I DU Pat-. -
TEL 086 X.00 0779
KRUYSHAAR_
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GROUNDWORK VOt 4.* . • Third Applicant
Fourth Applicant GAUTENG DIVISION, Fifth Applicant
Sixth Applicant PRETORIA CASE NO: .5-C;
Seventh Applicant - 7 7 ci/7 Eighth Applicant
In the matter between: st;.. • MINING AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE /0(9 First Respondent a o A P N COMMUNITY NETWORK OF SOUTH AFR e:-cr / ?First Applicant R Second Respondent e t :e 0 SThirdecond Respondent Applicant
EARTFILIFE AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG BIRDLIFE SOUTH
AFRICA ENDANGERED WILDLIFE TRUST FEDERATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE
ENVIRONMENT
ASSOCIATION FOR WATER AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
BENCH MARKS FOUNDATION
and
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES
ATHA-AFRICA VENTURES (PTY) LTD THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION Fourth Respondent
MEC FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, MPUMALANGA Fifth Respondent
NOTICE OF MOTION
1 TAKE NOTICE that the applicants intend to make application to this Court for orders in the following terms:
Part A
Conditional on the third respondent giving notice of its intention to commence mining or any mining-related activities in terms of the undertaking recorded in the order of this Court made on 28 June 2017 in case number 41970/2017 -
1 Dispensing with the forms and service provided for in the rules of
court and directing that the matter be heard as a matter of urgency;
2 Interdicting and restraining the third respondent from conducting any
mining and any activities preparatory, ancillary or incidental to mining,
including without limitation any cutting or clearing of vegetation, any
establishment of roads, any construction or installation of buildings,
infrastructure or equipment and any drilling, excavation, digging,
removal of soil, coal, ore or any mineral, on the farms Remainder of
Kromhoek 93 HT, Portion 1 of Kromhoek 93 HT, Goedgevonden 95
HT, Remainder of Yzermyn 96 HT and Portion 1 of Yzermyn 96 HT,
pending final determination of the relief sought in Part B below,
including any appeal to any court against the grant or refusal of such
relief;
3 Directing that the third respondent, together with such other
respondents as may oppose the application, pay the costs of the
2
application jointly and severally, such costs to include the costs of two counsel;
4 Granting further and/or alternative relief.
Part B
5 Reviewing and setting aside the decision of the first respondent on
20 August 2016 to grant the third respondent written permission to
conduct commercial mining in the Mabola Protected Environment in
terms of section 48(1)(b) of the National Environmental Management:
Protected Areas Act, No. 57 of 2003 ("NEMPAA");
6 Reviewing and setting aside the decision of the second respondent on
21 November 2016 to grant the third respondent written permission to
conduct commercial mining in the Mabola Protected Environment in
terms of section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA;
7 Remitting the third respondent's application for written permission to
conduct commercial mining in the Mabola Protected Environment in
terms of section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA to the First and Second
Respondents for reconsideration;
8 Directing the first and second respondents in reconsidering the third
respondent's application for written permission to conduct commercial
mining in the Mabola Protected Environment in terms of section
48(1)(b) of NEMPAA to consider all relevant considerations and —
3 8.1 to comply with sections 3 and 4 of the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act, No. 3 of 2000;
8.2 to take into account the interests of local communities and the
environmental principles referred to in section 2 of the National
Environmental Management Act, No. 107 of 1998 ("NEMA");
8.3 to defer any decision in terms of section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA
until after the decision of —
8.3.1 the applicants' statutory appeal to the fifth respondent in
terms of NEMA against the environmental
authorisation granted to the third respondent;
8.3.2 the applicants' statutory appeal to the Director General:
Department of Mineral Resources in terms of the
Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act,
No. 28 of 2002 against the approval of the third
respondent's environmental management programme;
and
8.3.3 the applicants' statutory appeal to the Water Tribunal in
terms of the National Water Act, No. 36 of 1998
against the decision to issue a water use licence to the
third respondent;
8.4 without detracting from their obligation to consider all relevant
circumstances, not to grant permission to conduct commercial
4 mining in the Mabola Protected Environment in terms of section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA unless —
8.4.1 a management plan for the MPE has been approved by
the fifth respondent in terms of section 39(2) of
NEMPAA;
8.4.2 the management plan's zoning of the area in which the
intended mining is to take place permits such mining;
8.4.3 exceptional circumstances have been shown by the third
respondent to exist which justify the mining of coal
within the Mabola Protected Environment; and
8.4.4 the third respondent has made full and secure financial
provision for the complete rehabilitation of the Mabola
Protected Environment in consequence of the coal
mining, upon termination of the mining, including the
treatment of any polluted water that may be decanting
from the mine at the time of termination or that may
decant from the mine at any time in the future;
9 Directing the first, second and third respondents to pay the costs of
this application, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be
absolved, such costs to include the costs of two counsel;
10 Granting further and/or alternative relief.
5
TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that the affidavits of THELMA THANDEKILE NKOSI,
VANESSA STONE, STEPHANUS PETRUS MALAN and MARK ADRIAN BOTHA will be used in support of this application.
TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that the first and second respondents are hereby called upon respectively to deliver to the Registrar of this Honourable Court, within fifteen days after receipt of this notice of motion, the records of proceedings pursuant to which the decisions in paragraphs 5 and 6 respectively were taken
(including all documents, letters, memoranda, reports, recommendations, minutes and other materials which were before the first and second respondents when their decisions were taken), together with such reasons as the first and second respondents are by law required or desire to give or make, and to notify the applicants that they have done so.
TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that the applicants have appointed the offices of their attorneys, the Centre for Environmental Rights, care of their correspondent attorneys, Du Plessis and Kruyshaar Incorporated, Suite No. 2, Route 21
Corporate Park, 118 Sovereign Drive, Irene, Pretoria as being the address at which they will accept notice and service of all process in these proceedings.
TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that if the respondents intend opposing this application they are required —
(a) within fifteen (15) court days after receipt of this Notice of Motion, or
if service is effected on a respondent at a place more than 100 miles
from the court, then within twenty-one (21) days after receipt of the
6 Notice of Motion, or within fifteen (15) days of any amendment of it,
to deliver notice to the applicants that they intend to do so and to
appoint in such notice an address within fifteen kilometres of the
office of the Registrar of this Honourable Court at which they will
accept notice and service of all process in these proceedings; and
(b) within thirty (30) court days after the expiry of the time referred to in
rule 53(4) of the Uniform Rules of this Honourable Court, to deliver
any affidavits they may desire to answer the allegations made by the
applicants.
TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that if no notice of intention to oppose is given, this application will be set down for hearing by this Honourable Court on .k.:77) 24017 or as soon after that as Counsel may be heard.
DATED at PRETORIA on this theclifftn day of JULY 2017
CENTRE F ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS Applicants' A torneys 2nd Floor, Springtime Studios 1 Scott Road Observatory Cape Town Tel: 021 447 1647 Ref: Catherine Horsfield (Email: [email protected]) CIO: DU PLESSIS AND KRUYSHAAR INCORPORATED Suite No. 2, Route 21 Corporate Park 118 Sovereign Drive Irene Pretoria
7 Co
Tel: 0861 000 779 Fax: 086 548 0837 Email: kruyshaardupkruys.co.za Ref: Rentia Kruyshaar
TO:
THE REGISTRAR of the above Honourable Court PRETORIA
AND TO:
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 1st Respondent Environment House 473 Steve Biko Road (Cnr. Steve Biko and Soutpansberg Roads) Arcadia Pretoria Fax: 012 328 4254 Email: [email protected] C/O THE STATE ATTORNEY SALU Building 316 Thabo Sehume Street PRETORIA Tel: 012 309 1500 Fax: 012 309 1649
AND TO:
MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES 2nd Respondent 4th Floor, Building 2C Trevenna Campus 75 Meintjies Street Cnr Meintjies and Francis Baard Streets Sunnyside Pretoria Fax: 012 444 3145 Email: pieter.albertsdmr.cov.za C/0 THE STATE ATTORNEY SALU Building 316 Thabo Sehume Street PRETORIA Tel: 012 309 1500 Fax: 012 309 1649
8 cal AND TO:
ATHA-AFRICA VENTURES (PTY) LTD 3rd Respondent 8th Floor, Sinosteel Plaza 159 Rivonia Road Sandton JOHANNESBURG Fax: 011 784 7467 Email: morgam.munsamvAathadroup.in
AND TO:
THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION 4th Respondent Farm Schoongezicht VOLKSRUST Mpumalanga Tel: 084 3206 071 Email: malanspavodamail.co.za
AND TO:
MEC FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, MPUMALANGA 5th Respondent 1st & 2nd Floor, Building No. 6 Riverside Park 7 Government Boulevard Extension 2 Nelspruit C/0 THE STATE ATTORNEY SALU Building 316 Thabo Sehume Street PRETORIA Tel: 012 309 1500 Fax: 012 309 1649 Email: akoojeeaaempg.gov.za
9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 10 GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: _
In the matter between:
MINING AND ENVIRONMENTAL. JUSTICE COMMUNITY NETWORK OF SOUTH AFRICA First Applicant
GROUNDWORK Second Applicant
EARTHLIFE AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Third Applicant
BIRDLIFE SOUTH AFRICA Fourth Applicant
ENDANGERED WILDLIFE TRUST Fifth Applicant
FEDERATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT Sixth Applicant
ASSOCIATION FOR WATER AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Seventh Applicant
BENCH MARKS FOUNDATION Eighth Applicant and
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS First Respondent
MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES Second Respondent
ATHA-AFRICA VENTURES (PTY) LTD Third Respondent
THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION Fourth Respondent
MEC FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, MPUMALANGA Fifth Respondent
FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT
rn \ k*IC __ CC5?
1
Contents
THE PARTIES ...... 4 OUTLINE OF THIS APPLICATION ...... 10 CHAPTER A: BACKGROUND ...... 11 A.1 The prooascd mine in a Protected Environment ...... 11 A.2 The statutory authorisations required for the mine ...... 14 A.3 The present application ...... 18 CHAPTER B: STATUTORY FRAMEWORK ...... 18 6.1 The Constitution ...... 18 8.2 NEMPAA ...... 19 B.3 NEMA ...... 23 B.4 The environmental provisions of the MPRDA ...... 24 CHAPTER C: RECOGNITION OF STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE MPE ...... 26 C.1 Introduction ...... 26 C.2 Recognition in the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation/Sector Plan ...... 27 C.3 Recognition in the Grasslands Programme ...... 29 C.4 Recognition in the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy ...... 29 C.5 Recognition in the Spacial Development Frameworks ...... 30 C.6 Recognition in the Mpumalanga Protected Area Expansion Strategy ...... 36 C. 7 Recognition by the Minerals Minister and the Environment Minister...... 36 C. 8 Recognition in the Atlas of National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas ...... 39 C. 9 Recognition by the MEC responsible for environment ...... 41 C.10 Recognition in the Strategic Water Source Areas Report ...... 42 C.11 Recognition by the Mining Sector ...... 44 CHAPTER D: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MPE ...... 45 0.1 Establishment ...... 45 0.2 The draft MPE marragement plan ...... 46 CHAPTER E: THE OPAQUE DECISION-MAKING ON PERMITTING MINING IN THE MPE ...... 48 E.1 The CER's attempts to find out about any application or decision-making through correspondence ...... 48 E.2 The CER's attempts to find out about any application or decision-making through PAIA applications ...... 55 E.3 The applicants and CER learn of the NEMPAA decisions ...... 57 CHAPTER F: ATHA'S NEMPAA APPLICATION AND THE MINISTERS' NEMPAA DECISIONS ...... 59 F.1 Atha's NEMPAA application ...... 59 F.2 The Ministers' NEMPAA decisions ...... 62
rThr
2
CHAPTER 0: THE GROUNDS OF REVIEW ...... 66 G.1 The Ministers did not take the NEMPAA decisions in an open and transparent manner or in a manner Thal promoted public participation...... 67 G,2 The NEMPAA decisions were procedurally unfair ...... 69 G.3 The Ministers relied on an outdated and rejected version of the BAR ...... 72 G.4 The Ministers misconstrued their distinctive duties in terms of NEMPAA ...... 77 G.5 NEMPAA envisages that mining will only be permissible in a protected environment in exceptional circirmslances ...... 79 G.6 The Environment Minister failed to take into account the interests of local communities ...... 84 G.6.1 The contribution of the mine to the local community ...... 86 G.6.2 The direct cost of the mine to the local community ...... 90 G.6.3 Conclusion under this head ...... 93 G.7 The Ministers failed to lake into account that the use arid exploitation of non - renewable natural resources must be responsible and equitable ...... 94 G.8 The Ministers failed to apply the precautionary principle and Me vulnerable ecosystems principle ...... 99 G.9 The Ministers failed to ensure intergovernmental co-ordination and harmonisation and ignored key planning and other instruments ...... 109 6.10 The Ministers failed to take into account South Africa's international responsibilities relating to the environment ...... 112 G.11 The Ministers ought to have awaited the outcome of the various statutory appeals ...... 122 G.11.1 The EMPR and the EMPR appeal ...... 122 G.11.2 The EA and the EA Appeal ...... 125 G.11.3 The WUL and the WUL Appeal ...... 127 G.12 The Ministers failed to take into account that Atha has made inadequate provision for rehabilitation ...... 128 G.13 Failure to await the approval of the management plan for the MPE ...... 132 CHAPTER II: RELIEF SOUGHT ...... 134 H.1 The interim relief in Part A of the notice of motion ...... 134 H.2 The final relief in Part 8 of the notice of motion ...... 138 H.3 Costs ...... 138
nn ,
3 13
THELMA THANDEKILE NKOSI state under oath that:
1 I am an adult female Chairperson of the Mining and Environmental Justice
Community Network of South Mica ("the Community Network"), the first
applicant. The Community Network's administrative address is c/o the Centre
for Environmental Rights: 2" Floor, Springtime Studios, 1 Scott Road,
Observatory, Cape Town.
2 The facts and circumstances set out in this affidavit fall within my personal
knowledge and belief or appear from documents under my control: except
where the context indicates otherwise, and are true and correct. Where I
make submissions of a legal nature, I do so on the advice of the applicants'
legal representatives: which advice I believe to be correct.
3 The applicants have resolved to institute this application and to instruct their
attorneys. the Centre for Environmental Rights ("the CER").
THE PARTIES
4 As noted above, the first applicant is the MINING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE COMMUNITY NETWORK OF SOUTH AFRICA ("the Community
Network"), a non-profit voluntary network of communities, community-based
organisations and community members whose environmental and human
rights are affected: directly or indirectly, by mining and mining-related
4 5 a .
activities. Since its constitution on 17 October 2012, the Community
Network's membership has grown to more than 300 members who come
from different parts of South Africa, including but not limited to communities
from IVItubatuba in KwaZulu-Natal, Mokopane in Limpopo, Hondeklipbaai in
the Northern Cape, Riverlea in Gauteng and many communities across the
Mpumalanga Province. The members of the Community Network have
played an active role in fighting for the rights of their communities which have
been affected by neighbouring mines. The primary objectives of the
Community Network include the promotion, defence and advocacy of
environmental and human rights of communities affected by mining; and
ensuring the sustainable use of mineral resources.
5 The second applicant is GROUNDWORK. groundwork is a non-profit
environmental justice service and development organisation working
primarily in Southern Africa in the areas of, inter alia, coal, climate and
energy justice, and environmental health. groundWork places particular
emphasis on assisting vulnerable and previously disadvantaged people, who
are most affected by environmental injustice, to engage with stakeholders in
development projects and to promote the expression of their environmental
concerns in the public debate carried by the media. groundWork has done
extensive research and advocacy work on the detrimental impacts of coal
mining on communities in the Mpumalanga Highveld, and published a 2016
research report called "The Destruction of the Highveld: Digging Coal'.
groundWork's NPO number is 045-235 and its physical address is 6 Raven
Street, Pietermaritzburg.
15 6 The third applicant is EARTHLIFE AFRICA. JOHANNESBURG ("Earthlife.),
a non-profit organisation that was founded in 1988 to mobilise civil society
around environmental issues. It is an organisation with approximately 100
members: led by a core group that serves as its management committee.
Earthlife seeks to improve the quality of life of vulnerable people in South
Africa by supporting them to play a meaningful role in environmental
governance based on an understanding of their constitutional rights.
particularly section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.
Earthlife's NPO number is 004-159 and its offices are at 51h Floor
Heerengracht Building. 87 De Korte Street, Braamfontein, Johannesburg.
7 The fourth applicant is BIRDLIFE SOUTH AFRICA ("BirdLife"), a non-profit
and public benefit organisation with a vision of seeing a country and region
where nature and people live in greater harmony, more equitably and more
sustainably. Its mission is to conserve birds, their habitats and biodiversity
through, inter alia, scientifically based programmes, and supporting the
sustainable and equitable use of natural resources. BirdLife has NPO
number 001-298 and PBO number 930 004 518, and its head office is at
Isdell House, 17 Flume Road, Dunkeld West, Johannesburg.
8 The fifth applicant is the ENDANGERED WILDLIFE TRUST ("EWT;), a non-
profit organisation and public benefit organisation dedicated to conserving
threatened species and ecosystems in Southern Africa to the benefit of all
people. The EWT believes that the environment in which we live underpins
every human need, demonstrated every day by the loss of thousands of lives
due to environmental disasters, the lack of access to quality natural
6 c tk•—' 16 resources, as well as the dependence of millions of people on their natural
surroundings for their everyday existence. The EWT strives to facilitate the
protection and sustainable use of key ecosystems. The EWT's NPO Number
is 015-502 and PBO number is 930 001 777, and its physical address is
Building K2, Ardeer Road, Pinelands Office Park, Modderfontein, Gauteng.
9 The sixth applicant is the FEDERATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE
ENVIRONMENT ("FSE"), a non-profit organisation with the objective of
promoting the ecological sustainability of development and the wise use of
natural resources in South Africa. The FSE's non-profit organisation
registration number is 2007/033134/08 and its NPO number is 062986-NPO.
The FSE has its physical address at 8 Palladio, corner of Ryk Street and
Roux Avenue. Beverley Gardens. Johannesburg.
10 The seventh applicant is the ASSOCIATION FOR WATER AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT ("AWARD"), a non-profit organisation specialising in multi-
disciplinary, participatory, research-based project implementation aimed at
addressing issues of sustainability, inequity and poverty. AWARD recognises
that natural resources are limited and undergoing rapid depletion and
transformation, negatively affecting the health and functioning of the earth's
social-ecological systems. In consequence, AWARD seeks to contribute to
building a more sustainable and equitable society by encouraging active civil
society participation in wise water and biodiversity stewardship, management
and governance. AWARD's company registration number is 98/03011/08 and
non-profit organisation registration number is 006-821. Its physical
eTh
7 Ft address is at Sunset View Office Park, corner Buffel and Koedoe Streets, Hoedspruit, Limpopo Province.
11 The eighth applicant is the BENCH MARKS FOUNDATION, a non-profit,
faith-based organisation owned by churches in South Africa. The Bench
Marks Foundation works in the area of corporate social responsibility and
monitors corporate performance against an international measuring
instrument, the Principles for Global Corporate Responsibility: Benchmarks
for Measuring Business Performance. It is committed to providing
leadership and advocacy on issues regarding ethical and socially-
responsible investment, as well as linking people and institutions committed
to these ideals. The Bench Marks Foundation's physical address is 6111
Floor: Khotso House: 62 Marshall Street, Marshalltown: Johannesburg.
12 The applicants bring the application in their own interest and in the public
interest and have standing in terms of section 38 of the Constitution and in
terms of section 32(1) of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of
1998 ("NEMA").
13 The first respondent is the MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ("the
Environment Minister") with her office at Environment House, 473 Steve Biko
Road, Arcadia, Pretoria. This application will be served care of the State
Attorney, Pretoria, 316 Thabo Sehume Street, Pretoria. The Environment
Minister is cited by virtue of having taken a decision on 20 August 2016 in terms
of section 48(1)(b) of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas
Act 57 of 2003 ("NEMPAA') to grant written permission to (Th rl 8 I 8 the third respondent ("Atha") to conduct commercial mining in the Mabola
Protected Environment ("the MPE"), a protected environment declared as
such in terms of section 28 of NEMPAA ("the Environment Minister's
decision").
14 The second respondent is the MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES ("the
Minerals Minister") with his office at Building 2C, Trevenna Campus, 75
Meintjies Street, corner of Meintjies and Francis Baard Streets. Sunnyside,
Pretoria. This application will be served care of the State Attorney, Pretoria,
316 Thabo Sehume Street, Pretoria. The Minerals Minister is cited by virtue
of having taken a decision on 21 November 2016 to grant Atha written
permission in terms of section 48(1)(b) of the NEMPAA to conduct
commercial mining in the MPE ("the Minerals Minister's decision").
15 The third respondent is ATHA-AFRICA VENTURES (PTY) LTD (Atha") a
private company registered in terms of the laws of South Africa, with
registration number 2004/020746/07 and with its registered address at 8w
Floor, Sinosteel Plaza, 159 Rivonia Road, Sandton, Johannesburg. Atha is a
subsidiary of the Atha Group, a company registered in India. Atha's black
economic empowerment partner for the proposed mining development is the
Bashubile Trust, whose trustees are Prince Thabo Mpofu, Vincent
Gezinhliziyo Zuma, and Sizwe Christopher Zuma. The latter two trustees I
understand to be nephews of, or otherwise closely related to, the president of
the Republic of South Africa, President Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma.
9 ii 16 The fourth respondent is the MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT
LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION ("the MPELA"), the management authority of
the MPE in terms of section 38(2)(b) of NEMPAA, with its address at Farm
Schoongezicht, Volksrust, Nlpurnalanga. The MPELA is cited by reason of
the interest it has in the matter, and no relief is sought against it.
17 The fifth respondent is the MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL
AFFAIRS, MPUMALANGA ("the MEC') with his office at 1st & 2nd Floor,
Building No. 6, Riverside Park, 7 Government Boulevard, Extension 2,
Nelspruit, Mpumalanga. This application will be served care of the State
Attorney, Pretoria, 316 Thabo Sehume Street, Pretoria. The MEC is cited by
reason of the interest he has in the matter, and no relief is sought against
him.
OUTLINE OF THIS APPLICATION
18 This application is for relief in two parts. The main relief sought is for the review
and setting aside of the Environment Minister's decision and the Minerals
Minister's decision to grant Atha written permission in terms of section
48(1)(b) of NEMPAA to conduct commercial mining in the MPE (referred to
collectively as "the NEMPAA decisions"). That relief is set out in Part B of the
notice of motion. The relief sought in Part A of the notice of motion is for an
interim interdict pending the final determination of the review in Part B, should
such relief prove necessary. The relief in terms of Part A will only be sought
in the event that Atha gives notice of its intention to
10 l 2.0 commence mining before this review has been finally disposed of by this court or on appeal.
19 In what follows, in Chapter A of this affidavit I provide background information
to the NEMPAA decisions. In Chapter 8, I describe the statutory framework.
In Chapter C, I deal with the recognition of the strategic importance of the
MPE. In Chapter D, I describe the establishment of the MPE. In Chapter E, I
describe the opaque nature of the decision-making on permitting mining in
the MPE. In Chapter F, I describe Atha's application for written permission in
terms of section 48(1)(b) of the NEMPAA, as well as the NEMPAA decisions.
In Chapter G, I deal with the grounds of review. In Chapter I-1, I deal with the
relief sought.
CHAPTER A: BACKGROUND
A.1 The proposed mine in a Protected Environment
20 The mine which Atha proposes to construct is an underground coal mine
(entitled "the Yzermyn Underground Coal Mine" and referred to in this
affidavit as "the Yzermyn mine" or "the mine") which would be located in the
MPE in the Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme Local Municipality ("the Local
Municipality") and the Gert Sibande District Municipality ("the District
Municipality") in Mpumalanga. Atha proposes to use the conventional bord-
and-pillar mining method, which involves the removal of large areas of coal-
containing ore (rock) while leaving in place "pillars" of ore to hold up the roof
of the underground mina The project would involve the extraction, crushing,
21 screening and stockpiling of coal product. as well as the transportation of the coal product for sale. The estimated life of mine is 15 years.
21 The MPE is a protected environment, having been declared as such by the
Member of the Executive Council: Economic Development, Environment and
Tourism Mpumalanga ("the MEC"), being the predecessor to the fifth
respondent, on 22 January 2014 in terms of section 28(1)(a)(i) and (b) of
NEMPAA. A copy of the notice in terms of which the MPE was declared
(Notice 20 in Mpumalanga Gazette No. 2251 dated 22 January 2014) is
attached marked "TTN1" ("the declaration notice"). As appears from the
declaration notice, the MPE includes the following properties, among others:
Portion 1 of Kromhoek 93 HT; Remainder of Kromhoek 93 HT;
Goedgevonden 95 HT and Remainder of Yzermyn 96 HT ("the protected
properties").
22 The protected properties form part of a larger area in respect of which Atha
was first granted a milling right in terms of section 23(1) of the Mineral and
Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 ("the MPRDA") on 19
September 2014. The area in respect of which the mining right was granted is
outlined in red on a map that appears in Atha's Integrated Water and Waste
Management Plan for the mine ("IWWMP") p. 10 and approved
environmental management programme ("EMPR") p. 5, and is attached
marked "TTN2" ("the mining right area").
23 The underground mining footprint and surface infrastructure of the mine is
depicted on a map that appears in Atha's IWWMP p. 14 and which is
12 attached marked c'TTN3e. Atha intends to conduct underground mining zi the properties Goedgevonden 95 HT, Portion 1 of Kromhoek 93 HT, Remainder
of Kromhoek 93 HT, Portion i of Yzermyn 96 HT and Zoetfontein 94 HT. The
first three of these properties fall within the MPE.
24 Atha intends to construct its surface infrastructure of approximately 22.4
hectares on Portion 1 of Yzermyn 96 HT. Portion 1 of Yzermyn 96 HT is a
triangular area wedged between (and on the boundaries of) two properties
which form part of the MPE. Atha intends to locate borehole pipelines over
the following properties, the first five of which comprise part of the MPE:
Goedgevonden 95 HT, Portion 1 of Kromhoek 93 HT, Remainder of
Kromhoek 93 HT, Remainder of Yzermyn 96 HT, Vaalhank 74 HT' and
Portion 1 of Yzermyn 96 HT.2 I will refer in this affidavit to the underground
mining area and the surface infrastructure area collectively as "the mine
area". The declaration notice (annexure TTN1) contains a visual depiction of
the MPE, but it is difficult to decipher. Accordingly I attach as annexure
"TTN4" a map of the MPE in relation to the mine area prepared by Vanessa
Stone of the World Wide Fund for Nature South Africa C'WVVF-SA"), whose
affidavit will be filed together with this one.
25 The mine area corresponds with several wetlands as appears from a map which
appears in Atha's IWWMP p. 48 and which is attached marked "TTNS".
' Only Portion 8 and the Remainder of Vaalhank 74 HT form pad of the MPE. To the applicants' knowledge, Vaalhank 74 HT comprises seven other properties which do not form pail of the MPE. The applicants do no; know whether the borehole pipelines aro intended to be located on Portion 8 and/or the Remainder of Vaalbank 74 14T. or the other properties which do not form part of the MPE.
2 This appears from Atha's IWWMP and from the water use licence which, as appears below, was granted to Atha on 7 July 2016.
13
13
The underground mining footprint and surface infrastructure are both outlined
in red. The dark blue areas are channelled valley wetlands (which is a valley-
bottom wetland with a river channel running through it); and the lighter blue
areas are seep wetlands (which are wetland areas on sloping land dominated
by unidirectional movement of water).
