The Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs heard a briefing by the Department of Environmental Affairs on the initiatives to regulate mining in environmentally sensitive areas. At the centre of its presentation was the ministry’s decision to authorise coal mining in the Mabola Protected Environment in Mpumalanga.
In his opening address, the Deputy Director of Biodiversity and Conversation in the Department of Environmental Affairs, Mr Shoni Munzhedzi, illustrated how the department deals with mining-related issues in sensitive environmental areas and how they regulate that through legislation.
“We have noted that most of the areas that are earmarked for prospective mining applications have other land uses that are competing. In Mpumalanga, areas have cultural value but also have high coal reserves, high biodiversity or high water yield in that very same area.”
He further stated that their presentation comes against an escalating demand for minerals. “Mining is being increasingly undertaken in remote and biodiversity rich areas that were not previously explored.”
The department presented a case study of Mabola Protected Environment, a mixed land use that involves high water yields, that has high cultural value and that also has a mining activity as its new feature.
To mitigate this, said Mr Munzhedzi, the department utilised legislative tools and frameworks emanating from the United Nation 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, from our Constitution which gives citizens a right to an environment that is not harmful to health or well-being, there is also the National Environment Management Act and biodiversity guidelines that stipulate what can be done before a mining application can be granted and how to offset any potential environmental damages thereafter. “Pre-mining activities are specified, where mining can take place and what post-mining activities should be undertaken. We do this because we acknowledge that there would be land use activities that would impact negatively on the environment.”
But the challenge that the department is faced with is to ensure that the legislation on protected areas operate within the sustainable development framework that takes into consideration the socio- economic and ecological considerations. This challenge is heightened by the department’s approval of mining in Mabola, a restricted environmental area in Pixley ka Seme Local Municipality, which is a mixed biodiversity area and as such, a protected environment.
“Why did the department grant a licence to a mining activity at Mabola, a protected area?” asked a member of the Committee, Mr Zondi Makhubele.
According to Mr Munzhedzi, Mabola requires specific intervention because there are a number of farms, water catchment areas and the environmental authorisation of mining activities there took that into consideration. Furthermore, there were a number of specialist studies, including a socio-economic impact study undertaken before the mining licence was granted.
He further asked: “Which mining company has been granted the mining licence at Mabola?”
When the officials of the department were not seemingly forthright about its name, the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs, Mr Philemon Mapulane, insisted on the name. And went on to add that the matter surrounding the awarding of this mining licence is now of public interest and there is litigation pending regarding it, “hence we want to know what is the name if the company that has been awarded this licence in a protected area”.
The Deputy Minister, Ms Barbra Thomson, stated: “You people seemingly have different interests in this matter or information about it that we are not aware of.” .
The Chairperson, Mr Mapulane, interjected: “Who are these people you are referring to Deputy Minister? I don’t think that is an appropriate way of engagement in a Committee. When you say we seem to have other interests in this matter. This is our duty, we are indeed interested in knowing who are the companies involved in Mabola. And whether is it a South African company or not.”
The Deputy Director of Legal, Authorisation, Compliance and Enforcement in the department, Mr Ishaam Abader, made it worse when he said they are not sure of the name of the company that was granted the mining licence at Mabola. He later proclaimed that the said company is Arthur Africa.
In this instance, Mr Ross Purdon chipped in: “Suspicious answers raise suspicion. There is even more suspicion when one looks at the board members of Arthur Africa.”
Makhubele further stated that when they raise questions as Committee members they do so innocently. “When you respond, respond not as if you are hiding something. You must know this is a matter of national interest. We are raising it because there is an interest in the country on the issues. We want you to respond and we must not be seen as if we think there is something fishy about it. Our interest is in the protected area, it is not driven by other things.”
“It bedevils this exercise when we engage on the basis of suspicion,” said the Chairperson. “We ask these questions on the basis that this matter is now of national interest. Basically, this is in the public domain. I have picked up that the company that was granted this licence is an Indian company. We take it in good faith that you don’t know which company was granted a licence. It is our work to ask these questions and is part of executing our legislative responsibilities.”
“How do you allow mining in protected areas,” asked another member of the Committee, Mr Thomas Hadebe, “especially if it is the source of water given the current state of drought we are in. “How do you mitigate the competition between water and food security. And how does this affect our commitment in relation to the Paris Climate Change Agreement when coal mining is continued because that will increase our fossil fuels.”
Mr Abader replied: “The move is towards renewable energy, but we still need fossil fuels. And that is the reality our country is still faced with.”
“Last week when we were discussing your annual report, we said that we need to expand our protected areas. This argument is articulated in the department’s guidelines, why allow this when it is extremely disruptive to the environment?” said the Chairperson.
Mr Munzhedzi replied: “We have not given up on our intent to expand our conservation estate. The new expansion process is in the offing to ensure that the conversation estate is improved.”
The Deputy Minister said it seems the granting of a mining licence was not the sole business of the Department of Environmental Affairs, one would like to hear the views of other departments such as the Department of Water and Sanitation; and the Department of Energy that were involved in the granting of this licence. It may be wise to call them to account on this.
The Chairperson maintained: “But if you allowed mining at Mabola, it means it can be allowed elsewhere. Mining companies always look for mining deposits. A company may find deposits at the Kruger National Park. What will we do? We are setting a dangerous precedent. We may find out that we have shot ourselves in the foot on this matter. It may not be the Kruger National Park, there could be other protected environments where there could be an application for mining. How will the department deal with that when it has already set a precedent?”
By Abel Mputing
9 May 2017
Arrange a tour