommendations were overruled by their superiors.

In the case of the DMR, officials had recommended that the EMPR be rejected, but these recommendations were then overruled. Some of the reasons given by the DMR officials for their recommendation include:

The fact that the proposed mine is in a National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area;
“the proposed measures provided for the management of impacts towards water resources (i.e. wetlands, streams) cannot be considered reliable to contain or remedy the cause of pollution or degradation resulting from the proposed mining operations”;
The proposed mine area is mostly characterised by wetlands and rivers which form an integral part of the fresh water system and has also been identified as a source of fresh water supply for the country;
The mine area comprises of irreplaceable sites that are characterised by highly threatened species and largely intact ecosystem, the loss or transformation of which preclude the meeting of specific biodiversity conservation targets within the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan;
The treatment of the anticipated post closure decant through a water treatment plant is not considered environmentally sustainable; and
The financial provision of R5 757 031 cannot be considered to be acceptable, since the measures provided are not sustainable to remedy the cause of pollution or degradation considering the sensitivity of the area.
In January 2019, the Pretoria High Court refused Atha permission to appeal the November 2018 judgment. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) found similarly in April 2019 – that there was no prospect of successfully overturning the High Court judgment. In July 2019, the President of the SCA dismissed Atha’s application to her to reconsider the SCA’s April 2019 refusal. Now the Constitutional Court has held similarly.

The Coalition defending the Mabola Protected Environment against this proposed coal mine and that secured the High Court victory that the Constitutional Court has left intact, comprises the Mining and Environmental Justice Communities Network of South Africa, groundWork, Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, BirdLife South Africa, the Endangered Wildlife Trust, the Federation for a Sustainable Environment, the Association for Water and Rural Development (AWARD) and the Bench Marks Foundation. The Coalition is represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights.

ENDS

Maybe the wheel is turning?!

I smell a rat or three

It is not right

that a civil society coalition must go to court to defend the area from proposed new coal mining

where mining is not allowed in the first place and arrive all the way to the constitutional court

Water win: ConCourt throws out Mabola appeal

22 Nov, 2019 by Oxpeckers Reporters

‘Right now, they’re not permitted to put a shovel in the ground, and we’re aiming to keep it that way,’ say victorious opponents of Atha-Africa’s mining plans. Mark Olalde & Andiswa Matikinca report

Posted at 08:07h in homepage, ma-feature1 by Oxpeckers Reporters
‘Right now, they’re not permitted to put a shovel in the ground, and we’re aiming to keep it that way,’ say victorious opponents of Atha-Africa’s mining plans. Mark Olalde & Andiswa Matikinca report


Prospecting area: The proposed underground coal mine would fall in a region that feeds the headwaters of the Vaal, Tugela and Pongola rivers. Photo: Mark Olalde

New parameters for management of strategic water source areas in South Africa are being set as the Constitutional Court declined to hear an appeal against a judgment revoking plans to mine the Mabola Protected Environment.

The ConCourt decision effectively upheld a November 2018 ruling by the Pretoria High Court that threw out ministerial approval for the controversial coal mine in a strategic water zone in Mpumalanga.

The Yzermyn mine, proposed to cover 2,500 mostly underground hectares near Wakkerstroom, has for years faced staunch opposition from a coalition of environmental groups that argues the area is too important to the country’s water resources, especially when faced with climate change, to allow coal mining.

The mine would have dug into an area feeding the headwaters of the Vaal, Tugela and Pongola rivers. The legal battle against it was a test case for laws and strategies around prospecting and mining in protected environments, and will have an impact on water management around the country.

In the order dismissing leave to appeal, dated 6 November, the ConCourt “concluded that the application should be dismissed as it does not engage this court’s jurisdiction and, in any event, bears no reasonable prospects of success”.


