Die stof en gemoedere rondom die omstrede Elandsfontein/KROPZ-fosfaatmyn buite Hopefield bou steeds op en veroorsaak toenemend konflik in die gemeenskap tussen voor- en teenstanders van dié multi-miljardrand projek van die tanzaniet-mynmagnaat Mike Nunn.
Die jongste verwikkelinge in dié langdurige stryd is dat SANPARKE nou sy voet stewig dwars neergesit het teen die toekenning van ‘n watergebruiklisensie aan dié myn waar “onwettige” bedrywighede steeds volstoom voortgaan ondanks ‘n hangende Hooggeregshofsaak, ‘n uitstaande watergebruiklisensie en ander omgewingsimpak-klarings.
Dié myn is een van talle landwyd wat tans in omstredenheid gehul is weens skuiwergate in die nuwe wetgewing oor mynlisensies en daaropvolgende magsmisbruik deur die Departement van Minerale Hulpbronne wat lukraak mynlisensies toeken sonder inagneming van enige omgewingsimpakstudies en die insette en besware van ander departemente en belangegroepe.
Die voortslepende hofgeding wat deur die Weskus Omgewingsbewaringsassosiasie (WOBA) teen die myn geloods is, sal na verwagting eers middel-2017 op die spits gedryf word nadat dit male sonder tal uitgestel is. Dit sal waarskynlik ook ‘n waterskeidingsaak wees om die huidige chaos in Suid-Afrika se mynbedryf en die interpretasie van huidige wetgewing op te klaar.
“Ons het ‘n reuse-probleem met die Departement van Minerale Hulpbronne . . . daar is niks wat ons nou kan doen om myne te reguleer nie,” het ‘n Wes-Kaapse provinsiale omgewingsbewaringsamptenaar by navraag aan die Mail & Guardian gesê. “Die wysigings in die wetgewing verhoed die departement (van omgewingsake) om vergrype in die mynbedryf te stop.” (lees volledige berig hieronder.)
Intussen is die mynbase van Elandsfontein/KROPZ vol vertroue dat hul aansoek om ‘n watergebruiklisensie vroeg in 2017 goedgekeur sal word. Hulle is ook gerat om teen Maart 2017 ernstig te begin myn ondanks die hangende hofsaak en die droogte en streng waterbeperkings waaronder die Weskus tans gebuk gaan.
Op meegaande foto’s kan die multi-miljoenrandaanleg gesien word wat voortydig gebou is voordat die myn die finale groen lig van alle betrokke departemente en belangegroepe gekry het. Dié verontagsaming van alle wetlike aspekte skep ‘n uiters gevaarlike presedent aan die Weskus waar die Regering se ingrypende Nywerheidsontwikkelingsplan (IDP) in Saldanhabaai reeds vrese laat onstaan oor die monitering en polisieëring van die onderskeie projekte. “As dié myn daarmee wegkom om te stoomroller dwarsdeur alle wetlike vereistes en noodsaaklike lisensies, kan enige nywerheid en toekomstige myne ook mos doen wat hulle wil . . . en dan is dit nag vir die Weskus,” het ‘n bekommerde sakeman van Saldanhabaai gesê.
Hier is die opsomming van SANPARKE se aanbevelings en kommentaar aan die Departement van Water en Sanitasie oor die toekenning van ‘n watergebruiklisensie aan Elandsfontein/KROPZ. Dit is verlede week (8 Desember 2016 ) ingedien en vorm deel van die hofsaak.
“EEM should provide figures which will determine the critical, warming and action levels. Should the mine transgress any of these conditions in the IWUL legal action must followed immediately.
Conclusion
SANParks would like to point out that less than 3% of Earth’s total stock of water is in the form of freshwater, and only about 0.01% of all water occurs in freshwater lakes, wetlands and rivers.
Yet all life, endless ecological processes and most non-marine biodiversity patterns depend on this tiny fraction of freshwater. Given its finite nature and scarcity (especially in South Africa – the Western Cape already operates on a deficit in terms of surface water availability and demand), freshwater should be regarded as our most precious resource.
SANParks, as a statutory body and responsible steward of our biophysical support base, cannot allow any actions that could deteriorate the quality of freshwater resources. The law places a burden of responsibility on SANParks to act wisely in its custodianship to the protection of the environment. Also, society has relegated its responsibility for wise-use of our natural capital largely to protected areas authorities, of which national parks are flagship versions.