A.2 The statutory authorisations required for the mine
26 Atha requires the following statutory authorisations in order to commence
mining:
26.1 A mining right in terms of section 23(1) of the MPRDA — first
purportedly granted on 19 September 2014 by the Director-
General ("DG'') of the Department of Mineral Resources ("the
DMR''). On 14 April 2015, the mining right was withdrawn by the
Minerals Minister in terms of section 103(4)(b) of the MPRDA
and purportedly replaced with a new mining right ("the mining
right");
26.2 The approval of its environmental management programme
("EMPR") in terms of section 39 of the MPRDA — purportedly
granted by the Mpumalanga Regional Manager of the DMR on
28 June 2016;
26.3 An environmental authorisation for listed activities in terms of
section 24 of NEMA — purportedly granted on 7 June 2016 by
the Chief Director: Environmental Affairs: Mpumalanga ("the
EA"); C r u e l 1 14
1L}
26.4 A water use licence in terms of section 22(1)(b) of the National
Water Act 36 of 1998 ("the NWA") — purportedly granted on 7 July
2016 by the DO (Acting) of the Department of Water and Sanitation
("the DWS') ("the WUL"); and
26.5 Permission for a chan ge of land-use of the properties
comprising the mine area from agricultural and/or conservation
purposes to mining, in terms of section 26(4) of the Spatial
Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 ("SPLUMA"),
read with regulation 18 of the Spatial Planning and Land Use
Management Regulations: Land Use Management and General
Matters, 2015 ("the SPLUMA Regulations") and the Spatial
Planning and Land Use Management By -Law for the Dr. Pixley Ka
Isaka Seme, Lekwa, Mkhondo and Msukaligwa Local
Municipalit ies (Proclamation 8 in Provincial Gazette 2683 of 22
April). At the time of signing, Atha has not obtained and still
requires permission for a change of land use in respect of
Goedgevonden 95 HT, Remainder and Portion 1 of Kromhoek 93
HT and Zoetfontein 94 HT, the intended locations of the
underground mining operations, as well as Portion 1 of Yzermyn
96 HT, the intended location of the surface infrastructure, as well
as the properties on which the borehole pipelines are to be
established, referred to above .
27 These statutory authorisations are ordinarily required for mines in South Africa.
However, because the Yzermyn mine is located in the MPE, Atha also cThrl 15 (.. 25 requires the written permission of the Environment and Minerals Ministers in
terms of section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA to conduct commercial mining in the
MPE. As stated above, the Environment Minister and Minerals Minister
granted such permission on 20 August 2016 and 21 November 2016,
respectively (referred to in this affidavit as "the NEMPAA decisions").
28 The following legal challenges have been initiated against the statutory
authorisations:
28.1 On 10 September 2015 the applicants applied for the judicial
review of the mining right in the Gauteng Division. Pretoria of
8 the High Court under case number 7327 /15 ("the mining right
review"), which litigation is still pending.
28.2 On 19 August 2016 the applicants lodged an internal appeal
against the EMPR decision in terms of section 96(1)(a) of the
MPRDA and regulation 74 of the Mineral and Petroleum
Resources Development Regulations, 2004 with the DG of the
DMR ("the EMPR appeal"), which appeal is still pending.
28.3 On 13 October 2016 the applicants lodged an internal appeal
against the EA in terms of section 43(2) of NEMA and regulation
61 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. 2010
with the MEC ("the EA appeal"), which appeal is still pending.
28.4 On 15 December 2016 the fifth and sixth applicants (EWT and
FSE) and Mpumalanga Landbou/Agriculture lodged an internal
appeal in terms of section 148(1) of the NWA against the WUL cr 16
G in the Water Tribunal ("the WUL appeal"), which appeal is also
still pending.
29 The submission of the EMPR appeal did not suspend the approval of the
EMPR. The EA is currently suspended pending the outcome of the EA
appeal, although Atha refuses to recognise this. The WUL is no longer
suspended pending the outcome of the WUL appeal, because on 26 March
2017 the Minister of Water and Sanitation exercised her discretion to uplift
the suspension of the WUL in terms of section 148(2)(b) of the NWA.
30 On 20 June 2017 the applicants instituted an application in the Gauteng
Division, Pretoria under case number 41970/17 for an urgent interdict ("the
urgent interdict") against Atha conducting any mining or related activities on
the properties comprising the mining right area unless and until at least,
cumulatively, the following have taken place:
30.1 The final determination of the EA appeal: and
30.2 Application has been made, and authorisation has been granted
under section 26(4) read with 26(3) of the SPLUMA, read with
regulation 18 of the SPLUMA Regulations for a change of land
use of the mine area properties from conservation and/or
agricultural purposes to mining purposes: and
30.3 Any appeal against any decision of the Municipal Planning
Tribunal regarding the change of land use of the properties as n
17
contemplated in section 51 of the SPLUMA, has been finally
disposed of in Atha's favour.
31 An interim settlement has been reached in that matter, and made an order of
the court, whereby Atha has undertaken to comply with all statutory
requirements before commencing mining and has further undertaken to
provide to the applicants three weeks written notice before commencement
of any mining or mining-related activity. Pending that, the application has
been removed from the roll. Atha said in its answering affidavit in that matter
that it did not intend to commence mining in the foreseeable future because
a number of notices and permissions required for Atha's lawful
commencement of mining are still pending.
A.3 The present application
32 As explained above, the present application is for the judicial review of the
NEMPAA decisions, there being no statutory provision for internal appeals in
respect of either of them.
CHAPTER B: STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
8,1 The Constitution
33 Section 24 of the Constitution provides that:
"Everyone has the right — (a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and (b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that —
(i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation; (Thr\e, \a. 18
lb (ii) promote conservation; and (iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development".
34 The state has a duty in terms of section 7(2) of the Constitution to respect,
protect, promote and fulfil the right in section 24 of the Constitution.
35 The state has adopted several legislative measures pursuant to its duty in
terms of sections 24 and 7(2) of the Constitution, including NEMA, NEMPAA,
and the MPRDA, which contains provisions aimed at protecting the
environment from the possible consequences of mining.
B.2 NEMPAA
36 As noted above, apart from environmental authorisation, a mining right and the
approval of an EMPR, Atha required permission in terms of section 48 of
NEMPAA to conduct commercial mining in a protected environment.
37 As appears from section 2 of NEMPAA, its objectives include:
"(a) to provide, within the framework of national legislation, including the National Environmental Management Act, for the declaration and management of protected areas; (b) to provide for co-operative governance in the declaration and management of protected areas; (c) to effect a national system of protected areas in South Africa as part of a strategy to manage and conserve its biodiversity; (d) to provide for a diverse and representative network of protected areas on state land, private land, communal land and marine waters; (e) to promote sustainable utilisation of protected areas for the benefit of people, in a manner that would preserve the ecological character of such areas; (0 to promote participation of local communities in the management of protected areas, where appropriate". (Th
19
23 38 The purposes of declaring protected areas in terms of NEMPAA include, among
others, the following (section 17):
"(a) to protect ecologically viable areas representative of South Africa's biological diversity and its natural landscapes and seascapes in a system of protected areas; (b) to preserve the ecological integrity of those areas: (c) to conserve biodiversity in those areas: (d) to protect areas representative of all ecosystems, habitats and species naturally occurring in South Africa; (e) to protect South Africa's threatened or rare species: (0 to protect an area which is vulnerable or ecologically sensitive; (g) to assist in ensuring the sustained supply of environmental goods and services,. (h) to provide for the sustainable use of natural and biological resources; (i) to create or augment destinations for nature-based tourism; 0) to manage the interrelationship between natural environmental biodiversity, human settlement and economic development; (k) generally, to contribute to human, social, cultural, spiritual and economic development,- or (1) to rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and promote the recovery of endangered and vulnerable species."
39 NEMPAA also envisages that there will be some protected areas that are
most appropriately declared and managed by the national sphere of
government and others that are more appropriately declared and managed
by the provincial sphere of government. Implicit in the scheme of NEMPAA
is the recognition that the environment and nature conservation (excluding
national parks, national botanical gardens and marine resources, which are
areas of exclusive national legislative competence) are areas of concurrent
national and provincial legislative competence.
40 Section 28(1) of NEMPAA provides -
20
30 "(1) The Minister or the MEC may by notice in the Gazette- (a) declare any area specified in the notice- (i) as a protected environment; or (it) as part of an existing protected environment; and
(b) assign a name to the protected environment."
41 Section 28(2) of the NEMPAA provides, in relevant part, as follows:
"A declaration under subsection (1) (a) may only be issued- (a) (b) to enable owners of land to take collective action to conserve biodiversity on their land and to seek legal recognition therefor; (c) to protect the area if the area is sensitive to development clue to its-(0 biological diversity; (ii) natural characteristics: (iii) scientific, cultural, historical, archeological or geological value; (iv) scenic and landscape value; or (v) provision of environmental goods and services; (d) to protect a specific ecosystem outside of a special nature reserve, national park, world heritage site or nature reserve; (e) to ensure that the use of natural resources in the area is sustainable; ..
42 In terms of section 28(3) of NEMPAA, "jai notice under subsection (1)(a) may be
issued in respect of private land if the owner has requested or consented to a
declaration contemplated in subsection (1)(a) and the Minister or the MEC has
given the owner notice in writing in terms of section 33".
43 Section 38(2) of NEMPAA provides as follows:
"(2) The MEC, in writing- (a) must assign the management of a nature reserve to a suitable person, organisation or organ of state; and (b) may assign the management of a protected environment to a suitable person, organisation or organ of state, provided that the owner and lawful occupier have requested or consented to such assignment, and the MEC has given the owner and lawful occupier notice in writing in terms of section
21
44 In terms of section 38(3) of NEMPAA, the person, organisation or organ of state to whom the management of a protected area has been assigned is the management authority of the area for the purposes of the Act.
45 In terms of section 39(2) of NEMPAA the management authority must, within 12
months of the assignment, submit a management plan for the protected area to
the Minister or the MEC for approval.
46 In terms of section 41(2) of NEMPAA, a management plan must contain, amongst
other things: "a zoning of the area indicating what activities may take place in
different sections of the area, and the conservation objectives of those sections"
(section 41(2)(g)).
47 Finally, section 48 of NEMPAA provides in relevant part as follows:
"(1) Despite other legislation, no person may conduct commercial prospecting mining, exploration or related activities - (a) in a special nature reserve, national park or nature reserve; (b) in a protected environment without the written permission of the Minister [defined in section 1 of NEMPAA as "the Cabinet member responsible for national environmental management7 and the Cabinet member responsible for minerals and energy affairs;
(4) When applying this section, the Minister must take into account the interests of local communities and the environmental principles referred to in section 2 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998."
48 The foregoing are the primary legal provisions applicable to the review.
However, as pointed out above, other authorisations are required for Atha's
intended mining and it is necessary to refer briefly to some of the other
provisions that apply in this regard.
SZ B.3 NEMA
49 NEMA establishes a framework regulating the decisions taken by organs of
state in respect of activities by any person or entity that may affect the
environment.
50 Section 2 of NEMA contains a list of principles that apply to the actions of all
organs of state that may significantly affect the environment. In terms of
section 2(1) they also "(c) serve as guidelines by reference to which any
organ of state must exercise any function when taking any decision in terms
of ... any statutory provision concerning the protection of the environment"
and "(e) guide the interpretation, administration and implementation of
(NEMA) and any other law concerned with the protection or management of
the environment".
51 These principles are quoted and discussed with reference to the specific review grounds in Chapter G below.
52 NEMA also provides inter alia for the identification of "listed activities", as
published by notice in the Government Gazette, which activities may not
commence without environmental authorisation from "the competent
authority" (section 24(2)(a)), who at all times relevant to this application was
either the Environment Minister or the relevant provincial environmental
MEC.
23 56
53 Section 24(4) of NEMA contains detailed requirements for the investigation,
assessment and reporting of the potential consequences or impacts of listed
activities on the environment. Once these impacts have adequately been
assessed and reported in an environmental impact assessment report
("EIAR") by an appropriately qualified practitioner, the impacts must be
considered by the decision-making authority in the process of deciding
whether or not to grant an EA. NEMA also provides for the making of
regulations (the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) to govern
the process whereby activities that may impact upon the environment are
listed and whereby environmental impact assessment reports are prepared
and applications for environmental authorisations are processed.3
54 Section 24F of NEMA prohibits the commencement of listed activities without an
environmental authorisation to do so.
BA The environmental provisions of the MPRDA
55 Mining may only be conducted under the authorisation of a mining right granted in
terms of section 23 of the MPRDA.
56 The MPRDA provides that the Minerals Minister must grant a mining right if,
among other things, "the mining will not result in unacceptable pollution,
ecological degradation or damage to the environment" and that the Minerals
Minister must refuse to grant a mining right if that requirement is not met
3 Those applicable to Atha's mining project are the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations published in General Notice R. 543 in Government Gazette No. 33306 dated 18 June 2010. These were replaced in 2014, but nothing turns on this as the 2010 regulations continue to apply where the application for an EA was made under the 2010 regulations.
24 k-24) (sections 23(1)(d) and 23(3)). It is also a condition of the grant of a mining right
that the applicant provides the prescribed social and labour plan (section
23(1)(e)).
57 Section 39 of the MPRDA used to govern the approval of an EMPR by the
Minerals Minister and still applies to Atha's mining right, notwithstanding the
repeal of that section by section 33 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources
Development Amendment Act No. 49 of 2008. Section 39 of the MPRDA
provided, in relevant part, as follows:
"(1) Every person who has applied for a mining right in terms of section 22 must conduct an environmental impact assessment and submit an environmental management programme within 180 days of the date on which he or she is notified by the Regional Manager to do so. (2) .... (3) An applicant who prepares an environmental management programme ... must — (a) establish baseline information concerning the affected environment to determine protection, remedial measures and environmental management objectives; (b) investigate, assess and evaluate the impact of his or her proposed ... mining operations on — (0 the environment; (ii) the socio-economic conditions of any person who might be directly affected by the ... mining operation; ...and (d) describe the manner in which he or she intends to — modify, remedy, control or stop any action, activity or process which causes pollution or environmental degradation; (ii) contain or remedy the cause of pollution or degradation and migration of pollutants...; (4) ...the Minister must, within 120 days from the lodgement of the environmental management programme ..., approve the same, if — it complies with the requirements of subsection (3); the applicant has complied with section 41(1); and
SS (iii) the applicant has the capacity, or has provided for the capacity, to rehabilitate and manage negative impacts on the environment"
58 Section 41 dealt with "Ninancial provision for remediation of environmental
damage". Subsection (1) provided —
"An applicant for a prospecting right, mining right or mining permit must, before the Minister approves the ... environmental management programme in terms of section 39(4), make the prescribed financial provision for the rehabilitation or management of negative environmental impacts"
CHAPTER C: RECOGNITION OF STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE MPE
C.1 Introduction
59 In this chapter, I trace how numerous organs of State and other stakeholders
have recognised the fundamental ecological and environmental importance
of the area that forms the subject matter of this review application and acted
in myriad ways to keep it in as pristine a state as possible. These
developments are important because they constitute information and factors
that the Minerals Minister and Environment Minister should have taken into
account in making their decisions under NEMPAA.
60 To limit prolixity, I do not attach all of the documents referred to, but rather quote
or explain the relevant parts in the text of this affidavit. Inspection of the
documents is however tendered to the respondents that choose to oppose the
application and to the court at the hearing of the matter.
„ V 26 J . C.2 Recognition in the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation/Sector Plan Jb
61 In 2006, the Mpumalanga Provincial Government completed the Mpumalanga
Biodiversity Conservation Plan ("the 2006 MBCP"). The 2006 MBCP was
developed by the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency ("the MTPA"), which
was established in terms of the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency Act 5 of
2005, together with the Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture and Land
Administration. The areas which would later become the mine area and form part
of the MPE, as well as Portion 1 of Yzermyn 96 HT and Zoetfontein 94 HT, were
classified in the 2006 MBCP as "Irreplaceable Critical Biodiversity Areas" from an
aquatic perspective (see the map prepared by the MTPA annexed marked
"TTN6"4) and were largely classified as "Irreplaceable", "Highly Significant' or
"Important & Necessary Critical Biodiversity Areas from a terrestrial perspective
(see the map prepared by the MTPA annexed marked "TTN7"). The 2006 MBCP
has been updated periodically, and was renamed the Mpumalanga Biodiversity
Sector Plan ("MBSP"). A copy of a map with an overlay of the MBSP as at 2013,
from the "Biodiversity Baseline & Impact Assessment Report' by Natural Scientific
Services CC dated September 2013 ("the NSS CC ecological assessment") p.
216, commissioned by WSP Environment and Energy, first Environmental
Assessment Practitioner appointed by Atha to conduct its environmental impact
assessment of the proposed mine ("Atha's first EA
4 In respect of this map and the maps annexed as TTN7, TTN9, TTN10, TTN11, TTN12 and TTN13, the area identified as the "mining rights application" identifies the total areas of Goedgevonden 95 HT, Remainder of Yzermyn 96 HT, Portion 1 of Yzermyn 96 HT and Portion 1 of Kromhoek 93 HT, as well as part of the area of Remainder of Kromhoek 93 HT. Specific identifications of the areas relevant to this application are depicted in TTN2 (the mining right area, as described in paragraph 22 above) and TTN3 (the mine area, as described in paragraphs 23 and 24 above). TTN6, TTN7, TTN9, TTN10, TTN11, TTN12 and TTN13 also identify a "site footprint" area, which is now an outdated depiction of the mine. TTN3 reflects the current surface infrastructure footprint.
Practitioner"), is attached marked "TTN8", from which it appears that the mine area fell within areas largely classified as "Irreplaceable Critical
Biodiversity Areas" and "Optimal Critical Biodiversity Areas". As appears from the handbook which was published by the Mpumalanga Provincial
Government in 2007 to accompany the 2006 MBCP:
61.1 In 2006, Irreplaceable Critical Biodiversity Areas comprised 2.4% of the total land in the Province (p. 42);
61.2 The areas falling into this category were to be used for
"Conservation Management", although in some circumstances,
"Extensive Game Farming" and "Livestock Production if well-
managed, could be considered (p. 43);
61.3 The most important short-term priority was that land in such
areas was to be managed in ways that, at least, had no further
negative impact on biodiversity (p. 43);
61.4 These areas are "in urgent need of protection" and are "required to
meet [biodiversity] targets" (pp. 42 and 43);
61.5 These areas were to be incorporated into the formal Protected Area
system where appropriate (p. 43);
61.6 Underground mining was identified as being a land use which
would compromise the biodiversity objective and which should not
be permitted (p. 47); and
nn
28 c9 5S
61.7 As regards "Highly Significant' or "important & NecessaiY'
Critical Biodiversity Areas, although these were not
irreplaceable biodiversity areas, they were considered
significantly important areas of natural vegetation and
optimally located to meet both the biodiversity targets and
other criteria identified in the Plan.
C.3 Recognition in the Grasslands Programme
62 In 2008 the multi-stakeholder Grasslands Programme was established to protect
South Africa's grasslands. The Programme was financed through an $8.3
million investment from the Global Environment Facility, managed by the United
Nations Development Programme. The stakeholders included the South African
National Biodiversity Institute ("SANBI") and approximately 26 partner
organisations, including the WWF-SA, BirdLife (the fourth applicant) and the
EWT (the fifth applicant). One of the focus areas of the project was the
Wakkerstroom Wet Grasslands Area ("WWGA"), in which the mine area is
situated. Following the launch of the Grasslands Programme in 2008, SANBI,
the MTPA and other partner organisations, including the WWF-SA and BirdLife,
embarked on a process of attaining legal protection for the most threatened
Grassland Biomes in South Africa. The WWGA was identified by the various
stakeholders as such a biome.
CA Recognition in the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy
63 In March 2009 the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy ("the NPAES")
was approved by the national government for implementation. The
s 29
NPAES identified the vast majority of the area which now comprises the MPE
and the mine area, as well as Portion 1 of Yzermyn 96 HT and Zoetfontein 94
HT, as a priority area for inclusion as a protected area in terms of NEMPAA
("Moist Escarpment Grasslands" (no. 25) on p. 28). A map of the proposed mine
area with an overlay based on the NPAES priority areas, prepared by the
MTPA, is attached marked "TTN9".
C.5 Recognition in the Spatial Development Frameworks
64 In April 2009 the District Municipality published its Spatial Development
Framework ("the SDF") in terms of the Local Government: Municipal Systems
Act 32 of 2000 ("the Systems Act"). The SDF stated that:
64.1 The wetlands in the Wakkerstroom area contain high species
diversity and play a significant ecological role as they "function as
landscape amenities by helping with hydrologic management,
flood attenuation, storm-water control, erosion control and pollution
control'. For that reason, the wetland areas have a high
conservation value and "should be avoided for development
purposes" (pp. 39 and 43);
64.2 "The Wakkerstroom wetland specifically, is of high ecological
importance, as it acts as a vital catchment area for the Vaal and
Pongola Rivers. Furthermore, the wetland features a rich
diversity of plant and animal life, is internationally recognised as
one of South Africa's premier birding spots, and has been
nominated as a RAMSAR site" (p. 43);
( n j 30 64.3 "Negative impacts on biodiversity hot spots and environmentally
sensitive areas found within the District originate primarily from
economic activities such as forestry, mining and subsistence
agriculture. Mining specifically, is encroaching on several
conservation areas and important wetlands" (p. 109);
64.4 The "sensitive upper catchments and wetlands of the
Wakkerstroom area" were identified as an "environmental
heritage and conservation area, biodiversity hotspot and
ecologically sensitive area" that "should be actively protected,
managed and enhanced, so as to ensure that [it is] not
degraded by mining, forestry, agricultural and human settlement
activities". The SDF identified this Wakkerstroom area as one of
six that "should specifically be attended to" (p. 116).
65 On 30 November 2010 the Local Municipality published its SDF in terms of the
Systems Act. The area now comprising the proposed mine area was
identified in the SDF as a "sensitive natural area" meaning that it "should be
considered as protected and development proposed in the area should be
directed by the different environmentally sensitive aspects as described in
the environmental section of the SDF. Furthermore the abundance of
conservation and protected areas should also be utilised as part of the
natural environment to promote the economy and tourism in the municipal
area by developing the areas to attract tourists and promote the
attractiveness of the municipality" (p. 172). The environmental section of the
SDF stated that:
31
65.1 Operational mines pose a significant threat to underground water quality (p. 71);
65.2 "The spreading of coal mining activities in the Wakkerstroom
area is of concern as this area is of high conservation value to
the extensive wetlands found there. Mining would seriously
threaten the integrity of the wetlands and other habitats" (p.
7677);
65.3 "The Wakkerstroom wetland is a very important ecological wetland
as a vital catchment for the Vaal and Pongola River and its rich
diversity of plant and animal life. The wetland systems are
home to all three of the crane species occurring in South Africa
namely the Blue, Crowned and Wattled Cranes, as well as other
protected bird, frog and plant species. There are also a number
of Natural Heritage sites within the municipality which are
located around Wakkerstroom ... Large portions of grassland
near the Wakkerstroom region remain in near-pristine condition
..." (p. 77);
65.4 "The high value of properly functioning ecosystems particularly in
terms of water services provides an economic justification for their
protection and restoration. [The Local Municipality] boasts
grasslands that are generally in significantly better condition than
those in the Maluti-Drakensberg and care needs to be taken to
avoid degradation...
32
One of the key regulating ecosystem services provided by [the] grasslands area [is] associated with the water environment given the areas importance at the headwater of three major [Water
Management areas]. Numerous wetlands are present in the area including the Wakkerstroom wetland which is of national prominence. The Wakkerstroom wetland complex is one of few peat land wetlands in South Africa. They are centres of biodiversity, act as carbon sinks and are paramount to the hydrological functioning of drainage systems. The services provide water security for the area and also play a critical role as a "water factory" area with national importance for water security...
Key resource uses (agriculture, tourism, recreation, mining, forestry and harvesting) have the potential to clash with each other and destroy/degrade natural capital or ecological infrastructure from terrestrial and aquatic natural areas. Mining primarily impacts on water quality and quantity, land degradation, air quality and biodiversity. It further exacerbates impacts through high volumes of truck traffic. Water pollution may impact downstream of the pollution source with potential international implications.
The available evidence and observation of the situation in other mining areas indicates a high risk of significant unmitigated cumulative impacts from intensive mining. Despite numerous
L
33
ETA's and seemingly well-funded environmental management
plans, significant damage is occurring in mining areas.
Potentially unacceptable residual impacts appear to be a reality
of coal mining, particularly where a number of mines operate in
sensitive areas. Adequate mitigation does not equate with
observable reality at this point and strongly suggests that the
precautionary principle needs to be applied to the approval of
mining in the first instance in sensitive areas" (p. 79-80);
65.5 "The consideration of land use changes ideally needs to take
climate change implications into account given the importance
of the ecosystem services that natural habitats provide in both
mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change. In
essence, natural vegetation is the optimum from a greenhouse
gas emissions perspective followed by forestry (which has
potentially negative biodiversity and water use implications),
agriculture (which can result in relatively low emissions if well
managed) and mining (which essentially extracts concentrated
carbon in the form of coal from the earth for burning and
release into the atmosphere while also releasing methane gas
embedded in the coal seam which has a global warming
potential that is roughly 20 times greater than that of carbon
dioxide per volume). In addition, while management practices
have a significant potential to reduce emissions for agriculture,
their potential in the case of coal mining is low given current
technologies." (p. 81)
66 In November 2014, the District Municipality published a new SDF ("the 2014 SDF"). The following things appear from the 2014 SDF:
66.1 It reiterated many of the statements in the 2009 SDF about the
importance of conserving the wetlands and grasslands in the
Wakkerstroom area, including that, owing to their "crucial role in
maintaining the ecological integrity in the area" and in
"hydrological management, flood attenuation and water quality
maintenance", the grasslands and wetlands in the
Wakkerstroom region "have a high conservation value and
should be protected at all cost' (p. 112);
66.2 It continued, "hence, to ensure the optimal protection and
sustainable utilisation of the District's natural environmental
resources and areas of high biodiversity value, the SDF
proposes that the environmental heritage and conservation
areas, biodiversity hotspots and ecological corridors should be
treated as a special Biodiversity Management Zone to be
actively protected, managed and enhanced, so as to ensure that
these are not degraded by mining, forestry, agricultural and
human settlement activities" (p. 113);
66.3 It proposed that the "sensitive upper catchments and wetlands of the
Wakkerstroom area" be "legally protected' (p. 113).
C.6 Recognition in the Mpumalanga Protected Area Expansion Strategy
67 In July 2009 the MTPA published the Mpumalanga Protected Area Expansion
Strategy ("the MPAES") in terms of which the vast majority of the area now
comprising the MPE and the mine area, as well as Portion 1 of Yzermyn 96
HT and Zoetfontein 94 HT, were identified as a "priority 1 area" for
protected area expansion (pp. 19 and 20 of the Strategy (Wakkerstroom to
Sheepmoor area)). The priority areas in the strategy were identified on the
basis of their suitability for protected area expansion in order to meet
biodiversity targets in Mpumalanga. Priority 1 areas are those areas that
were identified in both the National and Provincial Protected Areas
Expansion Strategies. It was proposed in the Mpumalanga Strategy that
protected area expansion efforts over at least the five to 10 years following
the publication of the Strategy should be focused on priority 1 areas (pp. 17-
18). A map of the proposed mining area with an overlay based on priority 1
area in MPAES, prepared by the MTPA, is attached marked "TTN1 0".
C.7 Recognition by the Minerals Minister and the Environment Minister
68 Surprisingly, both the Minerals Minister and the Environment Minister have in
different contexts, in contradiction with their decisions under review, recognised
the environmental sensitivity and importance of the area. As I elaborate upon
below, they must have overlooked this when they agreed to grant the
permissions under NEMPAA.
69 On 8 July 2010, the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, then the
Hon. Buyelwa Sonjica, and nine MECs responsible for environmental affairs
36
in the Gauteng, North West, Eastern Cape, Mpumalanga, Limpopo, Northern
Cape, Free State, Kwazulu-Natal and Western Cape provinces, signed the
Grasslands Declaration committing government to the conservation of
grasslands biodiversity. According to the DEA, the goal of the declaration was
"to sustain and secure biodiversity and associated ecosystem services of the
grasslands biome for the benefit of current and future generations". The DEA
also announced that the declaration "intends to take active measures to
involve a wide range of interested and affected parties, including local
communities and resource users, in the management and conservation of
biodiversity in the grasslands biome".