Political support: Busloads of protesters turned up when the WWF Journey of Water took journalists to Mabola in 2017. Photo: Johnny Miller

Political support

Mabola is one of five important water sources in Mpumalanga that were declared protected environments in January 2014 by Pinky Phosa, then provincial MEC for economic development, environment and tourism. Proclaiming a protected area enables government authorities and private landowners to work together to protect ecosystems of high value.

Atha-Africa Ventures, part of a company headquartered in India that bought the mining right, received political support for the project. An Oxpeckers investigation in 2016 revealed that several trustees of one of the mine’s BEE partners, Bashubile Trust, were connected to the Zuma family, leading to speculation that this link was giving the mine an easy path through the permitting processes.

Over the years evidence has emerged that the Department of Mineral Resources ignored its own employees’ advice in granting the mine’s permits. The Mpumalanga MEC for agriculture, rural development, land and environmental affairs attempted delisting part of the protected environment where the mine is proposed, and in 2017 documents showed the ministers of mineral resources and the environment had secretly signed off on the project.

Standing in Atha-Africa’s way is a coalition of nonprofit organisations represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights. “Right now, they’re not permitted to put a shovel in the ground, and we’re aiming to keep it that way,” said Catherine Horsfield, head of the centre’s mining programme.

The Mabola case, first investigated by Oxpeckers in 2015 after a tip-off from whistle-blowers, has set precedents for mining in strategic water zones. There are 22 identified zones spread across South Africa, eSwatini and Lesotho that account for only 8% of the region’s land area but 50% of its surface water. They also supply water downstream to 60% of South Africans and 70% of the country’s irrigation.


Waterway: Climate change is adding further stresses to high-yield water zones. Photo: Mark Olalde

Climate change

Amanda Mkhonza, a lecturer at the Institute of Marine and Environmental Law at the University of Cape Town, said mining coal near waterways is likely to generate acid mine drainage, which lowers the water’s pH and can mobilise dangerous metals.

“Acidity of water also impacts the irrigation of crops, and there’s a chance that even groundwater will become contaminated,” Mkhonza said

As climate change’s impacts become increasingly apparent, including warming of the country’s interior, these high-yield water zones are even more important to protect, said Victor Munnik, a water and coal researcher affiliated with the University of the Witwatersrand.

“Climate change will increase water scarcity in the inland areas and make them rely even more on the water-rich areas, which are part of the strategic water source areas,” he said.

Praveer Tripathi, Atha-Africa’s senior vice-president who acts as the company’s in-country spokesperson, declined to comment on the ConCourt judgment this week. The company’s legal council for the litigation, Francois Joubert of Fasken Attorneys in Sandton, did not respond to requests for comment.

In previous interviews with Oxpeckers, Tripathi said the mine’s impacts on water resources would be minimal because the company’s research suggested little connectivity between aquifers in the area and because the project was configured to have a minimal surface footprint. Tripathi has also argued that the mine would be a job creator.

But the environmental coalition standing in its way believes those promises of local employment were overblown, especially when some mining jobs require a highly educated workforce.

“More and more we are seeing that there is no economic development without a healthy environment,” Horsfield said. “The narrative that sets economic development against the environment is fairly outdated.”

The coalition would rather the debate focus on water. For them, it’s clear that strategic water source areas need protection both to fend off the negative precedent that could come from allowing mining as well as to allow more time to develop a strategy to build codified protection for these areas.

“The science is there but the law hasn’t kept up,” Horsfield said.

In response to parliamentary questions, Minister of Environment Barbara Creecy said in mid-October the government is developing legislation, policy and strategies to protect strategic water source areas and surrounding sensitive ecosystems.

Her department, in collaboration with the Department of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation and others, is planning to test a section of the National Environmental Management Act on three pilot strategic water source areas, Creecy said. She did not identify the pilot areas.

“The project has broadened to explore all methodologies and legislation to be considered and applied for the protection of strategic water source areas and surrounding sensitive ecosystems in South Africa,” she said.


This investigation is part of the Mining your Water series, supported by the Open Society Foundation for South Africa