Protected areas are the places that are increasingly relied on to keep their surrounding social-ecological landscapes (and the planet) healthy, and buffer zones are mechanisms to help make that possible and to reduce threats. Lastly, while we agree with Dr Nel’s assessment that scientifically it may be possible to mitigate the potential negative environmental impacts, by developing adaptive management measures, purposefully collect data to improve our understanding, and fill knowledge gaps to make adaptations to operations where necessary.
However, SANParks remains unconvinced that mining operations could be relied on to ensure successful mitigation of negative impacts. It is our opinion that in practice this rarely happens. Thus, based on all the mentioned concerns, uncertainties, knowledge gaps with regard to possible long-term negative impacts on the subterranean water system, surrounding ecosystem and the Langebaan lagoon, including EEM’s failure to obtain an Environmental Authorisation, SANParks is unable to support the granting of a WUL to Elandsfontein Exploration and Mining. It is cordially requested that the Regulator reject granting a water-use licence to EEM.”
Op die sosiale media gons dit ook oor die myn en die “onaanvaarbare risiko’s” wat dit vir die gebied inhou nadat WOBA gister ‘n foto geplaas het om aan te kondig dat SANPARKE die wateraansoeklisensie verwerp het:
Friends!!!! After a very turbulent year filled with ups and downs here is some good news! SANParks have rejected the Water Use License Application of the Elandsfontein mine! The fight is by no means over, but it proves what we have been saying all along. You cannot mine into a 10 million year ecologically sensitive groundwater reserve which supports 1000’s of people, fish and biodiversity! Keep fighting!
“We have a major problem with DMR [the department of mineral resources] … there’s nothing we can do now to regulate mines,” said a provincial environmental affairs official. Changes in legislation prevent the department from stopping abuses in the mining sector.
The legality of Elandsfontein Exploration and Mining’s bid to strip mine phosphate near Langebaan and the West Coast National Park will be debated in court. Western Cape officials say it is a perfect case study of the problems created by the new system.
This came into effect in December 2014, when Elandsfontein was applying for a mining right. Before that, mines had to apply separately to the environment and the mineral resources departments. Now, the mineral resources department is the one-stop shop for regulation.
Parties only get heard by the environmental department if they appeal decisions taken in favour of mining. But several officials – the Mail & Guardian spoke to four in the Western Cape and Mpumalanga, and two in national government – say this never happens because government departments are told they have to resolve disputes internally. The disputes are only aired in court documents, as is happening in the case of Elandsfontein.
The hundreds of pages submitted in this case show how the environmental, water and heritage departments of the Western Cape tried to get information out of the mineral resources department, and to guide its thinking. They failed.
In one email to the national environment department, Gerhard Gerber, the director of development facilitation in the Western Cape environment department, asked for help in interpreting the law. “It would be imperative for the correct legal interpretation to be confirmed as a matter of urgency.”
Although he supported the need for the “one environment” system, he noted that “it is understandable that there would be a few implementation issues as we transition to a new system”.
The provincial mineral resources department was copied in this email and responded to Gerber: “I want to plead with you that, if there are issues of interpretation during the transitional period the applicants and mining rights holders are raising with you, I would prefer that you refer them to us.”
It said the Elandsfontein application would probably end in an appeal, which the environment department would have to adjudicate. “I want to avoid a situation wherein we send different messages.”
Elandsfontein then responded to Gerber’s email, saying: “The Elandsfontein mine is a high-profile, world-class project, and we are meticulous about legal compliance and adhere to the letter of the law.”
The spat intensified to the point where the legal services department of the Western Cape premier intervened and met Gerber and the mine.
In the notes from this, counsel said: “As far as the stand-off between DEADP [provincial environment department] and DMR is concerned – regarding the need for environmental authorisation under Nema [the National Environmental Management Act] – it seems clear that it is DMR that is perhaps not in agreement with us on this and not Elandsfontein itself.”
The counsel said they had explained to the mine the danger of the mineral resources department being “wrong in the law”, to which the mine said they would approach the mineral resources department to understand what was happening.
The case to test whether the department is indeed “wrong in the law” will be heard in the middle of 2017. A group of residents affected by Elandsfontein is asking for a court order to set aside the mining right, which the mine is opposing.