70 On 31 August 2010, the Minerals Minister imposed a moratorium on the granting
of all prospecting rights in South Africa (GN R768 in GG 33511 of 31 August
2010). The moratorium was extended on 28 February 2011 for one month until
31 March 2011, except for Mpumalanga in respect of which the moratorium
was extended to 30 September 2011 (GN R160 in GG34057 of 28 February
2011 as amended by GN R287 in GG 34171 of 31 March 2011).
71 At the time of the extension of the moratorium in February 2011, the Minerals
Minister was quoted as telling a media briefing on 8 February 2011 that the
reason for not lifting the moratorium in Mpumalanqa was that the DMR had
"challenges bigger than what we expected, so we will lift eight provinces, and
Mpumalanga will continue... for two to three months before we lift the
moratorium." According to the Minister, the biggest challenge in Mpumalanga
was environmental matters, "issues of ecology'. "You find sensitive areas where
rights have been granted," she was quoted as saying. "We intend to (n,3 37
address that matter, hence we are not going to lift the moratorium, so as to
make sure that we respond to the challenges of nature. Unfortunately rights
were granted, but well have to address those issues." She said her
department was working closely with the DEA.
72 On 9 December 2011 the then Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs (who
was at this time the Hon. Edna Molewa, presently the Environment Minister)
published in terms of section 52(2)(b) of the National Environmental
Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 ("the Biodiversity Act"), a national
list of ecosystems that are threatened and in need of protection (GN 1002 in
GG 34809 dated 9 December 2011). The Wakkerstroom/Luneburg
Grasslands (MP11) was listed as an endangered ecosystem. The area now
comprising the MPE and the mine area, as well as Portion 1 of Yzermyn 96
HT and Zoeffontein 94 HT, is located in the Wakkerstroom/Luneburg
Grasslands endangered ecosystem as shown on a map prepared by the
MTPA, attached marked "TTN11".
73 On 10 May 2012 the Minerals Minister (who was then still the Hon. Susan
Shabangu) gave her Budget Vote Speech to the National Council of
Provinces. The Minerals Minister said, "Thlonourable members would recall
that we had extended the moratorium in Mpumalanga due to the complex
nature of environmental challenges in that province. This culminated in over
41 rights that are located in Wakkerstroom and Chrissiesmeer being
identified as those belonging to the category of environmentally sensitive
areas. Consequently we have taken action to prohibit mining within these . areas." 38
74 On 31 May 2012 the Minerals Minister signed off on the DMR's Annual Report for
2011/12. The Minister stated that "Whe previous extension of the moratorium in
Mpumalanga was due to the complex nature of environmental challenges in that
province. It culminated in over 41 rights that are located in Wakkerstroom and
Chrissiesmeer being identified as those belonging to the category of
environmentally sensitive areas and consequently action has been taken to
prohibit mining within those areas."
75 I pause here to point out that the prospecting right that preceded the grant of
Atha's mining right in respect of the area would have been one of the 41 rights
to which the Minerals Minister was referring. At this stage, it was clearly
envisaged and represented by the Minister that, notwithstanding the
prospecting rights which had been granted, mining would be prohibited in the
Wakkerstroom area, including in the area now proposed as the mine area, by
virtue of its environmental sensitivity.
C.8 Recognition in the Atlas of National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas
76 In August 2011 the Water Research Commission, the CSIR, SANBI, the
Department of Water Affairs ("the DWA") (now the DWS) and the DEA
published the Atlas of National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas in South
Africa ("the NFEPA Atlas"). The then Minister of Water and Environmental
Affairs (still the Hon. Edna Molewa) said in the foreword to the NFEPA Atlas,
that it was essential that water is dealt with in an integrated and cooperative
manner across key government departments and that the NFEPA Atlas
would inform decisions about land use. The following things appear from the NFEPA Atlas:
76.1 The Wakkerstroom area is classified as a priority river and wetland
ecosystem (pp. 20 and 22);
76.2 River Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas are rivers that are still in
relatively good ecological condition occurring in healthy
catchments and should remain in relatively good condition to
contribute to national biodiversity goals and support sustainable
use of water resources. The surrounding land and stream
networks need to be managed in a way that maintains the good
condition of the river reach (p. 14);
76.3 Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Wetlands and Wetland Clusters must
be maintained if they are in good ecological condition and
rehabilitated to the best attainable ecological condition if they are
in a substandard ecological condition (p. 14); and
76.4 The area now comprising the MPE is located in a high water yield
area, which areas are important "because they contribute
significantly to the overall water supply of the country. They can
be regarded as our water factories, supporting growth and
development needs that are often a far distance away.
Deterioration of water quantity and quality in these high water
yield areas can have a disproportionately large adverse effect on
the functioning of downstream ecosystems and the overall
sustainability of growth and development in the regions they r
40 5u
support. High water yield areas should therefore be maintained in
a good condition (A or B ecological category). This requires
minimising land use activities that reduce stream flow in these
areas (e.q. plantation forestry), as well as any activity that would
affect water quality (e.g. timber mills, mining, over-grazing).
Wetlands also play an important role in these areas, regulating
stream flow and preventing erosion..." (p. 44) (own emphasis)
77 A map of the proposed mine area with an overlay based on the NFEPA Atlas,
prepared by the MTPA, is attached as "TTN12".
C.9 Recognition by the MEC responsible for environment
78 On 28 September 2010, the MEC declared the Kwamandlagampisi Protected
Environment ("the KPE") in terms of section 28(1)(a) and (b) of NEMPAA. The
KPE is situated in close proximity to the area now comprising the MPE and the
proposed mine area. The area comprising the KPE was expanded on 22
January 2014 in terms of section 28(1)(a)(ii) and (b) of NEMPAA.
79 On 21 February 2012, the MEC published by notice in the Mpumalanga
Gazette an Environmental Management Framework ("EMF") for the Local
Municipality in terms of sections 24(5) and 44 of NEMA and the
Environmental Management Framework Regulations, 2010. The
Environmental Management Zones figure published with the EMF shows that
the proposed mine area falls within a "Zone 1: Conservation" Environmental
Management Zone. In terms of the EMF, "Mining, dumping, dredging and C\rm V 41
MO
prospecting is an "undesirable type of activity' and should "not (be] allowed at all'
in a Zone 1: Conservation area (p. 88).
C.10 Recognition in the Strategic Water Source Areas Report
80 In March 2013, the CSIR completed the Strategic Water Source Areas Report
for WWF-SA. On the basis of this report, in August 2013 VVVVF-SA
published for the public an "Introduction to South Africa's Strategic Water
Source Areas". The following things appear from the latter report:
80.1 The area now comprising the MPE and the mine area, as well as
Portion 1 of Yzermyn 96 HT and Zoetfontein 94 HT, was
identified as comprising part of the Enkangala Drakensberg
Strategic Water Source Area;
80.2 The Strategic Water Source Areas were described as being the 8%
of South Africa's land area that provides 50% of our surface
water run-off. They "provide a disproportionate amount of run-off
to the rest of the catchment ... Downstream users and
ecosystems are dependent on the healthy functioning of these
areas to sustain good quality water supplies ... Disrupting water
supply from these 16 strategic WSAs would effectively turn off
the taps to our economy and seriously impact our food and
water security' (p. 14);
80.3 Water "is provided to us by healthy and functioning ecosystems" (pg
2) and "the health of our rivers and wetlands is measured by
1 n /4\
42_ the diversity and health of the species ("microbes, plants and
animate] we share these resources with" (p. 10);
80.4 The Enkangala Drakensberg Strategic Water Source Area
"supplies water to South Africa's economic hub, Gauteng ..." (p.
46). I pause here to explain that there are numerous headwater
and mountain streams in the mine area which flow into larger
streams that drain into the Assegaai River (the NSS CC
ecological assessment p. 140). The Assegaai River, in turn,
flows into the Heyshope Dam, from which water is diverted into
the Vaal River System via inter-basin transfer (the Introduction
to South Africa's Strategic Water Source Areas report p. 46).
Accordingly, the area constituting the mine area and the MPE is
a water source of the Vaal River System which, as aforesaid,
"supplies water to South Africa's economic hub, Gauteng ...".
Downstream of the Heyshope Dam, the Assegaai River flows
into the Usutu River (the "Hydrological Assessment" by Atha's
first EA Practitioner dated 16 August 2013). The Usutu River
flows through Swaziland and, after joining the Pongola River,
flows into Mozambique, where it is known as the Maputo River.
Accordingly, the health of the Usutu River System is also
relevant to South Africa's international obligations to Swaziland
and Mozambique.
t
43 OND 13d C.11 Recognition by the Mining Sector
81 On 22 May 2013 the "Mining and Biodiversity Guideline: Mainstreaming
Biodiversity into the Mining Sector" was published by the DEA, the DMR, the
Chamber of Mines, the South African Mining and Biodiversity Forum and
SANBI (particularly, its Grasslands Programme). The mine area falls within
an area which has been identified in the Mining and Biodiversity Guideline as
a Category B area, having the "Highest biodiversity importance" and being at
the "Highest Risk for mining". The significance of the biodiversity features in a
Category B area is that (p. 29):
81.1 If the existence of the biodiversity features is confirmed in an
environmental impact assessment, "the likelihood of a fatal flaw for
new mining projects is very high because of the significance of the
... ecosystem services";
81.2 Category B areas "are viewed as necessary to ensure the protection
of biodiversity, environmental sustainability, and human well-
being"; and
81.3 "An EIA _should fully take into account the environmental
sensitivity of the area, the overall environmental and socio-
economic costs and benefits of mining, as well as the potential
strategic importance of the minerals to the country.
Authorisations may well not be granted. If granted, the
authorisation may set limits on allowed activities and impacts,
and may specify biodiversity offsets..."
44
CHAPTER D: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MPE 5
It
D.1 Establishment
82 Following a prior notice and comment procedure, which included a full opportunity
for stakeholder participation (including by Atha, who at that stage held
prospecting rights in respect farms falling within the area covered by the notice),
as well as a meeting of and discussions amongst stakeholders, on 22 January
2014 the MEC declared the MPE in terms of section 28(1)(a)(i) and (b) of
NEMPAA.
83 After this, the areas comprising the MPE were classified in the MBSP as protected
environment areas, while the remaining mine area not falling within the MPE
(Portion 1 of Yzermyn 96 HT and Zoetfontein 94 HT having been omitted from
the MPE in the final declaration of the area) were largely classified as
"Irreplaceable Critical Biodiversity Areas" and "Optimal Critical Biodiversity
Areas" and were depicted as falling within a "Protected Area Buffer (see
attached maps prepared by the MTPA, marked "TTN13").
84 On 17 February 2014, the MEC signed an agreement with the Mabola
Protected Environment Landowners Association ("MPELA") (which the
MPELA had already signed on 14 January 2014) as regards the declaration
of the MPE. A copy is attached marked "TTN14". In terms of the agreement:
constitute the MPE); n
45
84.1 The MPELA consented to the declaration of the MPE in respect of
the land owned by its members (the properties that now 84.2 The MPELA was assigned and accepted management authority for the MPE; and
84.3 The MPELA would enter into a management agreement (which
would include a management plan) with the MTPA concerning the
management of the MPE. The management plan would then be
submitted to the MEC for approval.
85 Neither Atha, nor any other party has ever sought to judicially review or set aside
the decision of the MEC to declare the MPE.
D.2 The draft MPE management plan
86 On 23 January 2015 a meeting was conducted between Atha, representatives
of MPELA, representatives of the MTPA and a representative of the
Mpumalanga Environmental Department. The following things appear from
the meeting minutes:
86.1 The MTPA presented its draft management plan for the MPE;
86.2 The MPELA reiterated that it was strongly opposed to the proposed
mine and would stay opposed until compatibility with the
management plan could be proven;
86.3 Concerns remained among those present about the dewatering
effects of the mine and financial allocation for running a water
treatment plant after closure; and
46
86.4 The MPELA felt that it was counterproductive of Atha to motivate
for the removal of certain farms from the MPE to accommodate
the proposed mining operation (as Atha had done in the
process of the establishment of the MPE).
87 A copy of the draft management plan for the MPE (2015 to 2019) is attached
marked "TTN15". The following things appear from the draft plan:
87.1 The draft plan divides the MPE into three use zones, with the
mine area falling partly in the "Remote Zone" and partly in the
"Primitive Zone" (pp. 3 and 36);
87.2 The appropriate activities for these areas are limited to certain types
of grazing and tourism (p. 32);
87.3 Management of this zone should be focused on conservation (in
respect of the Remote Zone), and preserving the rural farmland
appeal and character of the area (in respect of the Primitive Zone)
(p 32); and
87.4 In relation to mining, the only mining activities that may be
considered by the management authority are "Nlubsistence mining
activities associated with the day-to-day operations and
management of the [MPE]. These mining activities could include
borrow pits, subsistence sand mining and any other activities
which would provide required material for the maintenance of land
uses included in the zoning plan of the [MPEJ, as described
r in this management plan" (p. 45). ),(
47 re 459 3rnir
88 Section 39(3) of NEMPAA requires a public consultation process in the
preparation of a management plan. This process was, pursuant to the
agreement referred to above, conducted jointly by the MTPA and MPELA.
The volatile situation that developed in the course of the public participation
resulted in a decision by the MTPA to delay submission of the draft
management plan to the MEC until after the NEMPAA decisions had been
made. As I elaborate upon below, this resulted in a fatal flaw in those
decisions, because the NEMPAA decisions ought to have awaited and taken
into consideration an approved management plan for the MPE.
CHAPTER E: THE OPAQUE DECISION-MAKING ON PERMITTING MINING IN THE MPE
E.1 The CER's attempts to find out about any application or decision-making through correspondence
89 Early in 2015, the CER heard from media reports and other sources that
subsequent to the declaration of the MPE, the DMR had granted a mining right
to Atha in respect of an area that fell within the MPE. This was a matter of
concern because mining is prohibited in a protected area in terms of section
48(1) of NEMPAA, unless the requisite permissions are in place from the
Environment Minister and the Minerals Minister.
90 Accordingly, on 23 February 2015, the CER addressed a letter to the Acting
Deputy DG: Biodiversity and Conservation of DEA. The letter explained the
CER's concerns and went on to say —
"4 We urgently need to confirm the following with you:
48
4.1 Has the Minister or the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) received any request from the Minister of Mineral Resources, DMR or AAV [Atha] for the Minister of Environmental Affairs' written permission to mine inside the Mabola Protected Environment in terms of NEMPAA's section 48? If so, we urgently need copies of such a request and any response from the Minister or DEA.
4.2 If not, has the Minister of Environmental Affairs or DEA received any other request from the Minister of Mineral Resources, the DMR or AAV in relation to AAV's proposed activities inside the Mabola Protected Environment? This includes a request to comment on the environmental management programme attached to the mining right referred to above. If so, we urgently need copies of such correspondence between AAV and/or the Minister of Mineral Resources, the DMR, and the Minister of Environmental Affairs and/or DEA.
4.3 If the Minister of Environmental Affairs is considering any request for permission to mine inside the Mabola Protected Environment in terms of NEMPAA, please advise what public participation process has been initiated or is being contemplated to ensure compliance with the requirements of NEMPAA, NEMA and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000?
4.4 Has the Minister of Environmental Affairs or DEA received any notification from the Mpumalanga MEC or the Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs regarding an intention or any steps taken to withdraw the declaration of the Mabola Protected Environment or to exclude part of the Mabola Protected Environment under section 29 of NEMPAA? If so, we urgently need copies of such correspondence.
5. As there is a short and limited time period for lodging an appeal against the granting of a mining right inside the Mabola Protected
49
Environment, please could you assist us with this information as a matter of great urgency, and no later than 25 February 2015."
91 A copy of the letter is attached marked "TTN16".
92 In response to this, on 26 February 2015 the CER received an email from the
DEA, in which it advised the CER that ". queries related to the Protected Areas
Act and authorisations that need to be obtained from the Minister to mine in the
protected environment... should be directed to the D: Protected Areas for a
response." A copy of the email is attached marked "TTN17".
93 In March 2015 the CER attempted to contact the DEA's Protected Areas
directorate telephonically to obtain answers to the questions in TTN16, but
this was not successful. Accordingly, CER set about preparing a request for
this information under the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000
("PAIA"), which, as is reflected below, was ultimately submitted to the DEA
on 17 April 2015.
94 In the meantime, more information was obtained regarding the grant of the
mining right and on 1 April 2015 the applicants lodged an internal appeal to
the Minerals Minister in terms of section 96 of the MPRDA, read with
regulation 74 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development
Regulations, 2004, against the DG's decision to grant a mining right to Atha.
In light of the extreme environmental sensitivity of the area, including its
protected status under NEMPAA, which was drawn to the Minerals Minister's
attention, the applicants simultaneously lodged an application in terms of (Thr\
_ 5 0
section 96(2) of the MPRDA requesting the Minerals Minister to suspend the
mining right.
95 On 2 April 2015, the CER addressed letters to the Environment Minister and
the Minerals Minister on behalf of the applicants alerting them to the fact that
an internal appeal had been lodged against the grant of Atha's mining right
and, given the extreme environmental sensitivity of the area, that the
applicants had simultaneously with the internal appeal lodged an application
for the suspension of the mining right. Copies of the letters are attached
marked "TTN18" and "TTN19" respectively.
96 The letters also expressly pointed out that one of the grounds of appeal was
that the mining right was granted notwithstanding that the written permission
of the Environment Minister and the Minerals Minister in terms of section
48(1)(b) of NEMPAA to conduct commercial mining in the MPE had not been
obtained, or sought. The applicants requested the Ministers not to take any
steps to consider or determine any application that may be made by Atha for
such permission pending the final determination of whether the grant of the
mining right to Atha had been lawful. Save for an acknowledgment of receipt
from DEA on behalf of the Environment Minister, on 28 April 2015, the
applicants did not receive any responses to these letters.
97 Unbeknown to the applicants at the time, on 14 April 2015 the Minerals
Minister, acting in terms of section 103(4)(b) of the MPRDA, withdrew the
DG's decision to grant the mining right and issued a new mining right on
similar terms save that all of the conditions pertaining to protection of the r 51
environment were removed. The mining right included the properties falling
within the MPE, as the original mining right had done. A copy of the letter
informing Atha of the grant of the mining right (which letter was only obtained by
the applicants on 22 May 2015) is attached marked "TTN20".
98 On 20 August 2015, the CER addressed a letter to the MEC on behalf of the
applicants requesting him to confirm whether he had received any request
from Atha to withdraw the declaration of the MPE. The CER further
requested that it be notified directly of any notice of intention to withdraw the
declaration of the MPE. A copy of the letter is attached marked "TTN21". In
the letter, it was pointed out what the statutory constraints under NEMPAA
were on the withdrawal of such a declaration, including the procedure that
had to be followed beforehand. Acknowledgement of receipt of the letter was
received on 21 August 2015, but no substantial reply was ever received to
the letter.
99 The reason the CER made this request was because it appeared from the
September 2014 Environmental Impact Assessment Report ("EIAR")
submitted by Atha to the DEA as part of its application for an EA, that Atha
had requested the MEC to withdraw the declaration of the MPE.
100 On 27 August 2015 the CER addressed a letter to the Environment Minister
and the DG of the DEA, copied to Atha, on behalf of the applicants informing
them that the applicants intended to launch the mining right review and
requesting, inter alia, that the Environment Minister suspend any decision-
making process in terms of section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA to permi (t.m t r ;CO 52 61
commercial mining inside the MPE, pending the outcome of the judicial
review. A copy of this letter is attached marked "TTN22", I emphasise that
neither the applicants nor their attorneys had been informed at this stage of
any application to the Environment Minister and the Minerals Minister under
section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA to grant permission to mine in the MPE, nor of
any decision-making process on the part of the Ministers that might be
underway. As pointed out above, the enquiries were prompted by CER's
having learned of the grant of the mining right. Acknowledgements of receipt
of the letter on behalf of the DEA and the DG of the DEA were received on 4
September 2015 and 2 October 2015, respectively, but no substantial reply
was ever received to the letter.
101 On 10 September 2015 the applicants launched the mining right judicial review
in the Gauteng Division, Pretoria of the High Court under case number
73278/15.
102 On 17 June 2016, the applicants learned that on 7 June 2016 the Chief
Director: Environmental Affairs, Mpumalanga had granted Atha environmental
authorisation in respect of several activities listed in the NEMA 2010 Listing
Notices associated with the mine (referred to above as the EA). This too
pointed to an on-going intention to mine in the MPE and a failure by the
environmental authorities to recognise the impact of the declaration of the
area as a protected area. Accordingly, on 19 August 2016 the applicants
lodged an appeal in terms of section 43(2) of NEMA and regulation 61 of the
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 against the EA to the
MEC (referred to above as the EA appeal). As one of the grounds of appeal, \ - )1 53
it was pointed out that the area in respect of which the EA had been granted for
mining was a protected area under NEMPAA.
103 On 2 September 2016 the CER addressed a letter to the Environment Minister
and the DG of the DEA informing them of the applicants' submission of the
EA appeal, and requesting that the Environment Minister take the appeal into
account when considering any application by Atha for permission to conduct
commercial mining inside the MPE in terms of section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA.
A copy of the letter, without annexures, is attached marked "TTN23". The
CER reiterated its request of 27 August 2015 that the Environment Minister
and the DG suspend any decision-making process in terms of section
48(1)(b) of NEMPAA pending the outcome of the mining right review. Again, I
point out that the applicants surmised that such a decision-making process
might be under way, but they had no evidence of this. Acknowledgement of
receipt of the letter on behalf of the DG of the DEA was received on 5
September 2016, but no substantial reply was ever received to the letter
from either of the recipients.
104 On 28 November 2016 the CER addressed a letter to Atha's attorneys in
an attempt to ascertain which statutory authorisations (if any) were still
outstanding and when Atha intended to commence with any activities on
site. The letter specifically enquired whether Atha had made application
for NEMPAA permission, whether NEMPAA permission had been granted
by either the Environment Minister or the Minerals Minister, and whether
an opportunity had been given to interested and affected persons to make
representations in respect of any application by Atha (recording that the ,
54 \
(r5 applicants had at the date of the letter not received any communication granting
them such an opportunity). The CER also requested Atha to furnish the
applicants with an undertaking that it would give them 30 days written
notification of commencement of any activities on site. A copy of the letter,
without annexures, is attached marked "TTN24". No response to this letter has
ever been received.
E.2 The CER's attempts to find out about any application or decision-making through PAM applications
105 Having failed to elicit any information from the DEA in response to our
attorneys' letter on 23 February 2015 (TTN16) or from the subsequent
telephonic attempts to the Protected Areas directorate, on 17 April 2015 the
CER, on behalf of the FSE (the sixth applicant), submitted a request in terms
of PAIA to the DEA for access, inter alia, to "any correspondence between
Atha and the DEA and/or Minister of Environmental Affairs contemplated by
section 48(1)(b) of [NEMPAAJ' ("the first PAIA request"). A copy of the
request is attached marked "TTN25".
106 On 10 June 2015, the DEA refused the first PAIA request on the basis that it "has
no records herein" (see p. 3). A copy of that decision letter is annexed, marked
"TTN26".
107 Again having failed to elicit any information from the DEA in response to our
attorneys' letters, on 20 October 2016 the CER, on behalf of the FSE,
submitted a request in terms of PAIA to the DEA for access to any application
or motivation by Atha to the DEA and/or the Environment Minister f\ c 55 for permission to mine commercially in the MPE, as contemplated in section
48(1)(b) of NEMPAA, as well as any correspondence between Atha and the
DEA and/or Minister regarding section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA ("the second PAIA
request"). A copy of the request is attached marked "TTN27".
108 On 29 November 2016, pursuant to the second PAIA request, the DEA
provided to the CER a letter from Atha to the Environment Minister dated 3
May 2016 in which it requested permission to mine within the MPE in terms
of section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA ("Atha's May 2016 NEMPAA application"). A
copy of the letter is attached marked "TTN28". Despite Atha being well
aware of the applicants' opposition to the Yzermyn mine through the various
appeals and the mining right review, it made no attempt to notify the
applicants of Atha's request to the Environment Minister.
109 Moreover, neither the Environment Minister nor the DEA, despite
correspondence from the CER on behalf of the applicants since February 2015
setting out its position and requesting confirmation of any request received for
permission under NEMPAA, notified the applicants or the CER of Atha's
request. Nor did they provide the applicants or CER any opportunity whatsoever
of being heard in relation to Atha's NEMPAA application.
110 On 2 December 2016 the CER addressed a letter to the Environment Minister,
the Minerals Minister and the DG of the DEA requesting that the applicants
be given a reasonable opportunity to make representations to the Ministers in
respect of Atha's May 2016 NEMPAA application and any similar such
request that may have been made to the Minerals Minister. A copy of
56
the letter is attached marked "TTN29". The CER also formally requested that the
applicants be provided with a copy of any application which Atha may have
made to the Minerals Minister for such permission. To date, the CER has
received no response to this letter.
111 On 7 December 2016 the CER, on behalf of the FSE, submitted another
PAIA request to the DEA for access to, inter alia, any correspondence
between Atha and the DEA and/or the Environment Minister regarding the
Minister's permission in terms of section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA to mine
commercially in the MPE and any decision in respect of any request by Atha
for such permission ("the third PAIA request"). A copy of the request is
attached marked "TTN30".
E.3 The applicants and CER learn of the NEMPAA decisions
112 While the CER's efforts were underway in relation to finding out about any
NEMPAA decision-making, on 29 August 2016 the applicants learned (some
time after the event) that on 7 July 2016, the DG (Acting) of the Department
of Water and Sanitation ("DWS") had issued a water use licence to Atha in
terms of section 41 of the NWA in respect of water uses associated with the
mine (referred to above as the WUL). On 15 December 2016 EWE (the fifth
applicant), FSE (the sixth applicant) and Mpumalanga Landbou/Agriculture
lodged an appeal in terms of section 1480) of the NWA against the decision
to grant the WUL in the Water Tribunal (referred to above as the WUL
appeal).
Qq)
57
113 The effect of lodging a statutory appeal is that the WUL is automatically
suspended in terms of section 148(2)(b) of the NWA. However, the Minister of
Water and Sanitation ("the Water Minister") has a statutory discretion in terms of
section 148(2)(b) to uplift the suspension. Atha requested the Minister to
exercise her discretion to uplift the suspension.
114 On 31 January 2017, DWS provided the CER with a copy of Atha's request to
uplift the suspension in order to enable the applicants to make
representations to the Water Minister in response. Attached to the copy of
Atha's request was a copy of a document recording that on 20 August 2016
and 21 November 2016, respectively, the Environment Minister and the
Minerals Minister had given Atha permission in terms of section 48(1)(b) of
NEMPAA to conduct commercial mining inside the MPE. A copy of the letter
from the DWS under cover of which the NEMPAA decisions were received
and a copy of the record of the NEMPAA decisions is attached marked
"TTN31'".
115 This was the first time that either the applicants or CER learned of the
NEMPAA decisions. It thus emerged that the applicants and the public had
deliberately been kept in the dark for several months by both Atha and the
two Ministers and their departments, with the result that they were never
heard before the NEMPAA decisions were taken. The consequences of this
are dealt with below.
58
CHAPTER F: ATHA'S NEMPAA APPLICATION AND THE MINISTERS' NEMPAA DECISIONS
F.1 Atha's NEMPAA application
116 The following things appear from Atha's May 2016 NEMPAA application (already
attached as annexure TTN28):
116.1 It consists of a covering letter, and an Annexure 1 with
appendices A to G. No independent reports are attached to
Atha's submission to substantiate it. It makes several
references to "scientific evidence" and "specialist studies"
without specifying the sources of evidence or the specific
specialist studies in question. Where it does refer to specific
reports the references are entirely incomplete, for example "the
Groundwater Resource Assessment Project Phase II" (first
para, Appendix C). Of the 21 figures represented in Atha's May
2016 NEMPAA application only 8 are referenced: one to the
surveyor general, two to SANBI and five to Google. The
remaining 13 figures have no reference.