But the mineral resources department has not entered a plea, which is par for the course, according to the people the M&G talked to. An attorney involved in another case against the department said: “The implementation of the one environment system has been such a mess and DMR says nothing when there are disputes or confusion. They stonewall you.”
Officials of three mining companies said they were often caught up in the fights between the departments. “With this new system, you go to DMR and you apply for all your permits. But then you get a provincial tourism authority tuning you, or the environmental department getting involved,” said one mining official in Gauteng.
Another in the same province said the biggest problem was the mineral resources department because it never gave certainty to mines when they were applying. “You think you’re ticking all the boxes but then someone objects and DMR gives you very little, if any, guidance. So you’re left fighting on your own and that gets you very little goodwill.”
It seems that everyone has a problem with the mineral resources department.
The mineral resources department has not responded to questions.
Elandsfontein’s response
Elandsfontein says the environmental sub-directorate said on November 27, 2014 that the updated environmental management plan which the mine had submitted in September “was not consulted by [the minerals department]”. This meant new information that the mine had submitted was not considered.
The recommendations that they made were therefore based on departmental comments, “some of which were incomplete and inaccurate”, according to the mine. The minerals department’s regional manager looks at these recommendations and makes a judgement based on their contents, without interrogating them.
Elandsfontein says: “As a consequence, reports may incorporate comments that are biased and factually not correct.”
But any issues were included in the conditions of the mining right granted to the phosphate mine in February 2015. The mine says: “Elandsfontein has complied and will continue to comply with these conditions.” That includes things such as continual rehabilitation during operations, where soil is put back into the operation so the natural environment can start getting back to its original state.
The mine also rejects the claims that it did not comply with NEMA and says that its understanding of the shift to the One Environment System is correct under law. Because the mining right was granted on January 30, 2015, it fell under the new system, it says.
“That said, the EIA process that Elandsfontein followed in terms of the MPRDA is in all material terms similar to that of a NEMA process.” The mine says it has followed this up by conducting more studies to address concerns raised by government bodies, such as SANParks.
The mine says that the EIA – and subsequent studies – found that the mine “has no impact on nearby users” and groundwater-based ecosystems in the region “will not be impacted”.
Once work starts, the mine says it will “make a significant contribution to the region by promoting economic growth and development”, employing 450 people. Over R1-billion of the R1.3-billion project costs has been spent, with much of that spent in the local community.
http://mg.co.za/article/2016-11-10-00-mines-dept-a-mess-of-confusion#.WFOJiL7LoHc.facebook
Lees ook:
http://www.netwerk24.com/ZA/Weslander/Nuus/sanparks-still-concerned-about-mine-20160309-2
SANParks remains concerned about the possible impact of the proposed phosphate mine at Elandsfontein near Langebaan and Hopefield.
Their main concern is the lack of a proper National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) environmental impact assessment (EIA), Willem Louw, manager: Park Planning and Development with SANParks, told a Park Forum meeting on Friday.
“A NEMA EIA needs to be done,” he said. “We have stated our concern with the Department of Mineral Affairs (DMA).”
This week Francois Turner, a neighbouring farmer, announced he is taking legal action about the issue. More farmers are concerned about the possible impact of mining activities on the sensitive groundwater system, especially since the West Coast is currently experiencing one of the worst droughts in decades.
The water issue was also highlighted by Louw.
“SANParks remains acutely aware of the possible impact the mine could have on the groundwater and lagoon,” he said. Louw added that on this issue SANParks remains in discussions with the consultants of the mine and the Department of Water Affairs (DWA).
The mine will be constructed on top of the Elandsfontein aquifer, a major underwater source and there are concerns that this could possibly impact the groundwater system and also the Langebaan Lagoon. Many of the surrounding farms are dependent on groundwater. Recent research by the DWA indicated that the Elandsfontein and Langebaan Road aquifers could be linked, thus water extraction from one could possibly affect water levels in the another. There are also indications that the Elandsfontein aquifer has an outflow into the Langebaan Lagoon.
DWA still has to issue a water use licence to the mine, without it the mine can’t start operations.
Towards the end of 2013 DMA changed existing legislation enabling them to become the authority to grant environmental approval for proposed mines, and not the provincial Department of Environmental Affairs.
DMA approved Elandsfontein mine’s application and found their submitted Environmental Management Programme Report sufficient. The mining company consequently cancelled the EIA studies that were ongoing. Concerned locals say this was illegal and have contracted the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) to take the matter further.