116.2 Atha's motivation for the NEMPAA permission to be granted is
based on an assertion that the objectives of the MPE "are not in
conflict with the co-existence of the Yzermyn Project on the entire
mining area." Moreover, "that the activities on the Four Farms
included in the Mabola Protected Area, will not negatively impact
on the environmental protection purposes sought to be
achieved by the Mabola Declaration". n
59
116.3 It contains inadequate and inaccurate information, about, among
other things, the environmental sensitivity, vulnerability and
importance of the proposed mining area; about the risks and
consequences posed by the proposed mine pertaining to
dewatering of aquifers and the decant of contaminated
groundwater and acid mine drainage; about the cumulative
impacts of the proposed mine, as well as the impacts of the
proposed mine on downstream water users.
116.4 It sets out to evaluate the National Interest based on 10
categories, notionally summarising the "opportunities and costs
associated with the project". The 10 categories are: Mineral
Resource: coal; SMME (small, medium and micro-sized
enterprise) creation; effective use of already transformed areas;
water; biodiversity; ecological function; wetlands; heritage; air
quality; and potential development.
116.5 Atha asserts that coal "is a strategic mineral and is critically
important for the progress of South Africa, as it provides the fuel
for development in the form of electricity'. As appears from
paragraph 190 below however, the in situ coal resource is
marginal when compared to total coal reserves in South Africa,
Mpumalanga and the Utrecht Coal Field. The coal resource will
thus play an insignificant role in "providing fuel for development' in
South Africa. In any event, the coal resource in the mine area is
poor quality and Atha plans to export 67% of the coal output.
60
116.6 Atha claims the mine will generate 550 job opportunities, but it fails to reveal that there is unlikely to be significant opportunities for the local population to be employed, as is elaborated upon in
ground of review G.6 below. It also fails to address the
agricultural and tourism-related jobs and livelihoods that will be
lost if the use of the land changes from agriculture and
conservation to coal mining.
116.7 Atha suggests that mining is a sustainable use of "already
transformed areas". In doing so, Atha misrepresents the state of
the areas that would be affected by the underground mining and
the surface infrastructure.
116.8 Atha summarises the significance of water impacts, and the
relevance of those impacts to the proposed Yzermyn mine in a
way which is in direct conflict with the findings of Atha's own
experts.
116.9 Atha's submission on "ecological function" is so vague as to be
without meaning.
116.10 Atha makes a submission on wetland impact in respect of the
surface infrastructure development only. It is inconceivable that
Atha would not include impact of the underground mining on
wetlands.
116.11 In relation to Heritage and Air Quality, Atha's submissions are
wholly unsubstantiated. r\,0
61
116.12 The final category under which Atha purports to summarise the
opportunities and costs of the project, is "potential
development". Atha's submission in this respect is so vague as
to have no bearing on its application for the Ministers'
permission under NEMPAA.
116.13 The summaries of the findings of its specialist studies are false
and its submissions on Foreign Direct Investment and
development capital are bald and unsubstantiated.
F.2 The Ministers' NEMPAA decisions
117 As stated above and notwithstanding the shortcomings in Atha's NEMPAA
application, the Environment Minister and Minerals Minister granted Atha
written permission in terms of section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA to conduct
commercial mining in the MPE. Their decisions were taken on 20 August
2016 and 21 November 2016, respectively. A copy of the NEMPAA decisions,
which are recorded in a single document together with the reasons for the
decisions, has already been attached as annexure TTN31.
118 The document contains the following requirements and conditions:
118.1 "Quarterly compliance reports demonstrating the compliance status
on the conditions or requirements of this permission and the
Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) approved by the
Mpumalanga provincial environmental department must
nr\
62
a a
be provided to the National Department of Environmental Affairs"
(condition 8);
118.2 "The compliance reports must indicate the date of the audit, the
name of the auditor and the outcome of the audit in terms of
compliance with the conditions of this permission as well as the
requirements of the EMPr approved by the Mpumalanga
Provincial Environmental Department' (condition 9);
118.3 "Scouring, erosion or sedimentation of all watercourses and
wetlands as a result of the development must be managed
according to the approved Environmental Management
Programme, and the integrity of watercourses should not be
detrimentally affected" (condition 22);
118.4 "The applicant must mitigate and manage acid mine drainage
where applicable according to the requirements of DWS"
(condition 25);
118.5 "The clearing of vegetation must be undertaken in accordance
with the EMPr approved in terms of the environmental
authorisation issued by the Mpumalanga provincial
environmental department" (condition 27);
118.6 "A suitable qualified wetland specialist must be appointed to
carry out a comprehensive baseline audit of the wetlands in
the area. The audit must be submitted to the DEA: Branch
a
Biodiversity and Conservation its successors in title and must also
be tabled at the EMC inception meeting" (condition 32)
118.7 "Should the integrity (PES score) of any category A and B
wetlands be reduced by more than 20% from baseline, a
biodiversity offset agreement must be negotiated with the
Mpumalanga provincial environmental department and the DEA:
Branch Biodiversity and Conservation (its successors in title)
within the timeframe stipulated by these authorities' (condition
34);
118.8 "Quarterly compliance reports on demonstrating compliance on
the conditions or requirements of the Environmental
Management Plan and Environmental Authorisation must be
provided to both department of Environmental Affairs and
Mineral Resources" (condition 35).
119 As regards the reasons for the NEMPAA decisions, they were as follows
"1. Information considered in making the decision
In arriving at this decision I have taken into consideration the
following:
Decision by the MEC regarding the declaration of Mabola as a
Protected Environment, and its associated processes;
Draft Mabola Protected Environmental Management Plan;
Mining right and approved Environmental Management Programme;
(\ A N S 64 Environmental Authorisation, Environmental Impact Repod dated
January 2014 and its associated specialist studies;
Water Use Licence;
Mining and Biodiversity Guidelines; and
NEMA Section 2 Principles
2. Findings a) The Yzermyn Underground Mine has received other required
authorisations from relevant organs of state which have
jurisdiction in respect of the activity, including the Water Use
Licence, the Mining Right and approved Environmental
Management Plan (sic), and the Environmental Authorisation.
These decisions include measures to minimise impacts on
environmental resources. b) The mining activity will not compromise the management
objectives of the Mabola Protected Environment as it stipulated in
the draft Mabola Protect Environment Management Plan. c) The Mining and Biodiversity Guidelines, 2013, signed by both
Ministers (DEA and DMR) suppod the development of the country's
resources in a manner that will minimise the impact of mining on
the country's biodiversity and ecosystem services. d) Potential impacts have been clearly highlighted and the
proposed mitigation of impacts identified and assessed in the
EIR dated January 2014 adequately curtails the identified
impacts (sic).
e) This permission further includes specific conditions to ensure that
the mineral resources are developed in an orderly and
ecologically sustainable manner while promoting justifiable social
and economic development thus giving effect to the provisions of
Section 24 of the constitution and NEA Section 2 Principles.
In view of the above, the Department of Environmental Affairs and
the Department of Mineral Resources are satisfied that, subject to
compliance with the conditions contained in the permission, the
permitted mining activity will not conflict with the principles of the
National Environmental Management Act, 1998 and that any
potentially detrimental environmental impacts resulting from the
mining activity can be mitigated to acceptable levels."
CHAPTER G: THE GROUNDS OF REVIEW
120 The conditions and reasons underlying the Ministers' decisions reveal
multiple reviewable flaws in their decision-making, as contemplated in
section 6(2) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act No. 3 of 2000
("PAJA"). The review grounds are set out below. Also on the basis of these
grounds, the decisions are unconstitutional in that they were irrational, in
conflict with the rule of law as a foundational value in section 1 of the
Constitution.
66 121 Again, to limit prolixity I do not attach all of the documents referred to in the
grounds of review, but rather quote or explain the relevant pads in the text of
this affidavit. Inspection of the documents is however tendered to the
respondents that choose to oppose the application and to the court at the
hearing of the matter.
G.1 The Ministers did not take the NEMPAA decisions in an open and transparent manner or in a manner that promoted public participation
122 As pointed out above, section 48(4) of NEMPAA specifically prescribes that
when applying section 48(1)(b), the Environment Minister must take into
account the national environmental management principles in section 2 of
NEMA. In any event, these principles apply to "the actions of all organs of state
that may significantly affect the environment" and "serve as guidelines by
reference to which any organ of state must exercise any function when taking
any decision in terms of ... any statutory provision concerning the protection of
the environment" (section 2(1)(c) of NEMA).
123 These principles include that:
123.1 "the participation of all interested and affected parties in environmental governance must be promoted, and all people must have the opportunity to develop the understanding, skills and capacity necessary for achieving equitable and effective participation, and participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons must be ensured' (section 2(4)(f) of NEMA); and
123.2 "decisions must be taken in an open and transparent manner, and access to information must be provided in accordance with the law" (section 2(4)(k) of NEMA).
124 As appears from the above, it cannot in any respect be said that the
NEMPAA decisions were taken in an open and transparent manner, or that Aki 67
the participation of all interested and affected parties in environmental governance was promoted.
125 To the contrary, as appears from Chapter E above, the applicants and the
CER were met with sustained stonewalling by the Environment Minister, the
DEA, the Minerals Minister and Atha. This despite the fact that each of these
parties was well aware from the public participation processes in respect of
the other statutory authorisations, that the applicants were interested and
affected parties who were entitled to be heard in the NEMPAA decision-
making process.
126 Moreover, there was absolutely no notification given to the public that the
NEMPAA decisions were about to be made, or, once they had been made,
that that was the case. Atha's May 2016 NEMPAA application was not
placed before the public for comment. Only Atha was informed once the
NEMPAA decisions had been taken.
127 As is confirmed by Stephanus Petrus Malan, the Chairperson of the MPELA, the
Ministers did not even inform the MPELA, the statutory management authority
of the MPE that the May 2016 application had been received and, once the
NEMPAA decisions had been taken, that that had been done.
128 This renders the NEMPAA decisions reviewable on the ground that a mandatory
and material procedure or condition prescribed by an empowering provision
was not complied with (section 6(2)(b)).
68 G.2 The NEMPAA decisions were procedurally unfair
129 For the same reasons that the NEMPAA decisions are reviewable because they
were taken in disregard of the principles requiring public participation,
openness and transparency (ground of review G.1 above), they were also
procedurally unfair in breach of section 33(1) of the Constitution and sections 3
and 4 of PAJA.
130 In an opinion piece in the Business Day dated 11 March 20175, the Hon.
Edna Molewa, the Environment Minster, stated the following in putting
forward an argument that the Ministers were not required to conduct a
separate public participation process in respect of the NEMPAA decisions:
130.1 The mining right, the WUL application and the EA all have their
own public participation processes; and
130.2 Section 48 of NEMPAA is not explicit about the requirement of a
public participation process "except for Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), which was fully complied with
as required in the two (sic) processes mentioned above".
131 These arguments are flawed.
132 Section 33(1) of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to
administrative action that is procedurally fair. PAJA gives effect to this right in
sections 3 and 4 thereof. The NEMPAA decisions comprise administrative
5 Available at: https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/2017-03-11-there-is-no-diminishino-transparency-on- mininq-authorisations/ [last accessed: 19 July 2017].
6
action in terms of PAJA and the Ministers were required to follow the public
participation procedure set out in section 4 of PAJA in respect of the public and
the hearing procedure in section 3 of PAJA in respect of the applicants and the
MPELA.
133 The Ministers however failed to hold any public participation process whatsoever
as regards the NEMPAA decisions.
134 The Ministers also failed to afford either MPELA, the statutory management
authority of the MPE, or the applicants, an opportunity to be heard as regards
the NEMPAA decisions, as contemplated in section 3 of PAJA. This is
confirmed in the accompanying affidavit of Stephanus Petrus Malan.
135 The NEMPAA decisions therefore fall to be reviewed and set aside as having
been procedurally unfair (section 6(2)(c) of PAJA).
136 Nor was it so that the public participation processes in relation to any of
the other statutory authorisations in respect of the mine was sufficient to
constitute compliance with the requirements of sections 3 and 4 of PAJA.
136.1 The grant of permission under section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA
raises distinctive considerations, which are not raised by the
statutes under which the other authorisations were granted — in
relation to these considerations, the public, the applicants and
MPELA had a right to be given a distinctive hearing.
70
tl
136.2 Procedural fairness has as its purpose the opportunity on the
part of those affected by administrative action to influence its
outcome.
136.2.1 Procedural fairness afforded in relation to different
administrative action under different statutes (NEMA,
the MPRDA and the NWA) can never amount to
procedural fairness for the administrative action in
question (under NEMPAA), particularly where those
exercising their right to be heard are unaware that they
are also meant to be exercising it in relation to the
NEMPAA decision-making. Those interested and
affected parties who exercised their right to be heard in
the NEMA, MPRDA and NWA public participation
processes were never alerted that they were also doing
so for purposes of the NEMPAA decisions. Indeed,
there was no prior notice that the Ministers were
considering decisions under section 48(1)(b) of
NEMPAA.
136.2.2 The EA process was dealt with under the auspices of the
Mpumalanga Environmental Department, not the
Environment Minister. Public participation before the
Mpumalanga Environmental Department in terms of
NEMA and the regulations made under it could not
I6 5a EI 217.3 relevant considerations were not taken into account (section
6(2)(e)(iii) of PAJA);
217.4 the action was not authorised by the empowering provision (section
6(2)(e)(i) of PAJA); and
217.5 the action was not rationally connected to the reasons given for it by
the Ministers (section 6(2)(f)(ii)(dd) of PAJA).
G.11 The Ministers ought to have awaited the outcome of the various statutory appeals
218 To the extent that the Ministers purportedly relied on the approval of Atha's
EMPR, its EA and its WUL in order to provide assurance that negative
environmental impacts would be adequately managed and mitigated, then the
Ministers ought to have awaited the outcome of the various statutory appeals
against each of those authorisations, alternatively taken those appeals into
consideration, before making their decision.
G.11.1 The EMPR and the EMPR appeal
219 On 28 June 2016, the Mpumalanga Regional Manager of the DMR approved
Atha's EMPR in terms of section 39(4) of the MPRDA (referred to above as the
EMPR decision).
220 In terms of section 96(1)(a) of the MPRDA and regulation 74 of the Mineral
and Petroleum Resources Development Regulations, 2004 any person
whose rights or legitimate expectations have been materially or adversely
122 I3L affected or who is aggrieved by any administrative decision in terms of the
MPRDA may lodge an appeal against that decision.
221 As appears from paragraphs 1 and 2a) of the reasons for the NEMPAA
decisions, the Ministers placed much emphasis on the fact that there was an
approved EMPR (which they refer to as the "Environmental Management
Plan"). The Ministers also link several of the conditions they impose to the
approved EMPR.
222 However, when she took her decision on 20 August 2016, the Environmental
Minister knew of the applicants' interest in the Yzermyn mine. She had
received the CER's letter dated 2 April 2015 in which she was advised that
the applicants had lodged an appeal against the grant of the original mining
right (granted by the DG of the DMR) owing to the extreme environmental
sensitivity of the area and in which the applicants requested her not to take
any steps to consider or determine any application that may be made by
Atha for NEMPAA permission pending the final determination of whether the
grant of the mining right to Atha had been lawful. The Environment Minister
knew that the applicants had the right to appeal the EMPR decision and she
would have foreseen that they would do so.
223 On 13 October 2016 the applicants lodged an appeal with the DG of the
DMR against the approval of the EMPR (referred to above as the EMPR
appeal).
123 0 M e I Ss 224 When the Minerals Minister took his decision to permit Atha to mine in the
MPE on 21 November 2016, he equally knew of the applicants' interest in the
matter (he too had received a letter from the applicants dated 2 April 2015
advising him that an internal appeal had been lodged against the grant of the
original mining right, he had received that appeal on 1 April 2015 and indeed,
the applicants had launched their judicial review of the grant of the mining
right). Additionally and specifically, the applicants had launched the EMPR
appeal.
225 The EMPR appeal was clearly something which the Ministers ought to have
considered as being relevant to the NEMPAA decisions, insofar as they took
into consideration the EMPR itself.
226 The Minerals Minister had ample opportunity to consider the EMPR appeal
before making the NEMPAA decision. The Environment Minister ought to have
delayed her NEMPAA decision in order to consider the outcome of any EMPR
appeal which she knew may be lodged.
227 In the face of their purported reliance on the approved EMPR, the fact that the
EMPR appeal was not considered by the Ministers renders the decisions
reviewable on the ground that relevant considerations were not considered
(section 6(2)(e)(iii)).
124
S G.11.2 The EA and the EA Appeal
228 On 7 June 2016 the Chief Director: Environmental Affairs, Mpumalanga granted
Atha EA.
229 In terms of section 43(2) of NEMA, any person may appeal to an MEC against a
decision taken by any person acting under a power delegated by that MEC
under NEMA.
230 On 19 August 2016 the applicants lodged an appeal in terms of section 43(2)
of NEMA and regulation 61 of the Environmental Impact Assessment
Regulations, 2010 against the EA to the MEC (referred to above as the EA
appeal). A copy of the EA appeal was simultaneously sent to the
Environmental Minister.
231 On 2 September 2016 the CER addressed a letter to the Environment Minister
and the DG of the DEA informing them of the applicants' submission of the EA
appeal, and requesting that the Environment Minister take the appeal into
account when considering any application by Atha for permission to conduct
commercial mining inside the MPE in terms of section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA
(annexure TTN23).
232 Although reference to the EA in the NEMPAA decisions is scant, (the
Ministers only attach 2 conditions to it ("clearing of vegetation must be taken
in accordance with... the [EAT (condition 27) and "quarterly compliance
reports on the demonstrating compliance status on the conditions
125
requirements of the IEMPR] and [EA] must be provided to both department
of Environmental Affairs and Mineral Resources" (condition 35)), in the
NEMPAA decisions they state that they took the EA into consideration. They
say they did so — as one of the "other required authorisations", and as a
"decision" that "include[s] measures to minimise impacts on environmental
resources".
233 When she took her decision on 20 August 2016, the Environmental Minister knew
of the applicants' interest in the Yzermyn mine. She had received the CER's
letter dated 2 April 2015, referred to above. The Environment Minister knew that
the applicants had the right to appeal the EA decision and indeed, she had
received a copy of the EA appeal. The Environment Minister ought to have
delayed her NEMPAA decision in order to consider the outcome of the EA
appeal which had been lodged.
234 When the Minerals Minister took his decision to permit Atha to mine in the
MPE on 21 November 2016, he did so some 2 months after the applicants
had appealed the EA decision. The EA appeal was clearly something which
the Minerals Ministers ought to have considered as being relevant to the
decision which he had to make.
235 The fact that the EA appeal was not considered by the Ministers renders the
decisions reviewable on the ground that relevant considerations were not
considered (section 6(2)(e)(iii)).
126
a --
G.11.3 The WUL and the WUL Appeal
236 On 7 July 2016 Atha was issued a WUL by the DG (Acting) of the DWS.
237 In terms of section 148 of the NWA any person who has timeously lodged a
written objection against the application for a WUL may lodge an appeal against
the grant to the Water Tribunal within 30 days of, inter alia, the reasons for
decision being given.
238 The NEMPAA decisions were taken on 20 August 2016 and 21 November
2016 (by the Environment Minister and the Minerals Minister, respectively).
The WUL appeal was submitted on 15 December 2016. To the extent that
the Environment and Minerals Ministers relied on the WUL in making their
NEMPAA decisions, they ought to have pended such decisions in order to
consider any WUL appeal which they knew may be lodged.
239 It is a condition of the NEMPAA decisions that "no activities will be allowed to
encroach into a water resource without a water use authorisation being in
place from the [DWS]" (Condition 14). Furthermore, "all mechanisms for
dissipating water energy must be implemented with approval from the [DINS]'
(Condition 18), '[a] groundwater monitoring system must be designed and
implemented according to the requirements of DWS" (Condition 24) and "the
applicant must mitigate and manage acid mine drainage where applicable
according to the requirements of DWS' (Condition 25). In the NEMPAA
decisions, the Ministers state that they took the WUL into consideration — as
, 127 one of the "other required authorisations", and as a "decision" that "include[s] measures to minimise impacts on environmental resources".
240 In the circumstances, the fact that the WUL appeal was not considered by the
Ministers renders the decisions reviewable on the ground that relevant
considerations were not considered (section 6(2)(e)(iii)).
G.12 The Ministers failed to take into account that Atha has made inadequate provision for rehabilitation
241 A reasonable decision-maker would consider as elementary to a decision under
section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA that, if mining were to take place in a protected
area, there would have to be in place the fullest possible guarantee of post-
mining rehabilitation of the affected environment.
242 Yet the Ministers in arriving at their decision failed to secure any such
guarantee. Indeed their written decision, annexure TTN31, reveals that they
gave no direct or specific attention to the issue of rehabilitation at all.
Moreover, they failed to take into account the significant costs associated
with rehabilitating the Yzermyn mine, including the high costs of water
treatment, and the fact that Atha has not made adequate financial provision
for these costs.
243 At the time that Atha submitted its mining right application, as well as at the time
that its mining right was granted, the legal regime applicable to Atha's financial
provision was section 41 of the MPRDA and the Mineral and Petroleum
Resources Development Regulations ("MPRDA Regulations"), r\-"Th
128
read with the DME Guideline Document for the Evaluation of the Quantum of
Closure-Related Financial Provision Provided by a Mine (January 2005) ("the
Guideline"). Accordingly, before Atha's EMPR could be approved, it had to make
the prescribed financial provision in terms of section 41(1) of the MPRDA, as it
was then.
244 An itemised calculation of the closure-cost estimate of the proposed mine
appears on pages 535 and 536 of the approved EMPR, the relevant extracts
of which are attached marked "TTN33". It is evident from this calculation that
Atha failed — crucially — to include the costs of water treatment in the
calculation of its financial provision for rehabilitation. The inclusion of water
treatment costs was a requirement of the then applicable MPRDA
Regulations. Regulation 54 of the MPRDA Regulations, which dealt with the
quantum of financial provision, required that:
"54(1) The quantum of the financial provision as determined in a guideline document published by the Department from time to time, include a detailed itemisation of all actual costs required for- (a) premature closure regarding- (i) the rehabilitation of the surface of the area; (ii) the prevention and management of pollution of the atmosphere; and (iii) the prevention and management of pollution of water and the soil; and (iv) the prevention of leakage of water and minerals between subsurface formations and the surface. (b) decommissioning and final closure of the operation; and (c) post closure management of residual and latent environmental impacts." (own emphasis).
245 The "prevention and management of pollution of water" necessarily includes the
treatment of water contaminated by mining activities to prevent the pollution of
other water resources.
129 .fts 131 246 In purported fulfilment of the requirements of section 41(1) of the MPRDA, Atha
provided a financial provision guarantee to the DMR on 4 June 2015 in an
amount of R5,758,000.00, through Lombard Insurance Company Limited. This
equates to the amount reflected in the closure-cost estimate in Atha's approved
EMPR.
247 It is stated in the commentary on the closure-cost estimate in the approved
EMPR (prepared by Atha's second EA Practitioner) that, in respect of Water
Management, "[t]he Master Rate developed by the DMR [and provided in the
Guideline] is considered to be over-conservative and too generic to be applied
in the case of Yzermyn where the predictive modelling suggests that mine
decant will not occur" (p. 534).
248 That stance is entirely at odds with the SAS CC 2014 report which indicates
that:
"The potential for post-closure decant of water from the underground mine
void via the adit and/or unsealed exploration boreholes (Delta H, 2014) is of
particular concern, as this will have a long term effect on surface water
quality of not only on the wetlands within the study area, but also on aquatic
resources within the greater catchment with special mention of the Assegaai
River. Should it be considered economically feasible to treat the decant
water post-closure until water quality stabilizes, which could take many
decades, to pre-mining water quality standards in such a way as to support
the post closure land use, which is envisaged to be protected wilderness, the
130
project would be considered feasible, although the impacts on the wetland
resources would remain extremely high," (p. 92)
249 It is also at odds with condition 25 of the Ministers' NEMPAA decisions, which
recognises that AMD will indeed take place.
250 It is a serious flaw in Atha's EMPR that it has not made financial provision for
the treatment of polluted water, given that this is likely to be the largest
rehabilitation-related expense for this mine because of, inter alia, the need for
long-term water treatment after the life of the mine. Atha's financial guarantee
of R5,758,000.00 is hopelessly insufficient because it does not include the
costs of water treatment.
251 Given the location of the mine and the significance of that location for
freshwater management in South Africa (see C.8 and C.10 above, where it is
explained that the mine area is a Strategic Water Source Area and a "priority
river and wetland ecosystem" in terms of the NFEPA Atlas), the failure to
account for these costs, and secure the necessary financial provision, is
particularly problematic. It presents an enormous risk to the MPE and should
be a major concern to South African tax-payers who would ultimately carry
the costs, either by way of the State paying the costs of the rehabilitation or,
failing that, by receiving polluted water into river systems that supply drinking
water to large parts of the population.
252 The NEMPAA decisions reflect that the Ministers took the mining right and
approved EMPR into consideration — with a view to the consideration of E\
131
a - It "other required authorisations... [that] include measures to minimise impacts on
environmental resources". Additionally, the Ministers imposed a condition on the
NEMPAA decisions that "the applicant must mitigate and manage acid mine
drainage" (Condition 25).
253 Accordingly, the NEMPAA decisions fall to be set aside on the grounds that —
253.1 relevant considerations were not taken into account (section 6(2)(e)(iii) of
PAJA);
253.2 the decisions were not rationally connected to the purpose of NEMPAA,
nor to the information before the Ministers (section 6(2)(f)00(bb) and
(cc) of PAJA);
253.3 no reasonable decision-maker would have arrived at such a decision
without giving proper consideration to the question of provision for full
rehabilitation (section 6(2)(h) of PAJA).
G.13 Failure to await the approval of the management plan for the MPE
254 As pointed out above, the management authority for a protected environment
must submit a management plan to the Minister or MEC (as the case may
be) for approval. In concluding the agreement with the MPTA and jointly
preparing the draft management plan, the MPELA have in effect complied
with the obligation to submit a draft management plan for approval within 12
months as required by section 39(2). However on account of the decision to
await the outcome of the NEMPAA decisions before approval of the
management plan, the MEC has yet to approve the management plan. r\J
132
fe a 11,1W
, 255 That puts the cart before the horse. Whatever the reason for the failure to
approve the management plan, the NEMPAA decisions could not be taken
before the approval of the management plan. Amongst other things, the
management plan must include "a zoning of the [protected] area indicating
what activities may take place in different sections of the area" (section
41(2)(g)). That had to be in place as the Ministers would only be able to
permit mining if it fell within a permitted activity for the zone in question.
Nothing in section 48(1) allows the Ministers to proceed to grant permission
to mine in the absence of, or in conflict with, the management plan for the
area.
256 Having regard to these errors, the NEMPAA decisions are reviewable on the
grounds that —
256.1 a mandatory and material procedure or condition prescribed by an
empowering provision was not complied with (section 6(2)(b) of
PAJA);
256.2 the action was materially influenced by an error of law (section
6(2)(d) of PAJA);
256.3 relevant considerations were not taken into account (section
6(2)(e)(iii) of PAJA); and
256.4 the action was not authorised by the empowering provision
(section 6(2)(e)(i) of PAJA).
133
CHAPTER H: RELIEF SOUGHT
H.1 The interim relief in Part A of the notice of motion
257 It is submitted that, should Atha give three weeks notice of its intention to
commence mining pursuant to its undertaking referred to above at any time
before the relief in Part B of the notice of motion has finally been decided,
whether by this court or any court on appeal, the requirements for the grant of
interim relief will have been satisfied.
258 The applicants have a strong prima facie right to the relief sought in Part B of the
notice of motion, with a high prospect of setting aside the NEMPAA decisions
on review. On the basis of the absence of procedural fairness alone, it is
inevitable that the decisions will be set aside.
259 When the matters are reconsidered by the Environment Minister and the
Minerals Minister, upon a proper application of the law and a proper
consideration of the facts as set out above, there is also a good prospect that
Atha's planned coal mining in such an environmentally and ecologically
sensitive area will not be permitted.
260 The applicants have a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm. The
potential for serious environmental harm to flow from the commencement of
the mining is clear. There is an abundance of wetlands in the area that stand
to be affected. They constitute a uniquely important, yet uniquely vulnerable
ecosystem. Many of the fauna and flora found in the habitats that the
wetlands provide are statutorily and otherwise recognised as requiring L,
134
116 special protection. The declaration of the area as a protected environment
underscores the importance of preventing any inappropriate activity from
commencing in the area. The country's international obligations are affected.
Some of the most important rivers supplying water to the most populated
areas of South Africa (and to Swaziland and Mozambique) stand to be
seriously impacted by any contamination of the fresh water flowing from the
area.
261 The balance of convenience favours the grant of the interim relief. If the
commencement of the mining is delayed, the coal resource remains intact
and accessible to Atha. If the review fails and if mining is ultimately
permitted, Atha will not have been significantly prejudiced. If after the grant
of interim relief, the review succeeds, Atha will also be saved the wasted
costs of commencing mining and later finding that the permission granted to
do so is set aside, possibly permanently.
262 On the other hand, damage to the environment caused by the
commencement of mining is likely to be permanent and irreversible in its
effect. It is not just the applicants that are potentially negatively affected. It
is all of the local communities, as defined and described above, that stand
to be prejudiced.
263 The area is a protected area. An abandoned scar alongside the protected area
would be highly undesirable. Moreover, the commencement and then cessation
of underground mining following a successful review and decision in favour of
the applicants upon remittal, is likely to have permanent impacts
135
on what is manifestly a unique and vulnerable environment. Environmental
damage consequent upon such a commencement and abrupt cessation will not
be rehabilitated, because the rehabilitation obligations envision mining to
completion.
264 Further, the grant of interim relief is justified by and protective of the
precautionary principle described above. It is an appropriate and proper
application of the principle that, while the legality of an activity which is
harmful to the environment (mining in this instance) is being considered by
the courts, that activity should be held in temporary abeyance.
265 This is clearly a matter where the maintenance of the status quo pending the
finalisation of the litigation is desirable. All the more so where the prima facie
right in favour of the applicants is a strong one.
266 There is manifestly no other appropriate remedy to preserve the status quo
pending the outcome of this litigation.
267 It is appropriate that the interdict be extended to the farm Portion 1 of Yzermyn 96
HT even though this falls outside the MPE:
267.1 This is the area where the main surface infrastructure of the mine
will be located;
267.2 Commencement of mining and related activities on that farm is a
precursor to and inextricably linked with the mining of the farms
falling within the MPE;
136
267.3 Portion 1 is a triangular property, two sides of which constitute
boundaries of the MPE. Commencement of mining-related activity
on Portion 1 will involve the removal of vegetation and
establishment of infrastructure. If interim relief is refused in
respect of this farm, but the mining permission is ultimately
refused, the result will be an ugly scar on the landscape on the
immediate boundary of the MPE. Moreover, environmental harm
knows no boundaries. Negative impacts on one property,
particularly those affecting water resources, easily result in
negative impacts on neighbouring properties.
268 In the event of Atha giving three weeks' notice of its intention to commence
mining, it ought by then to have already filed its answering affidavit (having
regard to the fact that it does not at this stage intend commencing mining in
the foreseeable future) and the applicants their reply. It will therefore be
possible to set the matter down for urgent hearing in a manner that the
papers are finalised before noon on the Thursday preceding the hearing. If
the respondents decline to use this opportunity to answer on the interim relief
in order to engineer problems with the setting down and hearing of the interim
relief, they do so at their peril.
269 In order to address the problem of the volume of the papers, the applicants will
seek the co-operation of the respondents in having the matter judicially
managed, so that a presiding judge may be identified for the decision of both
Part A and Part B of the notice of motion and can familiarise herself or ,, ‘,.\)
himself with the papers well beforehand.
137
270 I accordingly submit that a proper case is made out for the grant of the relief in Part A.
H.2 The final relief in Part B of the notice of motion
271 Having regard to the foregoing, the Ministers' decisions in terms of section
48(1)(b) of NEMPAA stand to be reviewed and set aside, as contemplated in
section 8(1)(c) of PAJA.
272 Subject to an assessment of the totality of the information after perusal of the
record provided in terms of rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court, at this stage
the applicants do not seek substitution of the decision of this Court for that of
the Ministers (as contemplated in section 8(1)(c)(ii)(aa) of RAJA).
273 However, having regard to the multiple flaws in the decision-making
processes already apparent, if substitution is not granted it is appropriate
that this court, upon remittal of the matter to the Ministers in terms of section
8(1)(c)(i) of PAJA, give directions to ensure that the matter is lawfully, fairly,
reasonably and rationally decided by them when they reconsider it.
274 The applicants accordingly ask that the remittal be subject to the directions set
out in Part B of the notice of motion.
H.3 Costs
275 I pray that the first to third respondents be directed to pay the costs of the
application including the costs of two counsel. This includes —
138
275.1 the costs of senior counsel, junior counsel and the applicants'
attorneys in terms of section 32(3)(a), they having acted for free in
this litigation; and
275.2 the disbursements incurred by the applicants and their attorneys in
the conduct of the litigation.
276 The applicants in this case have acted reasonably, out of a concern for the
public interest and in the interest of protecting the environment. They have
made due efforts to use other means reasonably available for obtaining the
relief sought. This has included active participation by the applicants and their
attorneys in the statutory public participation processes where these have
been made available, and active attempts by them to secure a public
participation process through addressing appropriate correspondence to the
authorities where they have not. I accordingly request that the Court exercise
its discretion in terms of section 32(2) of NEMA against awarding costs
against the applicants should they fail to achieve substantial success in
securing the relief sought in either or both of Part A and B of the notice of
motion.
I \ THELMA THANDEKILE NKOSI
I hereby certify that the deponent knows and understands the contents of this affidavit and that it is to the best of the deponent's knowledge both true and correct. This affidavit was signed and sworn to before me at NktriL4 cet on
139
this the 71 day of JULY 2017, and that the Regulations contained in Government Notice R.1258 of 21 July 1972, as amended by R1648 of 19 August 1977, and as further amended by R1428 of 11 July 1989, having been complied with.
COMMIS OATHS Full names: ANJELIEN SCHWIRZER Address: Kommissaris van Ede, Commissioner of Oath:, Capacity: Rraktiserende Prokureur I Practising Attorney RSA 515 FLOOR RESTER BROWN CENTRE 10 PAUL KRUGER STREET NELSPRUIT MPUMALANGA
C
140
O
THE PROVINCE OF MPUMALANGA DIE PROVINSIE 1V1PUMALANGA
Provincial Gazette Extraordinary Buitengewone Provinsiale Koerant
(Registered as a newspaper)• (As 'n nuusblad geregistreer)
JANUARY ,n A Vol. 21 NELSPRUIT, 22 JANUARIE No. 2251
We all have the power to prevent AIDS
N.B. The Government Printing Works will not be held responsible for the quality of 02251 "Hard Copies" or "Electronic Files" submitted for publication purposes 1 1111 1(11II(U O 9771682451008
400133—A 2251-1
*0- 6 a 6
2 No. 2251 PROVINCIAL GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY, 22 JANUARY 201 4
IMPORTANT NOTICE The Government Printing Works will not be held responsible for faxed documents not received due to errors on the fax machine or faxes received which are unclear or incomplete. Please be advised that an "OK" slip, received from a fax machine, will not be accepted as proof that documents were received by the GPW for printing. If documents are faxed to the GPW it will be the sender's respon - sibility to phone and confirm that the documents were received in good order. Furthermore the Government Printing Works will also not be held responsible for cancellations and amendments which have not been done on original documents received from clients.
CONTENTS • INHOUD Page Gazette N o . N o . N o .
GENERAL NOTICES
7 19 National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Ad (5 /2003): Declaration of the Chrissiesmeer Protected Environment...... 3 2251 20 do.: Declaration of the Mabola Protected Environment ...... 9 2251 21 do.: Declaration of an area as part of the Kwamandlangampisi Protected Environment ...... 11 2251 22 do.: Declaration of the Tafelkop Nature Reserve ...... 13 2251 23 do.: Declaration of the Mndawe Trust Protected Environment ...... 15 2251
This gazette is also available fitee online at www gpwonline co za
0 a
BUITENGEWONE PROVINSIALE KOERANT, 22 JANUARIE 2014 No. 2251 3
GENERAL NOTICES
NOTICE 19 OF 2014
MPUMALANGA TOURISM AND PARKS AGENCY
DECLARATION OF THE CHRISSIESMEER PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT IN TERMS OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS ACT, 2003 (ACT NO. 57 of 2003) (AS AMENDED)
Notice is hereby given by the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for the Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism in Mpumalanga Province, Mrs. Y.N. Phosa, in terms of Section 28 (1)(a)(i) and (b) of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act No. 57 of 2003) (as amended) of the declaration of the CHRISSIESMEER PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT, located in the Chief Albert Luthuli Local Municipality and the Msukaligwa Local Municipality on the properties, the boundaries of which are as indicated in the Schedule hereto.
The purpose for the declaration of the Chrissiesmeer Protected Environment is as follows:
To enable the owners of the land to take collective action to conserve biodiversity on their land and to seek legal recognition therefor (28)(2)(b); To protect the area if the area is sensitive to development due to its biological diversity, natural characteristics, scenic and landscape value and the provision of environmental goods and services (28)(2)(c)(i)(ii)(iv)(v); To protect a specific ecosystem (28)(2)(d) To ensure that the use of natural resources in the area is sustainable (28)(2)(e);
The Chrissiesmeer Protected Environment Landowners Association is, in terms of Section 38 (2) (b), assigned as the Management Authority of the Chrissiesmeer Protected Environment.
SCHEDULE: Description of the Chrissiesmeer Protected Environment
Property Description Size Title deed number Famtllame Ptn Appeldoom 38 IT R 385.4394 T31304/1966 Appeldoorn 38 IT 10 385.1814 T10647/1983 Appeldoorn 38 IT 4 297.4169 T10647/1983 Appeldoorn 38 IT R/2 297.4131 T89780/1996 Bellevue 76 IT 2 511.6751 T28381/1996 Bellevue 76 IT 1 694.2934 T46360/1997 Bellevue 76 IT R/3 513.9061 T3655/1996 T10719/2009 Bellevue 76 IT 4 202.7057 T44765/1995 Borderland 63 IT R 215.5634 19223/1986 Borderland 63 IT 1 65.0964 T59967/1980 Bothwell 90 IT R/1 570.062 T33372/1975 Bothwell 90 IT 6 142.1815 T36846/1980 Bothwell 90 IT 5 85.6532 T63959/1990 Bothwell 90 IT R 463.5645 T3569/1985 Bothwell 90 IT R/8 288.0811 T152783/2001 Coalbank 129 IT 2 429.6967 T48334/1984 (Th Coalbank 129 IT 4 428.269 T46676/1980 Coalbank 129 IT 5 428.2901 T46676/1980
e is also available free ahline.at ______
4 No. 2251 PROVINCIAL GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY, 22 JANUARY 2014
De Goedverwachting 57 IT 3 291.1095 T101299/2004 Driefontein 114 IT 3 199.5722 T70804/2006 Driefontein 114 IT 4 157.068 728775/2005 Driefontein 114 IT 10 171.3093 T70804/2006 Driefontein 114 IT 11 3.2281 T70804/2006 Driefontein 114 IT 5 251.9003 T52242/2007 Driefontein 114 IT R/2 547.0637 T121828/1999 Driefontein 114 IT 6 251.7619 T52241/2007 Driefontein 114 IT 8 170.6283 T121727/1999 T121828/1999 Driefontein 114 IT 7 251.7533 T101525/1995 Driefontein 114 IT 9 81.3191 T101524/1995 Driefontein 114 IT R 290.6512 T121827/1998 Edenvale 100 IT R/1 520.9863 T19474/2008 Elandsfonte n 34 IT 2 50.9323 T9223/1986 Fairview 62 IT R/1 624.3504 T5295/1980 Fairview 62 IT 2 342.6128 T5295/1980 Fairview 62 IT R 1006.4265 T52619/2006 Florence 78 IT 2 186.3685 T23496/1980 Florence 78 IT 3 454.0933 T117387/2001 Florence 78 IT 6 428.244 T137675/2001 Florence 78 IT R/4 139.8888 163959/1990 Florence 78 IT 7 282.6556 163959/1990 Florence 78 IT R 428.2923 T54985/1981 Florence 78 IT 1 510.7044 T68993/1989 Gemsbokheuwel 87 IT R/1 351.6592 T66166/2002 Gemsbokheuwel 87 IT R/2 129.9517 T68765/1988 Gemsbokheuwel 87 IT 4 101.2525 T68765/1988 Gemsbokheuwel 87 IT R/5 129.9971 T56496/2002 Gemsbokheuwel 87 IT 6 342.6485 T68765/1988 Gemsbokheuwel 87 IT 7 856.542 T56496/2002 Gemsbokheuwel 87 IT 8 130.4212 T56496/2002 Gemsbokheuwel 87 IT 9 130.3601 T68765/1988 Gemsbokheuwel 87 IT R 517.607 T13471/1966 Glentyan 64 IT 7 101.7613 T9395/1981 Glentyan 64 IT R 230.2485 T24250/1995 Glentyan 64 IT 5 72.5313 T24250/1995 Glentyan 64 IT R/1 205.5362 T20107/1992 3 Glentyan 64 IT 2 217.2796 T2283 /1980 Glentyan 64 IT 4 211.3652 T22833/1980 Glentyan 64 IT 3 204.1197 T142959/1999 Glentyan 641T 8 230.2458 T16136/1996 Goedehoop 103 IT R/1 198.002 T26903/1983
Goedehoop 103 IT 6 104.5633 T29945/2002 Goedehoop 103 IT 7 209.1269 T13812/1988 Goedehoop 103 IT 2 197.0024 T8100/2012 Goedehoop 103 IT 5 161.8845 T131556/1998
IThis"daiette,is also available tee ohnne ______,
BUITENGEWONE PROVINSIALE KOERANT, 22 JANUARIE 2014 No. 2251 5
5 Goedehoop 103 IT 9 789.6099 T454 /2009 Goedehoop 103 IT R 262.554 T8100/2012 Goedehoop 103 IT 3 505.3539 T2130/2013 5 Goedehoop 106 IT R/1 540.0482 T7080 /2006 Goedverwachting 81 IT , 7 169.744 T6547/1995 Goedverwachting 81 IT 14 309.2081 T42277/2005 Grasdal 94 IT 1 1198.6109 T1364/2009 Hamilton 99 IT R 317.545 T115310/1996 Hamilton 99 IT R/2 172.1629 T9187/2008 Hamilton 99 IT 6 403.2139 79187/2008 Harwar 58 IT R 533.8605 T139127/2002 Harwar 58 IT 1 770.8788 T115540/2006 Iona 77 IT R/6 254.5099 T15850/2008 Iona 77 IT 8 254.5097 T15849/2008 lona 77 IT 9 254.5097 T15851/2008
Iona 77 IT 5 600.1426 T15848/2008 4 lona 77 IT R /1 207.3209 T918 /2008 lona 77 IT 3 274.6655 T9184/2008 Iona 77 IT 4 149.8945 T9184/2008 Joubertsfontein 138 IT R/1 339.7572 T48334/1984 Joubertsfontein 138 IT R 724.2534 T23211/1980 Kelvinside 95 IT 5 411.478 T23401/1991 Kelvinside 95 IT R/10 42.8266 T26735/1983 Kelvinside 95 IT 11 171.6538 T23401/1991 Kelvinside 95 IT 12 42,8266 T79358/2000 Knockdhu 93 IT 3 171.3064 T54084/2002 Knockdhu 93 IT R/5 191.8677 T118810/2006 Knockdhu 93 IT 6 262,5271 T54084/2002 Knockdhu 93 IT 10 63.3789 1118812/2006 Knockdhu 93 IT 11 171.353 T118812/2006
Knockdhu 93 IT 14 227.5536 T65814/2003 Knockdhu 93 IT Rh 428.266 T160344/2004 Knockdhu 93 IT 12 164.6582 T160344/2004 Knockdhu 93 IT R 48.4807 T65815/2003 Knockdhu 93 IT 8 119.461 T65815/2003 Knockdhu 93 IT R/9 171.263 T65815/2003 Knockdhu 93 IT 13 236.6836 T65815/2003
Lake Banagher 102 IT 4 355.8957 T19474/2008 Lake Banagher 102 IT 6 342.6118 T19474/2008 Lake Banagher 102 IT R/1 342.6068 T2130/2013 Lake Banagher 102 IT 3 513.9201 T2130/2013 Lake Banagher 102 IT 5 342.6121 T2130/2013 Lake Chrissie 92 IT 2 228.0516 T81526/2002 Lake Chrissie 92 IT 4 228.0516 T81526/2002 Lake Chrissie 92 IT 7 114.0273 T81526/2002
This baiette is also available free online at iww.qpwohlines6.za
6 No. 2251 PROVINCIAL GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY, 22 JANUARY 2014
8 Lake Chrissie 92 IT 8 85,6532 T1262 /2011 Lake Chrissie 92 IT R/1 523.4482 T131556/1998 1 Lake Chrissie 92 IT 3 171.3064 T1685 /2008 2 Lake Chrissie 92 IT 5 228.0516 T1685 /2008 Lake Chrissie 92 IT R/6 114.0244 T16852/2008 Leliefontein 79 IT 6 54.6529 T30809/1977 Leliefontein 79 IT 5 346.747 118867/1992 Leliefontein 79 IT R 667.3021 T15096/1983 5 Lettieskeus 105 IT 5 94.6739 T2877 /2005 Lettieskeus 105 IT R 43.5874 T121827/1999 Lettieskeus 105 IT 3 228.0359 T26382/1997 Lettieskeus 105 IT 4 197,2908 T26382/1997 Lettieskeus 105 IT 8 392.0831 T26382/1997 Lettieskeus 110 IT 0 464.476 T80908/2003 Liefgekozen 119 IT R 152.4242 T6912/1994 Liefgekozen 119 IT 3 806.8531 T142383/2004 Lillieburn 74 IT R/2 128.477 T9395/1981 Lillieburn 74 IT R/5 241.1269 T9395/1981 Lillieburn 74 IT 6 128.4812 T9395/1981 Lillieburn 74 IT 10 342.6116 19396/1981 Lillieburn 74 IT R/1 183.8674 19395/1981 1 Lusthof 60 IT 2 487.1687 T5714 /1997 2 Lusthof 60 IT 5 513.9167 T1835 /2008 Magdalenasmeer 116 IT R/1 89.5634 T70804/2006 4 Magdalenasmeer 116 IT R/2 214.4215 T7080 /2006 Magdalenasmeer 116 IT 5 103.6389 T70804/2006 4 Magdalenasmeer 116 IT 7 225.7617 T7080 /2006 5 Magdalenasmeer 116 IT 3 318.1674 T1282 /1995 Magdalenasmeer 116 IT R 318.1873 T121827/1999 Magdalenasmeer 116 IT R/4 171.0052 T155493/2002 Magdalenasmeer 116 IT 6 85.5076 T69825/1991 Mooifontein 35 IT 4 328.9093 T14137/1999 Mooifontein 35 IT R/1 278.5755 T112091/2005 Mooigelegen 117 IT 4 203.9974 T70804/2006 Mooigelegen 117 IT R 61.7245 T70804/2006 Mooigelegen 117 IT R/1 632.9771 T155492/2002 Mooigelegen 117 IT 2 806.8531 T69825/1991 Mooigelegen 117 IT R/3 489.508 T142383/2004 Mooigelegen 117 IT 5 173.876 T155493/2002 Mooigelegen 117 IT 6 1.7131 T155492/2002 Mooigelegen 117 IT 9 315.632 T142383/2004 Nooitgedacht 89 IT 1 511.4781 T16487/2008 Nooitgedacht 89 IT R 479.1112 T6077/2009 Nooitgedacht 89 IT 2 479.1112 T45107/1974 Nooitgedacht 89 IT 3 479.114 T33622/1973 1 Nooitgedacht 89 IT 4 479.1112 T3362 /1973 Simonsdal 88 IT 3 513.9263 T5881/2008
This gazette is.also available free online at www.gpwoniine.coaa
BUITENGEWONE PROVINSIALE KOERANT, 22 JANUARIE 2014 No. 2251 7
Simonsdal 88 IT 5 700.132 15882/2008 Simonsdal 88 IT 1 85.6532 T63959/1990 Simonsdal 88 IT 2 171.3064 T63959/1990 Simonsdal 88 IT 4 256.9596 T22654/1966 Smitfield 130 IT 17 398,2107 T101526/1995 Smitfield 130 IT R/6 164.023 T111250/1996 Smitsfield 1181T 0 285.4696 748334/1984 Smitsfield 130 IT R 518.1233 T26382/1997 Smitsfield 130 IT 4 197.4335 T26382/1997 Smitsfield 130 IT 18 518.1234 126382/1997 Smitsfield 130 IT 5 348.1774 T101527/1995 Smitsfield 130 IT 11 184.1544 1101527/1995 Smitsfield 1301T 15 194.2598 1111250/1996 Smitsfield 130 IT R/8 176.9295 T101524/1995 Tevreden 56 IT 8 187.859 T139127/2002 Tevreden 56 IT 3 479.7692 1101299/2004 Tevreden 56 IT R/1 417.5265 T13468/1966 Tevreden 56 IT R/5 428.266 T12810/1975 Tevreden 56 IT 9 428.2731 112811/1975 The Pearl 751T 1 608.6459 T60591/1997 The Pearl 75 IT 2 607.581 1152612/2005 The Pearl 75 IT 3 606.5146 163101/1997 The Pearl 75 IT R 605.4239 T46360/1997 Vryheid 59 IT 0 612.6431 T30809/1977 Welgelegen 107 IT R/4 376.5159 194734/1998 Welgelegen 107 IT 10 188,2598 T94734/1998 Weltevreden 104 IT R 189.7733 T61669/2006 Weltevreden 104 IT 4 173.9559 T61669/2006 Weltevreden 104 IT 2 676,1463 T28775/2005 Weltevreden 104 IT 3 173.9988 T28775/2005 Weltevreden 1041T R/1 606,9395 T29943/2002
This gazette isalsoaVallable tree online at www.q0ionline.co.za
Ibta alto& ateb 6 No. 2251 PROVINCIAL GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY, 22 JANUARY 2014
CHRISSIESMEER PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT
Chrissiesmeer Protected Environment
This gazette is also available free online at www.qpwonline.co.za
I1,1 BUITENGEWONE PROVINSIALE KOERANT, 22 JANUARIE 2014 No. 2251 9
NOTICE 20 OF 2014
MPUMALANGA TOURISM AND PARKS AGENCY
DECLARATION OF THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT IN TERMS OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS ACT, 2003 (ACT NO. 57 of 2003) (AS AMENDED).
Notice is hereby given by the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for the Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism in Mpumalanga Province, Mrs. Y.N. Phosa, in terms of Section 28 (1)(a)(i) and (b) of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act No. 57 of 2003) (as amended) of the declaration of the MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT, located in the Pixley ka Seme Local Municipality on the properties, the boundaries of which are as indicated in the Schedule hereto.
The purpose for the declaration of the Mabola Protected Environment is as follows:
To enable the owners of the land to take collective action to conserve biodiversity on their land and to seek legal recognition therefor (28)(2)(b); To protect the area if the area is sensitive to development due to its biological diversity, natural characteristics, scenic and landscape value and the provision of environmental goods and services (28)(2)(c)(i)(ii)(iv)(v); To protect a specific ecosystem (28)(2)(d) To ensure that the use of natural resources in the area is sustainable (28)(2)(e);
The Mabola Protected Environment Landowners Association is, in terms of Section 38 (2) (b), assigned as the Management Authority of the Mabola Protected Environment.
SCHEDULE: Description of the Mabola Protected Environment
Property Description Title Deed No. Size (ha) Tweehoek 128 HT T15244/1982 401.0 26 Rust-fontein 129 HT T15244/1982 550.0191 Portion 4 (a ptn of ptn 2) of Mooiplaats 112 HT T17640/2008 209.8503 Remainder of Roodekrans 73 HT T73729/1994 346.3515 Portion 1 of Roodekrans 73 HT T73729/1994 131.9430 Portion 1 of Rivierveld 75 HT T73729/1994 181.6131 Portion 3 of Rivierveld 75 HT T73729/1994 238.6201 Portion 1 of Kromhoek 93 HT T73729/1994 204.3073 Portion 2 of Roodekrans 73 HT T22958/1969 313.3651 Remainder of Vaalbank 74 HT T22956/1969 151.9488 9 Remainder of Rivierveld75 HT T1374 /1967 251.4366 Portion 2 of Rivierveld 75 HI T22957/1969 54.7826 Remainder of Kromhoek 93 HT T25588/1975 980.4206 5 Portion 8 of Vaalbank 74 HT 12295 /1969 151.9488 Goedgevonden 95 HT T138593/2002 739.4455 Remainder of Yzermyn 96 HT 136706/1984 826.1608 Platjesfontein 76 HT T20591/1974 810.0351 Portion 4 of Loskop 105 HT T10781/2012 259.9675 Remainder of Loskop 105 HT T10781/2012 259.8989 Portion 8 of Oudehoutdraai 123 HT T17066/1978 526.4819 Goud-hoek 124 HT T110274/1998 989.3195
ti
'This gazette'is also .availabIe free online at www.Opwonline.co.za
I b9 10 No. 2251 PROVINCIAL GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY, 22 JANUARY 2014
MABOLA PROTECT D ENVIRONMENT
Diektesdorp
Mpumalanga
Kwazulu Natal
Legend Matta Prowled EtWtrOWilegli A
This gazette is also-available tree online at vivvw qpwonline co za
BUITENGEWONE PROVINSIALE KOERANT, 22 JANUARIE 2014 No. 2251 11
NOTICE 21 OF 2014
MPUMALANGA TOURISM AND PARKS AGENCY
DECLARATION OF AN AREA AS PART OF THE KWAMANDLANGAMPISI PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT IN TERMS OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS ACT, 2003 (ACT NO. 57 of 2003) (AS AMENDED)
Notice is hereby given by the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for the Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism in Mpumalanga Province, Ms. Y.N. Phosa, in terms of Section 28 (1)(a)(ii) and (b) of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act No. 57 of 2003) (as amended) of the declaration of the areas as defined in the Schedule hereto to be part of the existing Kwamandlangampisi Protected Environment.
The purpose for the declaration of the Kwamandlangampisi Protected Environment is as follows:
To enable the owners of the land to take collective action to conserve biodiversity on their land and to seek legal recognition therefor (28)(2)(b); To protect the area if the area is sensitive to development due to its biological diversity, natural characteristics, scenic and landscape value and the provision of environmental goods and services (28)(2)(c)(i)(ii)(iv)(v); To protect a specific ecosystem (28)(2)(d); To ensure that the use of natural resources in the area is sustainable (28)(2)(e).
The Kwamandlangampisi Protected Environment Landowners Association is in terms of Section 38 (2) (b) assigned as the Management Authority of the Kwamandlangampisi Protected Environment.
SCHEDULE: Description of the Expanded Kwamandlangampisi Protected Environment
1. The Remainder of the farm Zaandkraal, No. 99, Situated in the Pixley ka Seme Local Municipality, Division of HT, Mpumalanga Province; In extent 859,2686 hectares; Title No. T56137/2005. 2. Portion 1 of the farm Zaandkraal, No. 99, Situated in the Pixley ka Seme Local Municipality, Division of HT, Mpumalanga Province; In extent 429,9335 hectares; Title No. T73729/1994. 3. Portion 2 of the farm Zaandrkraal 99, Situated in the Pixley ka Seme Local Municipality, Division of HT, Mpumalanga Province; In extent 429,6336 hectares; Title No. T14635/2005 4. Portion 4 of the farm Donkerhoek, No. 172, Situated in the Mkhondo Local Municipality, Division of HT, Mpumalanga Province; In extent 687,9158 hectares; Title No. T54902/1984. 5. Portion 2 of the farm Donkerhoek, No. 172, Situated in the Mkhondo Local Municipality, Division of HT, Mpumalanga Province; In extent 687,9158 hectares; Title No. T54900/1984.
This gazette is also evailehle free online at www.qpwonline.co.za
12 No. 2251 PROVINCIAL GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY, 22 JANUARY 2014
Kwamandlangampisi Protected Environment
IKwamandiangampts1 Protected Environment 4
This gazette is also available tree online at'www.qpwonline.cocza
BUITENGEWONE PROVINSIALE KOERANT, 22 JANUARIE 2014 No. 2251 13
NOTICE 22 OF 2014
MPUMALANGA TOURISM AND PARKS AGENCY
DECLARATION OF THE TAFELKOP NATURE RESERVE IN TERMS OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS ACT, 2003 (ACT NO. 57 of 2003) (AS AMENDED)
Notice is hereby given by the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for the Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism in Mpumalanga Province, Mrs. Y.N. Phosa, in terms of Section 23 (1) (a) (i) and (b) of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act No. 57 of 2003) (as amended) of the declaration of the TAFELKOP NATURE RESERVE on the area defined in the Schedule hereto.
The purpose of the declaration of the Tafelkop Nature Reserve is as follows:
To protect the area if the area has significant natural features or biodiversity (23)(2)(b)(i); and is in need of long-term protection for the maintenance of its biodiversity (23)(2)(b)(iii)
Mr. Izak Johannes Pringle is in terms of Section 38 (2) (a) assigned as the Management Authority of the Tafelkop Nature Reserve.
SCHEDULE: Description of the Tafelkop Nature Reserve
1. Remainder of the farm TAFELKOP 126, Division of HT, Mpumalanga Province; In extent: 805.7168 (Eight Zero Five comma Seven One Six Eight) Hectares; Held by Title Deed No. T000131361/2001
2. Portion 1 of the farm TAFELKOP 126, Division of HT, Mpumalanga Province; In extent: 402.8555 (Four Zero Two comma Eight Five Five Five) Hectares; Held by Title Deed No. T000131361/2001
This gazette is also atiatlable free online at ww 14 No. 2251 PROVINCIAL GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY, 22 JANUARY 2014
TAFELKOP NATURE RESERVE
R/126
Tafelkop 126 T
1/126
A
The gazettes also aVallablelree offline at www.gpwonline.co.za3.
BUITENGEWONE PROVINSIALE KOERANT, 22 JANUARIE 2014 No. 2251 1
NOTICE 23 OF 2014
MPUMALANGA TOURISM AND PARKS AGENCY
DECLARATION OF THE MNDAWE TRUST PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT IN TERMS OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS ACT, 2003 (ACT NO. 57 of 2003) (AS AMENDED)
Notice is hereby given by the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for the Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism in Mpumalanga Province, Mrs. Y.N. Phosa, in terms of Section 28 (1)(a)(i) and (b) of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act No. 57 of 2003) (as amended) of the declaration of the MNDAWE TRUST PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT, located in the Thaba Chweu Local Municipality on the properties, the boundaries of which are as indicated in the Schedule hereto.
The purpose for the declaration of the Mndawe Trust Protected Environment is as follows:
To enable the owners of the land to take collective action to conserve biodiversity on their land and to seek legal recognition therefor (28)(2)(b); To ensure that the use of natural resources in the area is sustainable (28)(2)(e);
The Mndawe Trust is, in terms of Section 38 (2) (b), assigned as the Management Authority of the Mndawe Trust Protected Environment.
SCHEDULE: Description of the Mndawe Trust Protected Environment
Property Description Title Deed'No. Size (ha)
Portion 2 of the farm DOORNHOEK 60;Division of T45477/2007 9,6203 JT; Mpumalanga Province Portion 3 of the farm DOORNHOEK 60;Division of T45477/2007 466,2606 JT; Mpumalanga Province Portion 4 of the farm DOORNHOEK 60;Division of T45477/2007 21,4133 JT; Mpumalanga Province Portion 8 of the farm DOORNHOEK 60;Division of T45477/2007 21,4133 JT; Mpumalanga Province Portion 9 of the farm DOORNHOEK 60;Division of T45477/2007 286,3569 JT; Mpumalanga Province Portion 10 of the farm DOORNHOEK 60;Division of T45477/2007 21,4133 JT; Mpumalanga Province
This gazette is also available 'tree Online at www.qpworillne.co.za
I b 16 No. 2251 PROVINCIAL GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY, 22 JANUARY 2014
MNDAWE PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT __ I hineatre_pE
Printed by and obtainable from the Government Printer, Bosman Street, Private Bag X85, Pretoria, 0001. Tel. (012) 334-4507, 334-4511, 334-4509, 334-45th Also available at the Provincial Legislature: Mpumalanga, Private Bag X11289, Room 114, Civic Centre Building, Nel Street, Nelspruit, 1200. Tel. (01311) 5-2133 Gedruk deur en verkrygbaar by die Staatsdrukker, Bosmanstraat, Pdvaat Sak X85, Pretoria, 0001. Tel. (012) 334-4507, 334-4511, 334-4509, 334-4515 Oak verkrygbaar by die Provinslale Wetgewer: Mpumalanga, Privaat Sak X11289, Kamer 114, Burgersentrum, Nelstraat, Nelspruit, 1200. Tel. (01311) 5-2133 2251-1 This]gazeiteTis:dlio available free onlineat ______
acht 57 HT.
inteiskraat -55
Goedgeloof 77 HT
Vorge gen Plagiesfontain fiT 78 HT Vaalbank 74 HT
Klornhoek, 9 3 H I Van der. , Waltspoort 81 HT Yzermyn 98 HT Goedgevonden 95 HT Zoetfontein 8toemhof 94 HT 92 HT
Peardekop Wanner en i 109 HT.. Johanneak 110 HT 103 HT Ultzich Moreson 108 HT ' '89 HT
Tweehoek 128 HI- Goudnoek , eraptaats 124 HT Van py4ks 3 7 1 - Bach
- ' • xr 'a 30241rE 39•2
Ctisnt Dote it: Prof Y e Mine le: Atha Atha Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd . e n : El COMO 1110,000 LO Yzermyn Underground Coal Mine Oil 84) Steest No.::..r.....,-„, Aerial Imagery vitth Farms, and Rsviowed by: B. Hoene Prospecting and Target Areas rho.. r.0,,,,,,.r.onvi, 24514-65 Figure 1-3: Locality Map Detailing Prospecting Right, Target Area and Farm Names
5 T114 3S
The underground mining footprint will stretch over an area of about 1 200 ha out of 2 500 ha of the target area, as indicated by the blue boundary in Figure 2-2.
Figure 2-2: A map indicating the underground mining footprint in the blue border.
2.3 KEY ACTIVITY RELATED PROCESSES AND PRODUCTS
YUCM will consist of underground mining operations, producing steam coal for the local and export markets. It is a green field project that will start with construction activities, going into production through a ramp-up period to peak production and then closing and decommissioning. Details of each of the processes are discussed under Section 2.4.
Page 14 of 249
ROODEKRANS 73 H
ROODEKRANS 73 HT 1/73
RIVIERVELD 75 HT 1/75
RIVIERVELD 75 HT 3/75
ROODEKRANS 73 HT 2/73 RIVIERVELD 75 F II R/75
RIVIERVELD 75 HT 2/75
PLATJESFONTEIN 76 HT
KROMHOEK 93 HT 1/93
YZERMYN 98 HT R/96
LOSKOP 105 HT 4/105
LOSKOP 105 HT R/105
GOEDGEVONDEN 95 HT '‘'::;;14(
TWEEHOEK 128 HT
RUST-FONTFIN 129 HT
OUDEHOUTDRAAI 123 HT 8/123 c
7.
Mabola Protected Environment Legend Mabola Protected Environment -- EDUnderground Mining Area r 1 Surface Infrastructure - Assegaai River _____ R543 0 0.75 1.5 3 4.5 6 ------Secondary Road Kilometers
airmidierk iPI W
I IID X69
Figure 3-2: YUCM target area indicating the underground mining areas and associated Section 21 (j) water use and properties
Figure 3-3 indicates the routes for the two pipelines that will be used to convey clean water from the boreholes to the mine surface infrastructure.
Page 48 of 249
Site footprint Mining rights application ct.'41V - -- NOW' CATEGORY ocDgfrgmop - Protected 2 - Irreplaceable 3 - Highly Significant 4 - Important & Necessary 5 - Ecosystem Maintenance
k,,,TfK4ja - 0 WV 0,31-AP
ut.4ea4.,Ecr1) MIVATMITL9 ifo2rat 4:23M621.&Tir MO'
rEAIMFPALI N Mtlif ,
OC,rc.DACHT - L ; Site footprint 11Q1bDERRANS Mining rights application 73 HT/ BOSS MBCP 2006 GOEDGE LOOF 77 HT f - 1- Protected 7/1-1T 2 - Irreplaceable 3 - Highly Significant
4 - Important & Necessary VAALBANK 7- 7 5 - Least Concern 74 HT, 6 - No Natural Habitat Remaining
VAN ;DER WALT SP OORT 81 HT VAAI HOE K 87'
MIEN
Yzermyn Baseline & Impact Assessment
YZERMYN MPUMALANGA SECTOR PLAN 2013
Gauteng Mpumalanga
S t u d y A r e a
Free State KwaZulu-Natal
Legend - Main riNAM •••••••• Leese area =1 Bon cut • • v 1km buffer Dundas Incline ^ • 1km butler AlftedIndlne of 1=1 Suttees infrastructure layout New discard area = Undermining area Mpum. Bodiversity Seater Plan 2013 ProtectedAteas CM Irreplaceable CBA0pumal ESA Landscape corridor ESA Local corridor ESA Species Specarc Outer Natural Ness Muddied - Old lands Muddled Source. Mpumalanga Blodivorsay Sector Pan (2013) & DWA 72007) o 01760 75 15 225 365
Ccoutlisaf
SewasCC bWSP N'"Is WSP Environmental (P17)1-10 South Africa Natural Scientific Services Bryanaten Place CC 126 Ballyclare Dr 199 Bryansten Draw MomingOde PA 40 Bryanston 2157 Sandton Johannesburg 2196 South Atnal Jo6ennesbUr6 Tel, •27(0)11 381 1300 Tel *27 (0111 787 7400 Fax, 427 (0)11.351 1301 Fax • 27 16111 784 7599
Figure 3-1 Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan for the study area
Natural Scientific Services CC 216 N55
EZ1 Site footprint ROCL^El p - i•2,75TED.p pAT Imer Site footprint Mining rights application Mpum Protected Area Expansion Strategy 2009 PLATE:SP-OWEN 76 FIT Priority 1: MPAES & NPAES 2: MPAES 3: NPAES wiyArsjiir Tic DACHT-,- Eastern Site footprint HT ODE K NS High: al; 731-17 Gi-assiand Mining rights application RIVTERVELD - HT BOSS GOEDGE A11EEN. Nationally gazetted Threatened 77 HT Ecosystems Threatened Ecosystem: NEMBA Pauipiete'rstl Critically Endangered Moist Gi7.assi PIATJESFONTE IN EasteT Endangered 76 HT Grassts Vulnerable VAALBANK 74 HT DERDEHOEK 79 HT 0 VRVHEID Ski 1-IT Wa '-istroarniLuneburg VAN DER Grasslands SPOORT i t 81 911-IT ti WAAIHOEK 87 HT GOEDG-EVONDEN 95 FIT 001110 ZOET FONTEIN 94 HT LOSKOIVERIR JOHNSTONEIHOEK , HT• I GEWK 90 HT PAARDEKOP MORESON 89FIT 4111111 NAUWGEVONDEN 109 HT 110 HT !, UITZICHT CHANCE 104 - 108 I-FT 2.5 52_1 5 Kilometers NALIWGEVONT ______il 131 TriT, TAFELKOM126 HT Site footprint Mining rights application WO' Water management areas Fish points sem Fish sanctuary: CR/EN fish .2ATEKr -z5.13(x_gki "MK Fish sanctuary: other fish COP, Wetland duster National wetlands map 4 (NFEPA wetland map) - Estuaries 11 Wetland NFEPA wetlands map Wetland and estuary FEPA River FEPAs River FEPA and associated sub-quaternary catchment Fish Support Area and ! associated sub-quaternary tchment Phase 2 FEPA and associated sub-quaternary catchment 1.72,a—CL—cit5.012. L31. Upstream management area 5 _ 0 ` 5 Kilometers 7.,..viCAY cart "D. E3 Site footprint Mining rights application MBSP Terrestrial Assessment CBA Map Subcategory 7Doilav) PA National Parks & Nature Reserves PA Protected Environment Natural PA R-otected Environment Modified Ineplaceable CBA Optimal ESA Landscape corridor ESA Local corridor ESA Probected Area buffer Other Natural Areas Moderately modified- Old lands Heavily modified Ez3 Site footprint 77 Mining rights application MBSP Terrestrial Assessment CBA Map Subcategory PA Protected Environment; PA Protected ail Environment: Modified 1111111 CBA Irreplaceable CBA Optimal ESA Local corridor ESA Probected Area buffer Other Natural Areas Moderately modified- Old lands Heavily modified ( -) n N iy. I ell AGREEMENT TO DECLARE A PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSENT TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY Memorandum of Agreement entered into and between The MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION (MPELA) herein represented by STEPHANUS PETRUS MALAN in his capacity as Chairperson for the Trustees of the MPELA and duly authorised and The Honorable Yvonne Nkwenkwezi Phosa in her capacity as the Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development, Environment and Tourism for the Mpumalanga Province Each Person to Initial here Declaration Agreement for the Mabola Protected Environment Between MPELA and the MEC for the De pa ent o conomic Development, Environment and Tourism, Mpumalanga Province u a Page 2 of 13 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1 "Act" means the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003) as amended; 1.2 "Agency" means the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency a juristic entity established in terms of section 2 of the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency Act, 2005; 1.3 "Agreement" means this agreement and all annexures thereto" 1.4 "Effective date" means the date on which the last Party hereto signs this Agreement; 1.5 "Gazette" means the Provincial Gazette of the Mpumalanga Province; 1.6 "(MPE)" means the Mabola Protected Environment, to be declared in terms of section 28 of the Act, of which the immovable properties which form part of the Protected Environment are recorded in Annexure "A"; 1.7 "(MPELA)" means The Mabola Protected Environment Landowners Association, an entity with perpetual succession having an independent legal personality of its own, separate from that of its members, and with legal personality, capable of suing and being sued in its own name; 1.8 "Management Authority" in relation to a protected area, means the organ of state or other institution or person in which the authority to manage the protected area is vested, as defined in section 1 of the Act and in the context of this Agreement it refers to The Mabola Protected Environment Landowners Association; 1.9 "Management Plan" means the integrated management plan formulated in terms of Section 41 of the Act; 1.10 "MEC" means the Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development, Environment and Tourism for the Mpumalanga Province; 1.11 "Members" means all the members of the Mabola Protected Environment Landowners Association who are the registered owners of the Properties; Each Person to Initial here \pi B, C.. Declaration Agreement for the Mabola Protected Environment Between MPELA and the MEC for the De n nomic Development, Environment and Tourism, Mpumalanga Province 1 Page 3 of 13 1.12 "Party" means any of the parties to this Agreement and Parties refer to both parties to this Agreement 1.13 "Properties" means all the immovable properties forming part of the Mabola Protected Environment, as recorded in Annexure "A"; 1.14 "Protected Environment" means an area declared, or regarded as having been declared, in terms of section 28 of the Act as a protected environment and in the context of this Agreement it refers to the Mabola Protected Environment; Each Person to Initial here €(3 ein FE_ 61c. Declaration Agreement for the Mabola Protected Environment Between MPELA and the MEC for the D partmen nom Development, Environment and Tourism, Mpumalanga Province s 1 U Page 4 of 13 2. PREAMBLE 2.1 All of the landowners of the Properties within the proposed Mabola Protected Environment are Members of the Mabola Protected Environment Landowners Association. 2.2 Presently agricultural activities are being conducted on all the properties, for the purpose of providing the landowners of the properties with a livelihood. 2.3 The Mabola Protected Environment Landowners Association is the designated association representing all the landowners of the Properties to be declared as part of the Mabola Protected Environment. 2.4 The MEC is empowered, under section 28(1) of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, No. 57 of 2003, (NEM: PAA) to declare, by notice in the Provincial Gazette, an area specified in the notice as a Protected Environment and to assign the management authority for a Protected Environment in terms of section 38(2)(b) of the Act. 2.5 The MEC wishes to declare the Mabola Protected Environment under section 28(1) of the Act and to assign the management of the Mabola Protected Environment to the Mabola Protected Environment Landowners Association in terms of section 38(2)(b) and the Mabola Protected Environment Landowners Association in turn, wishes to accept such appointment. 2.6 All of the Members have consented by means of individual resolutions to the declaration of the properties as a protected environment and to the assignment of the Mabola Protected Environment Landowners Association as the Management Authority of the Mabola Protected r)P4 Each Person to Initial here .21 8 c. eom,„ Declaration Agreement for the Mabola Protected Environment Between MPELA and the M the Depa ment o Development, Environment and Tourism, Mpumalanga Province aq I U Page 5 of 13 Environment in terms of the Act. The MEC has been provided with the written consents as aforementioned. 2.7 The Properties have been identified as an area worthy of declaration as a Protected Environment owing to the following characteristics: The area has been identified as a priority area for the expansion and establishment of protected areas within the Mpumalanga Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (MPAES) as well as the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (NPAES). The properties will contribute 2.88%, 8.77% and 8.08% towards the conservation targets for KZN Mistbelt Forest, Paulpietesburg Moist Grassland and Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland respectively. Most of the properties are close or adjacent to the declared KwaMandlangampisi Protected Environment (KPE) and are strategically positioned to expand existing protected areas within this region of the province. The area is also a critically important and high yielding water catchment. The area has potential for the further development of nature based tourism, due to the unique opportunities for avifauna! tourism already extensively developed within Wakkerstroom. 2.8 The properties are to be declared a protected environment in terms of section 28(2) (b - e) of the Protected Areas Act, namely: b) to enable owners of land to take collective action to conserve biodiversity on their land and to seek legal recognition therefor; c) to protect the area if the area is sensitive to development due to its- i. biological diversity; ii. natural characteristics; Each Person to Initial here Declaration Agreement for the Mabota Protected Environment Between MPELA and the MEC tor Development, Environment and Tourism, Mpumalanga Province a Pa Page 6 ofF,t iv. scenic and landscape value; or v. provision of environmental goods and services; d) to protect a specific ecosystem outside of a special nature reserve, world heritage site or nature reserve; e) to ensure that the use of natural resources in the area is sustainable 2.9 The Mabola Protected Environment Landowners Association and the MEC wish to conclude an agreement under section 28 (3) of the Protected Areas Act in which the Association, hereby representing the interests of owners of land within the proposed protected environment as listed under Annexure A, consents to the declaration of the properties listed as a Protected Environment. 2.10 The MEC wishes to assign the management of the Protected Environment to the Association which, in turn, wishes to accept such assignment. Each Person to Initial here Declaration Agreement for the Mabola Protected Environment Between MPE1A and the MECtor epartmen of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism, Mpumalanga Province 16* NOW THEREFORE THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY The Property comprises: All of the farms and farm portions as are more fully described in "Annexure A". 4. CONSENT TO DECLARATION 4.1 The Association consents to the declaration by the MEC of the Properties as a Protected Environment as required by section 28(3) read with section 34(2)(b) of the Protected Areas Act (No. 57 of 2003). 5. DECLARATION OF PROPERTY AS A PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT 5.1 The MEC shall take all necessary measures to declare the properties as listed in Annexure A as a Protected Environment as soon as possible after the conclusion of this Agreement. 5.2 The Association shall provide the MEC with all the necessary information (as prescribed) in order that the MEC may conclude the declaration of the properties as a Protected Environment. 6. NAME OF THE PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT 6.1 The parties agree that the Protected Environment shall be called Mabola Protected Environment and that the MEC shall assign this name to the Protected Environment by notice in the Provincial Gazette. Each Person to Initial here i t ! 9 6 . T h . f a a n n Declaration Agreement for the Mabola Protected Environment Between MPELA and the ME nt of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism, Mpumalanga Province Page o 3 7 ASSIGNMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPERTY 7.1 The MEC hereby assigns the management of the Protected Area to the Management Authority, which accepts such assignment. 7.2 The Association is hereby designated as the Management Authority and consents to such designation and assignment. 8. MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT 8.1 The Association being the Management Authority and The Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency shall, not later than six (6) months after this Agreement is concluded, enter into an agreement in terms of which the Protected Area is to be managed. 8.2 This will be known as the Protected Areas Management Agreement and will include a detailed Management and Zonation Plan for the Protected Area. 8.3 The Association being assigned as the Management Authority in terms of clause 7 above shall within twelve (12) months of the assignment, submit a Management and Zonation Plan for the Protected Area to the MEC for approval. 8.4 The Management and Zonation Plan approved by the MEC will form part of the Management Agreement referred to in clause 8.2 above. BREACH AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION 9.1 If either party breaches the terms of this Agreement, the other party can notify the offending party in writing and call on the offending party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period. 9,2 If the offending party still fails to remedy the breach, the other party may, declare a dispute. Each Person to Initial here Declaration Agreement for the Mabola Protected Environment Between MPELA and the ME of Economic . Development, Environment and Tourism, Mpumalanga Province a Page 9 of 13 9.3 The parties agree that they will be bound by the provisions contained in Chapter 4 of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 and that any disputes of any nature which may arise at any time from this Agreement will be dealt with in accordance with this Chapter. 10. RECOVERY OF EXPENDITURE ON TERMINATION In the event that this Agreement is terminated at the instance of either party in terms of Clause 9 above, the defaulting party shall reimburse the other for any expenditure reasonably incurred by it in giving effect to the terms of this Agreement. 11. DOMICILIA AND NOTICES The parties choose the addresses set out below as their domicilia citandi et executandi for all purposes of this agreement and as their respective addresses for the service of any notice required to be served on them in terms of this Agreement. The MEC Physical: Building 4; No. 7 Government Boulevard, Riverside Park Extension 2; Nelspruit, 1200 Postal: Private Bag X11219, Nelspruit, 1200 The Mabola Protected Environment Landowners Association Physical: Farm Schoongezicht, Volksrust, 2470 Postal: P.O. Box 153, Volksrust, 2470 Each Person to Initial here Declaration Agreement for the Mabola Protected Environment Between MPELA and the MEC for ailment dJ Economic Development, Environment and Tourism, Mpumalanga Province OU Page lir of 13 12. VARIATION OF AGREEMENT No variation, amendment or suspension of any of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid, and no further agreement which may conflict in any way with the terms of this agreement shall be binding on the parties unless the variation, amendment, suspension or conflicting agreement has been recorded in writing and signed by the parties. 13. COSTS OF AGREEMENT All costs associated with the preparation and registration of this agreement shall be borne by the Agency. 14. DURATION This agreement shall come into effect on the date on which the last party signs it and shall remain in force for Thirty (30) years unless the declaration of the Property as a Protected Environment is for any reason withdrawn prior to the expiry of the Agreement in which case this Agreement shall terminate at the date of withdrawal. Each Person to Initial here Declaration Agreement for the Mabola Protected Environment Between MPELA and the MEC Depart nt of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism, Mpumalanga Province I ea 1 Page 11 of 13 SIGNED AT WCik kersyyuni ON Pi- kigriliCi 2 0i9L AS WITNESSES: P Name Signature s-borie Name Signature ("915 anus Petrus Nis' Chairperson Mabola Protected Environment Landowners Association (MPELA) __I Each Person to Initial here Declaration Agreement for the Mabola Protected Environment Between MPELA and the ME sae Depart ent of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism, Mpumalanga Province I a n 8 40 Page 12 of 13 SIGNED AT NEL 1.-5112u t ON 1 caMutkel -20,14 AS WITNESSES: CA bit )6 Name Signature Name Signature Mrs. Yvonne Nkwenkwezi Phosa MEC: Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism. ("MEC"). Each Person to Initial here Declaration Agreement for the Mabola Protected Environment Between MPELA an EC for the De arlment of Econo Development, Environment and Tourism, Mpumalanga Province 1 a 1 Page 13 of 13 ANNEXURE A: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES FORMING THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT Property Description Title Deed No. Size (ha) Owner Tweehoek 128 HT 115244/1982 401.0126 Oskar Heinrich Klingenberg Rust-fonteln 129 HT 11524-4/1982 550.0191 Oskar Heinrich Klincienberg Portion 4 (a ptn of ptn 2) of Mooiplaats 112 HT 117640/2008 209.8503 Danie Zietsman Familie Trust Goud-hoek 124 HT T110274/1998 989.3195 Danie Zietsman Famllie Trust Remainder of Roodekrans 73 HT T73729/1994 346.3515 Die Thys Uys Trust Portion 1 of Roodekrans 73 HT T73729/1994 131.9430 Die Thys Uys Trust Portion 1 of Rivierveld 75 HT 173729/1994 181.6131 Die Thys Uys Trust Portion 3 of Rivierveld 75 HT 173729/1994 238.6201 Die Thys Uys Trust Portion 1 of Kromhoek 93 HT 173729/1994 204.3073 Die Thys Uys Trust Portion 2 of Roodekrans 73 HT T22958/1969 313.3651 Pierre Willian Bruwer Uys Remainder of Vaalbank 74 HT 122956/1969 151.9488 Pierre Willian Bruwer Uys Remainder of Rivierveld75 HT 113749/1967 251.4366 Pierre Willian Bruwer Uys Portion 2 of Rivierveld 75 HT T22957/1969 54.7826 Pierre Willian Bruwer Uys Remainder of Kromhoek 93 HT T25588/1975 980.4206 Pierre Willian Bruwer Uys Portion 8 of Vaalbank 74 HT T22955/1969 151.9488 Pierre Willian Bruwer Uys _ Goedgevonden 95 HT T138593/2002 739,4455 Pierre Willian Bruwer Uys Piatjesfontein 76 HT 120591/1974 810.0351 Pierre Willian Bruwer Uys Portion 8 of Oudehoutdraai 123 HT T17066/1978 526.4819 Stephanus Petrus Malan Remainder of Yzermyn 96 HT 136706/1984 826.1608 Stephanus Pettus Malan Portion 4 of Loskop 105 HT T10781/2012 259.9675 Oudezicht Trust Remainder of Loskop 105 HT T10781/2012 259.8989 Oudezlcht Trust Each Person to Initial here Declaration Agreement for the Mabola Protected Environment Between MPELA and EC for the D partmentZtbconornic— Development, Environment and Tourism, Mpumalanga Province 549 MANAGE 2015-2019 Mpumalanga TOURISM AND PARKS AGENCY o a Protecte Znvironmen Mabola Protected Environment: Five Year Management Plan, 2015-2019 Mpurnalanga Province, South Africa Prepared for: Mabola Protected Environment Land Owners Association and the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency Facilitated and edited by Peter Velcich and Dereck Milburn Nuleaf Planning and Environmental (Pty) Ltd Citation: MTPA 2015.Mabola Protected Environment Five Year Management Plan 2015-2020. Unpublished Report, Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency, Nelspruit, South Africa. Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page i --- AUTHORISATION This Integrated Management Plan for the Mabola Protected Environment was submitted by and Mr. S.S. Maluleka recommended by the following officials of the relevant authorities: Acting Chief Executive Officer: Submitted by: The Mabola Protected Environment Landowners Association Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency NO TElitEi: d iTA loft Oat ''' t t- Mr. Oubaas Malan Mr. Sipho Lubisi Chairperson: Chairman: Mabola Protected Environment Landowners Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency Board Association Recommended by: Mpumalanga Tourism and Pa ks Agency In terms of Section 29 (2) of NEM: PAA I hereby approve this Integrated Management Plan; and confirm the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency as the Assigned Management Authority in terms of section 38 920 (b) of the Act. TltLEand 4/%" 'AT YEgi ,f TITLE and .a.( * Mr. M A Gamede Mr. Brian Morris The Honourable MEC: Manager: Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture, Rural Protected Areas Expansion and Stewardship, Development, Land and Environmental Affairs Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency Page Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 CONTACT DETAILS FOR ENQUIRIES Mr. Brian Morris Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency Tel: 084 579 7979 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Peter Velcich Nuleaf Planning and Environmental E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Dereck Milburn Nuleaf Planning and Environmental E-mail: [email protected] Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ARC: Agricultural Research Council FPA: Fire Protection Association AU: Animal Units EWT: Endangered Wildlife Trust B&B: Bed & Breakfast FEPA: Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area BEEP: Biodiversity Environmental Education Programme GIS: Geographic Information Systems BLSA Birdlife South Africa HIDZ: High Intensity Development Zone CARA: Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act 43 of 1983) l&AP: Interested and Affected Party CBA: Critical Biodiversity Area IBA: Important Bird and Biodiversity Area CBT: Community-based tourism !DP: Integrated Development Plan CDF: Conservation Development Framework IUCN: International Union for the Conservation of Nature CEO: Chief Executive Officer KPA: Key Performance Area CITES: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora KPE: KwaMandlangampisi Protected Environment CMC: Co-Management Committee LAC: Limits of Acceptable Change CPP: . Community and Private Partnership LED: Local Economic Development CPPP: Community, Private and Public Partnership LIDZ: Low Intensity Development Zone CSI R: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research LSU: Large Stock Unit DEA: Department of Environmental Affairs Mask Metres Above Sea Level DP,DLR: Department of Rural Development and Land Reform MBCP: Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan DWA: Department of Water Affairs MBSP Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan ESA: Ecological Support Area MEC: Member of the Executive Council EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment MNCA: Mpumalanga Nature Conservation Act (No. 10 of 1998) EMF: Environmental Management Framework MP: Management Plan EMP: Environmental Management Plan MPE: Mabola Protected Environment EMPR: Environmental Management Programme Report MPELA: Ma bola Protected Environment Landowners Association ENPAT: Environmental Potential Atlas MPRDA: Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (Act 28 of 2002) Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 January 2015 Page iii MTPA: Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency. RZ: Remote Zone NEMA: National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) RSA: Republic of South Africa NEM:BA: National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) SABAP2: Second South African Bird Atlas Project NEM:PAA: National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003) SAHRA: South African Heritage Resources Agency NFA: National Forest Act (No. 30 of 1998) SANBI: South African National Biodiversity Institute NFEPA: National Freshwater Ecosystems Priority Areas SANParks: South African National Parks NGO: Non-Governmental Organisation SDF: Spatial Development Framework NHRA: National Heritage Resources Act (Act No 25 of 1999) SEA: Strategic Environmental Assessment NLC2000: National Land Cover 2000 SMME: Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises NR: Nature Reserve SMZ: Special Management Overlay Zone NSS: Natural Scientific Services SMP: Strategic Management Plan NWA: National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) SWOT: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats PA: Protected Area ToR: Terms of Reference PE: Protected Environment WLABCDA: Wakkerstroom / Luneburg Agriculture Es Biodiversity Conservation Demonstration Area PFMA: Public Finance Management Act, No. 1 of 1999 WESSA: Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa PIP: Project Implementation Plan WfWet: Working for Wetlands Programme PKISLM: Dr Pixley Ka lsake Seme Local Municipality WfW: Working for Water Programme ROC: Rural District Council WHS: World Heritage Site ROD: Record of Decision WWF: World Wide Fund for Nature RLCC: Regional Land Claims Commission Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page iv DEFINITIONS Alien Species: which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science, sites, works of man or the combined works of nature and Species or genotypes which are not indigenous to the Mabola Protected Environment, including hybrids and genetically altered man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, organisms. ethnological or anthropological point of view." Biodiversity / Biological Diversity: Degraded: The variability among living organisms from all sources including, terrestrial, mar ine and other aquatic ecosystems An ecosystem that is a poor ecological state, usually through impacts such as invasion by alien plants, s evere and the ecological complexes of which they are part and also includes diversity within species, between species, and overgrazing, poor burning regimes, etc. These systems still contain a moderate proportion of indigenous flora. of ecosystems (as per the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, No. 10 of 2004). Ecosystem: Bio-prospecting: A dynamic complex of animal, plant and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as In relation to indigenous biological resources, means any research on, or development or application of, indigenous biological a functional unit (as per National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, No. 57 of 2003). resources for commercial or industrial exploitation, and includes: Ecosystem Services: The systematic search, collection or gathering of such resources or making extractions from such resources for purposes of such research, development or application (as per the National Environmental Management: As defined in Section 1 of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act No. 57 of 2003 as Biodiversity Act, No. 10 of 2004). "environmental goods and services" meaning: Agency: benefits obtained from ecosystems such as food, fuel and fibre and genetic resources; benefits from the regulation of ecosystem processes such as climate regulation, disease and flood control and detoxification; The Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA) as defined by the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency and (MTPA) Act [2005]. cultural non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems such as benefits of a spiritual, recreational, Buffer Zone: aesthetic, inspirational, educational, community and symbolic nature;" An area surrounding the reserve which has restrictions placed on its use or where collaborative projects and Ecotourism: programmes are undertaken to afford additional protection to the reserve. The travel to natural areas to learn about the way of life and cultural history of people, the natural history of the Co-management: environment, while taking care not to change the environment and contributing to the economic welfare of the local Means managing in such a way as to take into account the needs and desires of stakeholders, neighbours and people. partners, and incorporating these into decision making through, amongst others, the promulgation of a Co - Heritage-based Resources: Management Committee. Natural and / or cultural resources. Cultural Heritage: Interested Parties: (See stakeholders) As defined in Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention Act, 49 of 1999: Cultural heritage is considered as "monuments, architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal Local Community: value form the point of view of history, art or science, groups of buildings, groups of separate or connected buildings Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page" Any community of people living or having rights or interests in a distinct geographical area (as per the National Any of the protected areas referred to in section 9 of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, No.57 of 2003). No. 57 of 2003. Management: Red Data Species In relation to a protected area, includes control, protection, conservation, maintenance and rehabilitation of the The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has developed a clear set of categories and criteria to be used to assess the protected area with due regard to the use and extraction of biological resources, community based practices and risk of extinction of a species. Red Data Species are identified species whose existence is threatened. Red Data Lists benefit sharing activities in the area in a manner consistent with the Biodiversity Act (as per the National categorize species according to levels of threat and risk of extinction and serve to direct conservation efforts, Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, No.57 of 2003). affording threatened species a greater level of protection, highlighting species in most danger of extinction and acting as a global index of biodiversity loss. Management Unit: Riparian: The specific geographic area / sector of the reserve for which a manager has been appointed that is responsible for conservation management in that area / sector — normally each management unit will be provided with its own Pertaining to the river bank. budget and associated management infrastructure. The boundaries of these areas do not necessarily follow original Stakeholders / Interested Parties: protected area boundaries. These are interested individuals or groups concerned with or affected by an activity and its consequences. These Minister: include the authorities, local communities, investors, work force, consumers, environmental interest groups and the The National Minister of the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs. general public. According to the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, No. 10 of 2004, "stakeholder" means a person, an organ of state or a community contemplated in section 82 (1) (a), or an Nature Conservation: indigenous community contemplated in section 82(1)(b). The conservation of naturally occurring ecological systems, the sustainable utilization of indigenous plants and Sustainable: animals therein, and the promotion and maintenance of biological diversity. In relation to the use of a biological resource, means the use of such resource in a way and at a rate that would Natural Heritage: not lead to its long-term decline; would not disrupt the ecological integrity of the ecosystem in which it occurs; and As defined in Article 2 of the World Heritage Convention Act, 49 of 1999: "natural heritage" is considered as would ensure its continued use to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations of people (as consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, which per National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, No. 10 of 2004). are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view, geological and physiographical Transformed: formations and precisely delineated areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of Transformed ecosystems are no longer natural and contain little or no indigenous flora. Examples include agricultural lands, outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation, natural sites or precisely delineated plantations, urban areas, etc. natural areas of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty. Wilderness Area: Partnership/s: Means "an area designated ...... for the purpose of retaining an intrinsically wild appearance and character, or capable A co-operative and / or collaborative arrangement/s between reserve management / MTPA and a third party that supports the of being restored to such and which is undeveloped and roadless, without permanent improvements or human achievement of Park objectives. habitation" as defined by the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act No.57 of 2003. Protected Area: Mabola PE: Management Ian 2015-2019 February 2015 Page vi TABLE OF CONTENTS AUTHORISATION ...... ii CONTACT DETAILS FOR ENQUIRIES ...... ii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...... iii DEFINITIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vii LIST OF APPENDICES LIST OF TABLES ...... X LIST OF FIGURES ...... xi LIST OF MAPS ...... xi LIST OF PHOTOS ...... zii PART ONE: BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.2 PLANNING APPROACH AND STRUCTURE OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 1 1.3 THE PURPOSE OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 2 1.4 MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY ...... 2 1.5 LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF THE IMP 1.6 GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT ...... 1.7 STAKEHOLDERS& ENGAGEMENT ...... 5 1.8 THE VALUES OF THE MPE ...... 7 1.9 PROPERTY DETAILS ...... 7 PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS OF THE MPE ...... 9 2.1 THE PHYSICAL (MAN-MADE) ENVIRONMENT ...... 2.1.1 The tourism landscape ...... : 2.1.2 Infrastructure and utilities ...... 10 Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page vii 2.1.3 Current land use ...... 10 2.2 THE BIO-PHYSICAL (NATURAL) ENVIRONMENT ...... 11 2.2.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems ...... 11 2.2.2 Freshwater Ecosystems ...... 12 2.2.3 The Abiotic (non-living) environment ...... 14 2,3 THE SOCIO-POLITICAL-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT...... 18 2.4 THE CULTURAL HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT ...... 1£ 2.5 THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT ...... 19 2.6 SIGNIFICANCE I.T.O. LANDSCAPE PERSPECTIVE / REGIONAL CONTEXT/ INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT/ BIODIVERSITY ...... 21 2.6.1 Introduction ...... 21 2.6.2 Links to other protected areas ...... 21 2.6.3 Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan (terrestrial biodiversity)...... 21 2,6.4 National and Provincial Expansion Strategies ...... 21 2.6.5 National Threatened Ecosystems ...... 22 2.6.6 Aquatic Biodiversity Significance ...... 22 2.6.7 Pixley ka Isaka Seme Local Municipality Integrated Development Plan (IEW) ...... 22 2.6.8 Wakkerstroom - Luneburg Agriculture & Biodiversity Conservation Demonstration Area ...... 22 2.7 SENSITIVITY VALUE ANALYSIS ...... 24 2.7.1 Approach ...... 24 2.7.2 Input layers ...... 24 2.7.3 Sensitivity Value Ratings ...... 24 2.8 SUMMARY OF OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ...... 26 PART THREE: STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ...... 30 3.1 VISION ...... 30 3.2 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ...... 30 t3 PART FOUR: LAND USE ZONING ...... 31 4.1 APPROACH TO LAND USE ZONING ...... 31 C) as Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page on 7 4. 21 4.2 APPROACH TO VEHICULAR CIRCULATION ...... 36 4.3 RESOURCE UTILIZATION MASTER PLAN ...... 35 4.3.1 Approach ...... 35 4.3.2 Proposal ...... 35 PART FIVE: OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ...... 38 5.1 Administrative framework ...... 38 5.1.1 Introduction ...... 38 5.1.2 Legal Framework ...... 38 5.1.3 Institutional Structure ...... 38 5.1.3 Implementation Strategy and Reporting ...... 39 5.2 Management FRAMEWORK AND OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES ...... 39 5.2.1 Security and Safety ...... 39 5.2.2 Neighbour Relations ...... 39 5.2.3 Ecosystem Conservation...... 40 5.2.4 Protection of important species ...... 41 5.2.5 Fire Management ...... 41 5.2.6 Grazing Management ...... 42 5.2.7 Soil erosion control ...... 43 5.2.8 Species introductions and problem animal control ...... 43 5.2.9 Practical research ...... 44 5.2.10 Invasive species ...... 44 5.2.11 Mining...... 45 PART SIX: MONITORING AND AUDITING ...... 46 6.1 Annual monitoring schedule ...... 46 6.2 Annual reVIEW ...... 46 a 6.3 Biodiversity monitoring ...... 46 C PART SEVEN: COSTING PLAN ...... 48 Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page ix p a 49 PART EIGHT: ANNUAL PLAN OF OPERATION (MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME) REFERENCES ...... 55 APPENDICES 56 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1: Plant species of conservation concern occurring in the vicinity of the MPE ...... 56 Appendix 2: Confirmed and potentially occurring threatened plant species in the Mabola Protected Environment ...... 59 Appendix 3: Confirmed and potentially occurring other plant species of conservation concern in the Mabola Protected Environment ...... 60 Appendix 4: Weeds and invasive alien plants recorded from the general vicinity of the MPE ...... 62 Appendix 5: Potentially occurring mammal species of conservation concern in the MPE ...... 63 Appendix 6: Obligate habitat specialists present in the Mabola Protected Environment ...... 64 Appendix 7: Bird species of conservation concern occurring in the general vicinity of the MPE ...... 65 Appendix 8: Threatened and near threatened birds recorded within the vicinity of the MPE during SABAP2 ...... 66 Appendix 9: Reptiles and frogs confirmed to occur in the general vicinity of the MPE through atlas projects ...... 67 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: MPE Relevant Legislation ...... 4 Table 2: Component Properties MPE ...... 7 Table 3: Relative Proportion of the PE towards PA Expansion Targets ...... 21 Table 4: Opportunities and Constraints ...... 26 Table 5: Land Use Zones for the MPE ...... 32 Table 6: Proposed Road Categories for the MPE ...... 34 Table 7: Monitoring Activities ...... 46 Table 8: Monitoring Activities ...... 48 Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page. Table 9: Management Programme ...... 50 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Structure of the Management Plan ...... 1 Figure 2: Wakkerstroom climate graph ...... 14 Figure 3: Wakkerstroom climate table ...... 14 Figure 4: MPE Institutional Structure ...... 38 LIST OF MAPS Map1: Study Area ...... 6 Map 2: Component properties of the MPE ...... 8 Map 3: Infrastructure map (e.g. houses, roads, fences, gates, dams, lodges etc.) ...... 10 Map 4: Current land use / land cover ...... 11 Map 5: Vegetation ...... 12 Map 6: Disturbed / Degraded Land - Exotic and Invasive species distribution, excavations and erosion scars ...... 13 Map 7: Distribution of Red Data Species ...... 13 Map 8: Relief ...... 15 Map 9: Slope ...... 16 Map 10: Terrain morphology ...... 16 Map 11: Geology ...... 17 Map 12: Soils ...... 17 Map 13: Hydrology ...... 18 Map 14: Cultural historic features ...... 19 Map 15: Visual exposure ...... 20 tea Map 16: Zones of visual influence...... 20 C Map 17: Mpumaianga Biodiversity Sector Plan (MBSP) ...... 23 4? Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page xi Map 18: NPAES & MPAES (combined map) ...... 23 Map 19: Environmental sensitivity index ...... 25 Map 20: Environmental sensitivity classification ...... 25 Map 21: Land Use Zoning Plan ...... 36 Map 22: Resource Utilization Master Plan ...... 37 LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1: Site Visit 22/09/2014...... Photo 2: Workshop 23/09/2014 ...... 5 Photo 3: Soil erosion along the foot slopes and drainage lines ...... 28 Photo 4: Bush encroachment, especially Ouhout (Leucosideo sericeo) ...... 28 Photo 5: Eradication of black wattle, - timber used for charcoal production ...... 28 Photo 6: Open cast coal mine on Loskop farm ...... 28 Photo 7: Traditional building styles complement the scenery...... 28 Photo 8: Poorly designed culverts regime of wetlands ...... 28 Photo 9: Cattle farming is the main form of livelihood in the MPE ...... 28 Photo 10: The Assegaai river has its source in the MPE ...... 28 Photo 11: Local labourers resident in the MPE are reliant on subsistence agriculture ...... 28 Photo 12: The MPE includes cultural historical sites, including the remnants of Boer War blockhouses ...... 28 Photo 13: Charcoal kilns on the farm Loskop, for the processing of harvested alien invasive trees ...... 28 Photo 14: Idyllic Wakkerstroom town nestled below the Ossewakop (2176m)...... 28 Photo 15: Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland Vegetation Type (Photo: W McCleland)...... 29 Photo 16: Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland Vegetation Type (Photo: W McCleland) ...... 29 Photo 17: Northern Afromontane Forest Vegetation Type (Photo: W McCleland) ...... 29 Photo 18: Nerine plotypetala (Photo: M Lotter) ...... 29 Photo 19: Oribi (Endangered) (Photo: W Tarboton) ...... 29 Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page xi) Photo 20: Wattled Crane (Critically Endangered) (Photo: W Tarboton) ...... 29 Photo 21: Channelled Valley-bottom Wetland (Tributary of the Assegaai River (Photo: W McCleland) ...... 29 Photo 22: Seep Wetland on the farm Platjesfontein (Photo: W McCleland) ...... 29 Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page yth PART ONE: BACKGROUND 1.1 INTRODUCTION o Natural environment o Man-made environment The Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA) are responsible for the implementation and co-ordination of o Socio economic and political environment the provincial Biodiversity Stewardship Programme. The purpose of the Biodiversity Stewardship Programme is to o Cultural historic environment expand the formal network of protected areas within the province, whereby legally binding conservation servitudes o Aesthetic environment are established per declaration and contractual agreement on private land. Properties which qualify under the Determine and describe the biodiversity and conservation significance value of the MPE. programme may be declared as a protected area under the National Environmental Management: Protected Area Determine and describe the current management and land use practices. Act (NEM:PAA),In this regard, two categories of protected areas are relevant i.e. a Nature Reserve and a Protected From the above, determine and describe primary opportunities and constraints, strengths and weaknesses Environment. The Mabola Protected Environment (MPE) is one such declared protected area. that affect the MPE, and that may influence the future management of the MPE. Maximise the above opportunities and strengths, whilst resolving the constraints or weaknesses, in According to the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (no. 57 of 2003), management the development of: authorities of protected areas are required, in terms of section 39, to submit a management plan to the Minister or o Visions and objectives for the management of the MPE MEC for approval within 12 months of the assignment. The MPE was declared on 22 January 2014, in terms of the o A land use zoning plan and resource utilization plan for the MPE; and Mpumalanga Provincial Gazette No. 2251, Notice 20 of 2014. o An integrated management plan for the MPE. The MPE forms part of a broader project of the National Grasslands Programme, under the auspices of the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) and the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). The objectives of Concurrent to all the above, the development of the management plan will elicit the full participation of the landowners (primary stakeholders); and the the programme are to demonstrate the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation into the agriculture sector by Support and input from secondary stakeholders, interested and affected securing the conservation of the area and by promoting agricultural and other land use practices that are compatible parties. The structure of the management plan is presented on figure 1 below: with biodiversity conservation. The ultimate objective is to ensure that grasslands conservation takes place whilst MANAGEMENT PLAN STRUCTURE livelihoods from livestock farming and tourism are maintained. This document, duly completed in fulfilment of the aforesaid requirement, presents a management plan, in line with the NEM:PAA and UND.P.RSTANDING THE MPE the Management Plan Guidelines for Biodiversity Stewardship sites, which addresses the management of the MPE and focuses on the biophysical environment of the MPE in order to ensure that the ecological processes are maintained and that specific objectives with LEGAL ENVIRONMENTAL BIODIVERSITY & FRAMEWORK FEATURES/ SENSITIVITY CONSERVATION VALUE regard to species management are met. This plan will ultimately enable the owners of the land to take collective action to conserve biodiversity on their land OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS 1.2 PLANNING APPROACH AND STRUCTURE OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPING THE EMP The planning approach adopted for the preparation of the MPE Management Plan was guided by the 3 r i following principles: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT iii ,.. „ . . . : 9 9 V 7 ..!K n , III ozpoj‘kar4, uaLjprnoN PLAN hialY4R 11141111 P a g e 1 Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 1.3 THE PURPOSE OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN To provide a policy framework and an appropriate programme of action to ensure effective management of the MPE; The purpose of declaring protected areas as set out in section 17 of the National Environmental To provide a sound motivation and justification for budgets required to ensure the effective Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003is to: management of the MPE; a. protect ecologically viable areas representative of South Africa's biological diversity and its natural To build accountability into the management of the MPE, through an effective monitoring and auditing landscapes and seascapes in a system of protected areas; approach based on measurable and meaningful indicators. This would include a performance management b. preserve the ecological integrity of those areas; system for staff and for the biodiversity stewardship contractual arrangements; c. conserve biodiversity in those areas; To provide for capacity building and future thinking; d. protect areas representative of all ecosystems, habitats and species naturally occurring in South Africa; To enable the management authority to meet the requirements of Section 40 of NEM:PAA, i.e. the e. protect South Africa's threatened or rare species; management authority must manage the area- f. protect an area which is vulnerable or ecologically sensitive; (a) exclusively for the purpose for which it was declared; and g. assist in ensuring the sustained supply of environmental goods and services; (b) in accordance with- h. provide for the sustainable use of natural and biological resources; (i) the management plan for the area; i. create or augment destinations for nature-based tourism; (ii) the NEMPAA, the Biodiversity Act, the National Environmental j. manage the interrelationship between natural environmental biodiversity, human settlement and Management Act and any other applicable national legislation; economic development; (iii) any applicable provincial legislation, in the case of a provincial k. generally, to contribute to human, social, cultural, spiritual and economic development; or protected area; and I. rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and promote the recovery of endangered and (iv) any applicable municipal by-laws, in the case of a local protected area. vulnerable species. The purpose of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003, in requiring management plans The objective of the management plan is to ensure the protection, conservation and management of the from management authorities, is primarily: protected area in a manner which is consistent with the objectives of the Act and for the purpose for which it was declared (section 41 (1)). To ensure the protected area is managed according to the reason it was declared; To provide a tool for assessing the success of that management; 1.4 MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY To provide a mechanism for determining budgets for the protected area; The Minister or MEC assigns in writing the management of a special nature reserve, national park or nature reserve To provide a mechanism to review periodically the plan in terms of the assessment. to a management authority, in terms of section 38 of the Act. It should be noted that in terms of Section 38(4) — This document presents a management plan for the Mabola Protected Environment, a Biodiversity Stewardship Site, Marine and Terrestrial protected areas with common boundaries must be managed as an integrated protected area which comprises private or communally-owned properties that have been declared as a protected environment. This by a single management authority. management plan therefore responds to the requirements of sections 41, 42, 46, 47, 48 and 50 of the National It is proposed, for the purposes of ensuring an effective Biodiversity Stewardship Programme that Protected Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003) as well as sections 45 and 76 of the National Environments must have a Management Authority assigned. At present, the legislation makes this a mandatory Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004). requirement for Nature Reserves only (Section 38(2)), but only a requirement that needs to be considered for The express purpose of this management plan is to: Protected Environments. Provide a tool to guide the management of the MPE, from the ground level to the Minister / MEC. In this way, it will ensure consistency of management, even when key members of a management team do change; Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 2 1 E 7 ) It is therefore decided that, as part of the Best Practice Guidelines for Biodiversity Stewardship Programmes, a The Protected Areas Act, the Biodiversity Act and the National Environmental Management Authority be assigned to the Mabola Protected Environment. The MPE Landowners Association Management Act (NEMA) and any other applicable legislation. (MPELA) was assigned the Management Authority for the MPE on the 22 January 2014. Any applicable provincial legislation. This management plan will be reviewed by the MTPA and approved by the MEC: Department of Agriculture, The Management Plan: Rural Development, Land and Environment Affairs (DARDLEA). The Management Authority may amend the management plan by agreement with the MEC. The object of a management plan is to ensure that the protected area is managed in a manner that is consistent with the 1.5 LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF THE IMP purpose for which it was declared. The management plan must contain at least: A range of legislation and policy documents govern the establishment and management of the MPE. Most relevant The terms and conditions of any applicable biodiversity management plan. A coordinated policy framework. in this regard, are the provisions within the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (No.57 of The planning measures, controls and performance criteria that may be prescribed. 2003), which relate to the establishment and management of a protected environment. The key provisions within the Act relate to the constitution of the management authority, the criteria through which the protected A programme for the implementation of the plan and its costing. Procedures for public participation, including participation by the owner (if applicable), any environment must be managed, the requirements of the management plan and the monitoring of performance in local community or other interested party. conserving a protected environment. Where appropriate, the implementation of community-based natural resource management. In addition to the Protected Areas Act, there are a number of provisions within the National Environmental A zoning of the area indicating what activities may take place in different sections of the area, Management: Biodiversity Act (No.10 of 2004), which must be considered in managing a protected environment, and the conservation objectives of those sections. particularly those that relate to the control and eradication of listed invasive species. These set out the obligations Monitoring and Supervision: that landowners are required to meet in controlling and eradicating listed invasive species. The MEC may establish indicators for monitoring performance with regard to the management of The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (No.57 of 2003) provides the legal provincial protected areas and the conservation of biodiversity in those areas. In terms of these basis for the management of the Mabola Protected Environment. It addresses amongst others: indicators, the management authority must: Monitor the area against the indicators set. The Management Authority: Annually report its findings to the MEC or a person designated by the MEC (in this case, in all Once an area has been proclaimed as a protected environment, the Member of the Executive Council likelihood, the MTPA). (MEC), in whose portfolio protected areas fall, may assign the management of a protected environment to a third party, if the landowner consents to this. In the case of the MPE however, the individual landowners The MEC may appoint external auditors to monitor a management authority's compliance with or lessees of the land will become the Management Authorities of their land in terms of the Protected Areas the overall objectives of the management plan. Act. This will require the formation of a formal management committee comprising all the landowners or Termination of Mandate to Manage a Protected Area: their representatives or lessees. If the management authority of a protected area is not performing its duties in terms of the management plan for the area, or is underperforming with regard to the management of the area or the biodiversity of The Management Criteria: the area, the MEC must: The Protected Areas Act requires that the Management Authority manage the area in accordance with the Notify the management authority in writing of the failure to perform its duties or of the following criteria: underperformance. Exclusively for the purpose for which it was declared. Direct the management authority to take corrective steps set out in the notice within a specified In accordance with: time. The management plan for the area. Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 3 If the management authority fails to take the required steps, the MEC may terminate the Public Finance Management Act [No. 1 of 1999] management authority's mandate to manage the protected area. Human Resource Management: Legislation Guiding the Administration of the MPE: Basic Conditions of Employment Act [No. 75 of 1997] Effective management of the MPE depends on the adherence to and compliance with all relevant legislation and Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act [No. 53 of 2003] statutes with regard to management and operational activities. It is the responsibility of the Management Authority Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act [No. 130 of 1993] to, firstly, compile and maintain a database of relevant statutes and legal requirements and secondly, to ensure the Employment Equity Act [No. 55 of 1998] compliance thereof. Labour Relations Act [No. 66 of 1995] Table 1 lists the statutes that are relevant to the management of the MPE: Occupational Health and Safety Act [No. 85 of 1993] Resource Management Natural Resource Management: Pension Funds Act [No. 24 of 1956] Table 1: MPE Relevant Legislation Skills Development Act [No. 97 of 1998] Animals Protection Act [No. 71 of 1962] Skills Development Levies Act [No. 9 of 1999] Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act [No. 45 of 1965] Unemployment Insurance Act [No. 63 of 2001] Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act [No. 43 of 1983] Constitution of the Republic of South Africa [No. 108 of 1996] Utilization Management • Criminal Procedures Act [1977] Environment Conservation Act [No. 73 of 1989] • Water Services Act [No. 108 of 1997] Forest Act [No. 122 of 1984] • National Building Standards Act [No. 103 of 1977] Hazardous Substances Act [No. 15 of 1973] ■ National Road Traffic Act [No. 93 of 1996] Mpumalanga Nature Conservation Act [No. 10 of 1998] • Disaster Management Act [No. 57 of 2002] National Environmental Management Act [No. 107 of 1998] • Development Facilitation Act [No. 67 of 1995] National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act [No. 10 of 2004] General Management • Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA) Act [2005] National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act [No. 57 of 2003] • MTPA Regulations National Forests Act [No. 84 of 1998] ■ Fire Brigade Services Act [No. 99 of 1987] National Water Act [No. 36 of 1998] • Local Government: Municipal Systems Act [No. 32 of 2000] National Water Amendment Act [No. 45 of 1999] • Occupational Health and Safety Act [No. 85 of 1993] National Veld and Forest Fire Act [No 101 of 1998] Nature Conservation Ordinance [No. 15 of 1974] Cultural Resource Management: National Heritage Resources Act [No. 25 of 1999] World Heritage Convention Act [Act No, 49 of 1999] P Financial Resource Management: ci Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 4 1.6 GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT The MPE covers an area of approximately 8 772 hectares, and is situated in southern Mpumalanga, on the KwaZulu Natal provincial boundary, within the Pixley ka Isaka Seme Local Municipality. It is located between the villages of Wakkerstroom in the southwest and Dirkiesdorp in the north-east. The closest town is Volksrust, 25km to the west. The existing KwaMandlangampisi Protected Environment (KPE) extension is sandwiched between the northern and southern sections of the MPE. See Map 1. 1.7 STAKEHOLDERS& ENGAGEMENT The Primary Stakeholders in this process include: Landowners; The MTPA; Secondary stakeholders include: WWF-SA; Photo 1: Site Visit 22/09/2014 Birdlife South Africa; and The Endangered Wildlife Trust. The above primary and secondary stakeholders were engaged during the compilation of this Management Plan. Direct engagement was undertaken on the 22nd September 2014 during site visits to the respective MPE properties. On the 23'd September 2014, a workshop was undertaken in Wakkerstroom. Photo 2: Workshop 23/09/2014 Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 5 MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT 1=1 Farms Identified for the Mabola SHADED RELIEF Protected Environment Elevation above sea level (m) Integrated Management Planning Process 2014 - je._ Arterial/Main Road MI 1150 i 1 1450 1 7 1750 2050 Major Secondary Road IIII 12001 1 1500 1 , 1800 1 1 2100 2 Major River lbwrifBuilt- ME 1250 r1 1550 = 1850 [ f 2150 up Area __ 1300 1600 1900 I 12200 Mining/Quarrying 1350 1650 f 1950 I J 2250 Provincial Boundary — 17: 1400 1700 2000 14. yR N MPUMACIANGA DIrklesdorp AINAZULU.NATAL •; • - i f t t 4 • U M II I * 5 ) Map1: Study Area Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page .5 1.9 PROPERTY DETAILS 1.8 THE VALUES OF THE MPE The inherent value of the MPE is vested in the unique biodiversity that the area has to offer. It is the diversity of The MPE covers an area of approximately 8 772 hectares and is comprised of the properties listed in Table 2. Six different landowners and 21 properties form part of the MPE. See Map 2. natural habitats, including grasslands, mountain lands wetlands and pans that make the MPE conservation worthy, an Important Birding Area, an important and high yielding water catchment, and a popular eco-tourism destination. Table 2: Component Properties - MPE .-- .. , . lailittaiiiatiOal. Tweehoek 128 HT 1 T15244/1982 Oskar Heinrich Klingenberg 401.0126 Rustfontein 129 HT 2 115244/1982 Oskar Heinrich Klingenberg 550.0191 Portion 4 (a ptn of ptn 2) of Mooiplaats 112 HT 3 T17640/2008 Danie Zietsman Family Trust 209.8503 Remainder of Roodekrans 73 HT 4 T73729/1994 Thys Uys Trust 346.3515 Portion 1 of Roodekrans 73 HT 5 173729/1994 Thys Uys Trust 131.9430 Portion 2 of Roodekrans 73 HT 6 T22958/1969 Pierre Willian Bruwer Uys 313.3651 Remainder of Rivierveld 75 HT 7 T13749/1967 Pierre Willian Bruwer Uys 251.4366 Portion 1 of Rivierveld 75 HT 8 T73729/1994 Thys Uys Trust 181.6131 Portion 2 of Rivierveld 75 HT 9 T22957/1969 Pierre Willian Bruwer Uys 54.7826 Portion 3 of Rivierveld 75 HT 10 T73729/1994 Thys Uys Trust 238.6201 Remainder of Kromhoek 93 HT 11 725588/1975 Pierre Willian Bruwer Uys 980.4206 Portion 1 of Kromhoek 93 HT 12 173729/1994 Thys Uys Trust 204.3073 Remainder of Vaalbank 74 HT 13 T22956/1969 Pierre Willian Bruwer Uys 151.9488 Portion 8 of Vaalbank 74 HT 14 722955/1969 Pierre Willian Bruwer Uys 151.9488 Goedgevonden 95 HT 15 T138593/2002 Pierre Willian Bruwer Uys 739.4455 Remainder of Yzermyn 96 HT 16 ??T36706/1984 Stephanus Petrus Malan 826.1608 Platjesfontein 76 HT 17 T20591/1974 Pierre Willian Bruwer Uys 810.0351 Remainder of Loskop 105 HT 18 110781/2012 Oudezicht Trust 259.8989 Portion 4 of Loskop 105 HT 19 T10781/2012 Oudezicht Trust 259.9675 Portion 8 of Oudehoutdraai 123 HT 20 117066/1978 Stephanus Petrus Malan 526.4819 Goudhoek 124 HT 21 T110274/1998 Danie Zietsman Family Trust 989.3195 Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 7 MAMA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT ce..ei. Ferns Identified for the Mebola Protected Environment ___ Arterial/Mein Road Major Secondary Road Rives Perennial River - Wetland Built Stneturertiomestead =National Montage Site MANOR 71 Protected Area IMOSP 2013) LAND OWNERS ThYs ilys That ri Pierre Mien Brewer We 7-7 Oudaticirt 'duet Oskar Heinrich Klingenberg '; Davie Ziaternan Family 'Trust Stephens Petrus Malan NO. FARM NAME 01 1Weehoek 128 HT 02 Rusthmtein 129 HT 03 Portion 4 of Mooipleets 112 HT 04 Remainder of Roodekrans 73 HT OS Portion 1 of Roodekrens 73 HT 06 Portion 2 of Roodekrans 73 HT 07 Remainder of Rivierveld 75 HT 08 Portion 1 of Fivierveld 75 HT 09 Portion 2 of Rivierveld 75 HT 10 Portion 3 of Rivierveld 76 HT 11 Remainder of Itromhoek 93 HT 12 Portion 1 of Kromhoek 93 HT 13 Remainder of Vealbank 74 HT 14 Portion 8 of Vealbank 74 HT 15 Oisedgevonden 95 HT 10 Remainder of Yzerrnyn 96 HT 17 Platieslontein 70 HT 18 Flemeinder of Lasko 106 HT 19 Portion 4 of 16ekop 105 HT 20 Portion 8 of Oudehoutdrael 123 HT 21 Goudhoek 124 HT Map 2: Component properties of the MPE ola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS OF THE MPE Girding 2.1 THE PHYSICAL (MAN-MADE) ENVIRONMENT Biking 2.1.1 The tourism landscape Fishing The greater Wakkerstroom area is renowned for its prolific birdlife, especially grassland and wetland species, and is a Paddling declared Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA). The combination of the natural splendour, rural charm and IBA Hiking status makes the area desirable and popular for visitors from all over South Africa, and abroad. Horse riding The inherent potential of any given destination for eco-tourism, can be broadly defined by considering and 4x4 trails assessing the following criteria: Special interest trails (archaeology, cultural history, avifauna) AMENITIES Access (how do they get there — is the area accessible by road and air). Attractions / Activities (what will/do tourists come to see and do:-Biodiversity, Landscapes, Although no tourism amenities exist within the MPE, the area is well populated with a range of overnight Fauna & Flora, Cultural and Historical, Unique Features, etc.). facilities including B&B's, camping, school group accommodation, guest houses and country inns / hotels. Amenities (once there, what facilities are on offer, and do they meet the demand and AWARENESS expectations of tourists). The MPE is not a known destination on the eco-tourism circuit, but due to the fact Awareness (does the area feature on the tourist map — are tourists, operators, agents aware of the destination). Internet search volumes provide a strong indication of the awareness and popularity of a destination. A simple Google World Wide Web search for Wakkerstroom and regional competitor destinations, reveals the ACCESS following: The area is easily accessible via good tarred national and provincial routes from Gauteng (<300km), Nelspruit Wakkerstroom (South Africa) 736 000 results (325 km) and Durban (<400km), making it a viable weekend getaway, especially for the Gauteng market. Dullstroom (South Africa) 649 000 results A local airfield is located just outside Wakkerstroom. Pilgrims Rest (South Africa) 309 000 results ATTRACTIONS / ACTIVITIES Clarens (South Africa) 143 000 results Attractions include: The above would seem to indicate that Wakkerstroom is a well-known and well marketed destination. Natural splendour Google AdWords: Keyword Tool:https://adwords.google.com provides useful tools for analysing trends in Biodiversity the numbers of people showing an interest in particular search phrases. Using this tool, it is possible to Diverse bird species establish the average monthly Internet searches over the past year, for Wakkerstroom and its regional Cultural history competitors. In this case, it appears that Wakkerstroom is less popular that the other destinations, but still Special events (annual music festival, annual handcraft fair). commands a relatively high level of interest: 1311 Visitors are able to engage in: Clarens 4400 average monthly searches Dullstroom 3600 CI i r j . . ) Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 9 ., Pilgrims Rest 1300 wakkerstroom 1300 MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT 2.1.2 Infrastructure and utilities 1:Z, RIM. Identified for the Mabola Rotected Environment ____ Arterlet/Main Road The MPE is largely devoid of man-made infrastructure, due to the historical land use practices, which have Major Secondary Road largely been restricted to extensive cattle farming. Map3 illustrates the extent of man-made structures ____ Nonmeronrual River 1, 1 Perennial River including farmsteads, dams, excavations, utility lines, fences, roads and tracks within the MPE. MI % v ia nd rtvi aunt StructureMornesteed CD National Heritage Site MAMBO 2.1.3 Current land use El] Protected Area IMBSP 20131 INFRASTRUCTURErCt/aVRAL Agriculture FRSTORICAJ. SITESIMINING ACTIVITY The current land use within the MPE is dominated by agriculture and more specifically, extensive cattle and sheep — Internal Roads/Tracks farming, with much of the land being used for summer and winter grazing. Cultivation of land also occurs in pockets, gra. Ruin IGreve Sae especially along the lower lying areas. * Farmstead/Homestead Stet Accommodation Mining in and around the MPE * mock House The area contains significant deposits of coal and torbanite, and prospecting for these minerals has occurred Bern historically and continues to occur sporadically. Charcoal Processing Facility IME Existing Coal Mine Recently, various prospecting permits have been granted within the MPE area for torbanite on IN Coal inineng right granted (20081 Kromhoek and Goedgevonden properties by Kangra and Bongani Mining. . Piopecting permits for torberate mining granted Application for underground coal Currently, an environmental impact assessment is being carried out for the development of an underground mining lauthorieetion pending -EIAI coal mine on a portion of the Yzermyn property. This portion is not included in the MPE, but forms a wedge 1.11 Application for coal prospecting teuthorisatien pending • EIAI between the incorporated properties of the Remainder of Yzermyn 96 HT and Goedgevonden 95 HT. A mining right was also been granted around 2006 on the Loskop property to Rodely Coal Mining. An existing coal mine is situated on Portion 4 of Loskop 105 HT. A application has been recently lodged by Swing Curve Trade (Pty) Ltd, to prospect for coal on the farm 2 Inmalkaar 102 HT (Department of Mineral Resources, Ref No. MP30/5/1/1/ /13109 PR). Inmalkaar is located immediately east of the MPE, less than 1 km from its closest boundary. In the application, it is anticipated that prospecting will occur over 3 years, and will include invasive methods (core drilling). The application is to mine for coal for a period of three years. Prospecting was undertaken 30 to 40 years ago on some of the properties. Mining for torbanite and coal will have serious consequences for the sustainability of the current livestock farming enterprises, water resources and sensitive wetlands within the area, as well as the current eco-tourism activities and the proposed nature conservation land use. See Map 4. Map 3: Infrastructure map (e.g. houses, roads, fences, gates, dams, lodges etc.). Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 ) 2.2 THE BIO-PHYSICAL (NATURAL) ENVIRONMENT 1VIABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT r". Farms identified for the Mabee Protected Environment The description of the bio-physical environment, both terrestrial and freshwater, is taken in its entirety from the ArtetrialiMain Road Executive Summary, McCleland W. 2014. Mabola Protected Environment - Biodiversity Baseline Assessment. This Major Secondary Road L„..72 Non-perennial River report was commissioned in support of the development of the MPE Management Plan, and must be read in Perennial River conjunction with this management plan. The McCleland Report includes the following important supporting III Wetland L15!_*:_ Built Structure/Homestead information: CD National Montage Sac tSANBII Protected Ares RASP 20131 In the body of the report: LAND COVER/BROAD LAND USE PATTERNS Confirmed and potentially occurring threatened (plant)species in the Ma bola Protected Environment 1111111 Ik/fining/Quarrytng led Etestic Plantation Confirmed and potentially occurring other (plant) species of conservation concern in the Mabola I. Dr land Agriculture Protected Environment 11111 legatee Agriculture IWO Old Agricultural Field Weeds and Invasive Alien Plants recorded from the general vicinity of the MPE Filth Degraded Grassland Ell Indigenous Forest Obligate habitat specialists present in the Mabola Protected Environment OM TNcitot and BuShilind = Grassland Threatened and Near Threatened birds recorded within the vicinity of the MPE during SABAP Reid Crop Boundaries Inapt of Agriculture) Appendixes to the McCleland report: Plant species of conservation concern occurring in the vicinity of the MPE 5km Potentially occurring mammal species of conservation concern in the MPE Bird species of conservation concern occurring in the general vicinity of the MPE Sabap2 data for birds in the pentads covering the MPE Reptiles and frogs confirmed to occur in the general vicinity of the MPE through atlas projects. 2.2.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems The MPE is situated within the Mesic Highveld Grassland bioregion of the Grassland Biome. Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland (Least Threatened) and Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland (Vulnerable) comprise over 95 % of the untransformed vegetation within the MPE, which is significant since these two vegetation types are poorly represented in protected areas within Mpumalanga. The MPE is situated within the Wakkerstroom / Luneberg Grasslands Threatened Ecosystem, an area of 250 000 ha that is approximately 90% untransformed. The ecosystem forms critical habitat for numerous threatened and near threatened flora and fauna. At least 43 species of conservation concern and 135 protected plant species occur in the general vicinity of the MPE, of which two Vulnerable species, namely Aloe modesta and Helichrysum aureum var. argenteum, have been confirmed on several of the MPE properties, as well as one Near Threatened species, four Declining species and three Rare species. Map 4: Current land use / land cover Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 11 Twenty-five conservation-important mammal species have been confirmed to occur within the quarter-degree grids in IMABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMEtta which the MPE is situated, five of which are threatened. Of these, only Oribi has been recorded within the MPE, while LS?' Remo Identified for the Mabola Protected Envirarenent Rough-haired Golden Mole and Swinny's Horseshoe Bat occur on adjacent properties. The MPE is situated within the ____ Arterial/Main Road vast Grasslands Important Bird and Biodiversity Area, which supports viable populations of at least 24 threatened and Major Secondary Road — Non-perennial Riser 20 Near Threatened bird species. Two Endangered bird species have been confirmed on adjacent properties, namely Perennial River Kr Abriand Grey Crowned Crane and Rudd's Lark, while four Vulnerable species have been confirmed within the MPE, namely Ei!,;.• Stilt Structure/Homestead Southern Bald Ibis, Secretary bird, White-bellied Korhaan and African Grass Owl. Five reptiles of conservation concern r=i Wiens! Heritage Site MANES) I=1 Protected Aria IMBSP 2013) potentially occur in the MPE, of which Short-headed Legless Skink (Vulnerable) and Cape Grass Lizard (Near Threatened) have been confirmed. Two frogs that have provincial status of Vulnerable occur either within the MPE o r VEGETATION Eastern Highveld Grassland on adjacent properties: Natal Ghost Frog and Karoo Toad. Two butterflies that have a provincial status of Rare ri•ar;ri Reutpletersburg Moist Gralmlend Egg Waldterstroom (Wakkerstroom Widow and Wakkerstroom Copper) have small populations on Hele Mountain on the MPE boundary, Montane G'es while Round-Winged Bluet has been recorded on an adjacent farm close to the MPE border. Northern Atroternoerete Forest 2.2.2 Freshwater Ecosystems The MPE is located within a significant watershed for two primary drainage regions, namely the Usuthu and Thukela Rivers. Within the Usuthu drainage region, it is situated in part of Quaternary Catchments W51A and W42A and within the Thukela River drainage region, it is located in part of Quaternary Catchment V31A. The wetlands of the MPE fall within the Mesic Highveld Grassland Group 8 wetlands, which are classified as Least Threatened, although 0 ski the cluster of wetlands on the southern boundary of the MPE are classified as Highest Priority wetlands in the Usuthu Drainage Region. The Wakkerstroom wetland complex is considered to be one of three particularly important wetland systems in Mpumalanga by the MTPA. No fish species of conservation concern have been recorded from the properties within the MPE, but two species have been recorded nearby and have a high likelihood of occurring: Phongolo Suckermouth and Shortfin Barb. Freshwater Ecosystems Priority Areas in the MPE are represented by Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) that include CBA: Rivers (Assegaai River and its tributaries, the Mobola, Mkuzase and Mawandlane Rivers, and the Wakkerstroom River) and CBA: Wetlands (mostly in the northern half of the MPE), as well three different Ecological Support Areas (ESA). The entire MPE is classified as an ESA: Important Sub-catchments, while most of the mountains and hills within the MPE fall within ESA: Strategic Water Source Areas, and several wetlands in the south-western corner of the MPE fall in an ESA: Wetland Cluster. Map 5: Vegetation Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT MASOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT ] ..!.;"..7 Emma Identified for the Mabola Fon= Identified for the Mabole Protected Environment Protected Enviroistrent ..0•71 Arterial/Mein Road Arterial/Main Road Major Secondary Road L Major Secondary Road Non-paternal Rivet Nooperenrael River Perennial River Perennial River Vittland Vkaland St It Structure/Homestead 1- a'ttf Built Structure/Homestead 7 National Heritage Site MAMBO E=1 National Heritage Site ISANBIl (1 Protected Ares IMBSP 2013) Protected Area (WISP 20131 DISTURBED LAND RED DATA SPECIES 111111 Exotic Invasive Vegetation (FAUNA/FLORA) Species of Conservation Concrim 11111 Execrations and Erosion 111111 Endangered MN Vulnerable Declining Ng Rare auk Not Threatened lin toast Concern Unknown N 0 Skrn 0 MINN MINNIE t--- tree “14' Map 6: Disturbed / Degraded Land - Exotic and Invasive species distribution, excavations and erosion scars. Map 7: Distribution of Red Data Species Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 13 2.2.2.2 Topography and terrain morphology 2.2.3 The Abiotic (non-living) environment Maps 8, 9 and 10 respectively illustrate the relief, slope and terrain morphology of the MPE. The southern portions of 2.2.2.1 climate the MPE straddle the escarpment, commonly referred to as the 'little berg', an extension of the Drakensberg mountain The Wakkerstroom area receives approximately 790 mm average annual rainfall mostly falling in the summer range. Elevation varies dramatically from 2100m in the south, to 1300m in the north (800m rise over a distance of months (Figure 5). The driest month is June with 8 mm. Most precipitation falls in January, with an average of about 18km). This is significant in terms of diversity of habitat and microclimate. 133 mm. The area is characterised by mountainous terrain with deeply incised valleys and prominent ridge and escarp lines. The temperature regime is described as mild temperate, with a cool to cold winter and warm summer. The average Slope or gradient varies from shallow gentle gradients associated with the undulating plains and hills in the north, to annual temperature in Wakkerstroom is 14.1 °C. The warmest month of the year is January with an average very steep gradients, in excess of 25%, associated with the mountainous terrain in the central and southern portions temperature of 18.3 °C. In June, the average temperature is 8.1 T, (the lowest average temperature of the of the MPE. year).The average temperatures vary during the year by 10.2 T. Frost is common in the winter. 2.2.2.3 Geology, geomorphology, soils and land types -r "c Altitude: 2779e Climate: Cwb Geologically, the MPE is dominated by sedimentary deposits of the Ecca Group of the Karoo Supergroup. This includes the following sedimentary deposits: (adapted from:http://www.dwafgov.za/Groundwater/Groundwater Dictionary/ ) The Vryheid Formation comprises mudrock, rhythmite, siltstone and fine- to coarse-grained sandstone (pebbly in places). The Formation contains up to five (mineable) coal seams. The different lithofacies are mainly arranged in upward-coarsening deltaic cycles (up to 80m thick in the southeast). Fining-upward fluvial cycles, of which up to six are present in the east, are typically sheet-like in geometry, although some form valley-fill deposits. They comprise coarse-grained to pebbly, immature sandstones - with an abrupt upward transition into fine-grained sediments and coal seams. Volksrust formation, prominent in the south east. This consists of grey to black, silty shale with thin, usually Figure 2: Wakkerstroom climate graph bioturbated, siltstone or sandstone lenses and beds, particularly towards its upper and lower boundaries. Thin phosphate and carbonate beds and concretions are relatively common. The Karoo Dolerite formation (Karoo Supergroup), is a fine grained igneous intrusion that dominates the lithology of month 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 the area. ME 133 108 78 45 18 8 14 16 38 86 125 123 18.3 17.9 16.8 14.2 11.1 8.1 8.2 10.9 14.0 15.6 16.6 17.8 The Vryheid Formation and Volksrust Formations are intruded by numerous Jurassic-aged dolerite dykes and sills, °C (min1 12.4 12.1 10.7 7.3 3.5 a.3 0.2 3.0 6.4 8.5 10.5 11.6 which have significant impacts on groundwater flow. The proposed Yzermyn Underground Coal Mine targets the coal 'mx 23.8 23.0 21.1 18.7 16.P seams which occur within the Vryheid Formation Figure 3: Wakkerstroom climate table Soils and landtypes Map 12 illustrates the distribution of soil types with the MPE. The area is dominated by the following soils (as per the tr SOTER Soil Association Map): February 2015 Page 14 ... Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 -.•\ ..•---I ?,.._ Black and red, strongly structured clayey soils with high base status (association of Vertisols, Phaoezems, MABOL4 PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT Kastanozems and Nitisols. In addition one or more Leptosols, Calcisols and Cambisols may be present). lef_i Farms Identified for the Mebote Red and yellow, massive or weakly structured soils with low to medium base status (association of Protected Environment cZ Arterial/Main Road well drained Ferralsols, Acrisols and Lixisols). 11 Major Secondary Road E7 Non-perennial Rive- Red, yellow and greyish soils with low to medium base status (association of Ferralsols, Acrisols, Lixisols Perennial River and Plinthosols. In addition, other soils with plinthic and gleyic properties may also be present). - W e t l a n d .1 Built Structure/Homestead r- Soils with a marked clay accumulation (association of Luvisols, Planosols and Solonetz. In addition 1 National Hentage Site (SAN8d • Protected Artie 1518SP one or more of Plinthosols, Vertisols and Cambisols may be present). 2013) SHADED RELIEF Soils with minimal development, usually shallow on hard or weathering rock, with or without intermittent Elevation above sea level Intl 1340 L 1820 diverse soils (association of Leptosols, Regosols, Calcisols and Durisols. In addition one or more of Cambisols 111111 1380 = 1860 and Luvisols may be present. 1420 E7 1800 1480 E7 1940 See maps 11 and 12. FM Iwo 1 1980 1-1 1540 1 ___ 1 2020 I I Imo _ 2080 2.2.2.4 Hydrology and aquatic systems I 1 iazo 1 12100 = 18130 = 2140 The MPE falls within two Quaternary catchments: voo L_I 2180 1:311 174o 12220 RIO Catchment W51A (Assegaai, Mawandlane and Mabola rivers), draining north east, and 1780 Catchment V31A (Wakkerstroom and Slang rivers) draining westwards. 5km It is significant that the Assegaai, Mawandlane and Mabola rivers originate largely within the MPE, whilst the Wakkerstroom and Slang rivers originate in the neighbouring Tafelkop Nature Reserve and Oshoek National Heritage Site. It is also noteworthy that the Phongolo River has its source within the MPE (a mere 2-3 kilometres away from the source of the Mabola) before meandering south eastwards into KwaZulu Natal. Catchment W51A (Assegaai, Mawandlane and Mabola rivers), drains north east as the Assegaai River, feeding the Heyshope Dam, and ultimately passing through Swaziland as the Great Usuthu River. The latter crosses into Mozambique, converging with the Phongolo River, before becoming the Maputo River on its final leg into the Indian Ocean. It is of great interest that the Assegaai and Phongola have their source a couple of kilometres apart, and ultimately reunite some 200 km to the east. The Wakkerstroom River flows south into the Slang River, and ultimately feeds the mighty Tugela River system. The MPE is rich in natural springs and wetlands, and coupled with the high rainfall, it serves a vital hydrological function in terms of water production, filtration and flow regulation. The many wetlands and riverine areas are important habitats for a variety of birds, animals, invertebrates, reptiles and aquatic organisms. The MPE is therefore identified in the MBSP as important for water yield within the larger primary water catchment, and as a freshwater ecosystem priority area. Map 8: Relief See map 13. Mab E: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page is MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT Rams Identified for the Mabole Ferns Identified for the Mabola Protected Environment Protected Environment r 1;W i Arterial/Main Rood .11 Arterial/Main Road ____ Major Secondary Road i 7 1 L_J Non-perennial River ____ Major Secondary Road C71 Perennial River ____ I Non-perennial River NMI Wattle Perennial River N-7.1 Built Structure/Homestead 111111Aletfand 1=1 National Heritage Site ISANBI) 1,-C;71' Built Structure/Homestead El I= Protected Ansa (MBSP 2013) National Heritage Site (SANE)) El Protected Area IMBSP 2013) SLOPE TERRAIN MORPHOLOGY ____ Less than10% (1:10 / 6.7 degrees) all Sigh Mountains Mountains MIK 10- 26% (1:4114 degrees) IIII and Tall Mlle Greater than 25% Strongly Undulating Plains and Hills II Undulating Plains/Valley (VLbkkerstroom Valley) EMI Plains 5km 61cm Map 10: Terrain morphology Map 9: Slope ,...... N27 February 2015 Page 16 Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 —r- D ' 1, MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT ;,/".. Farms Identified for the Mebole ___ Farms Identified for the Niebole Protected Environment Protected Environment . .etfe: Arterial/Main Road ri.4 Arterial/Mein Road Major Secondary Road 1;71 Major Secondary Road = Non-perennial River I _ I Non-perenniel River F.71 Perennial River On Perennial River all wetland 111111111Wetland Bull Structure/Homestead Buih Structure/Homestead = National Heritage Site (SANBIl ___ National Heritage Site (SANBI) ---1 ! Protected Area IMBSP 2013) r ___ . Protected Area IMBSP 2013) SOILS (SOTER Soil Association Map) GEOLOGY Black and red, strongly structured Medium- to coarse- grained clayey soils with high base status sandstone; micaceous shale; (association of Vertsols, Pheoezems, coal 1Castanozerns and MOWs _ Doterite M addition one or more Leptoaols, Calcisols end Carnbisols may be Alluvium present! Sandstone, mudstene and silt- = Red and yellow, massive or weakly stone with thin coal seems structured soils with low to __ Shale medium base status (association of well drained Farralsols, Adige!' and Lbilsold Red, yellow and greyish soda with low to medium base status (association of Ferreted", Acrisole, Liximes and PlInthosols. In addition, other soils with plinthic end gleyic properties may also be present) Soils with a marked clay accumulation (association of Luvlsols, Planosols and Solonetz. In addition one or more of Plinthasols, Vertisols end Cambisols may be present) - E" : Soils with minimal development, usually shallow on hard or weathering rock, with or without intermittent diverse soils lassocletion of Leptosols, Regosola Calcisols and Durisols. In addition one or more of Cambisols and Luvisols may be present) S k m Map 11: Geology Map 12: Soils February 2015 Page 17 Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015- 2019 ,...e) 2.3 THE SOCIO-POLITICAL-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT IHALIOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT '1%71 Farms Identified for the Mabola The MPE, situated within the Pixley ka Isaka Seme Local Municipality (PKISLM), is characterised as a privately owned, Protected Erryironment Arterial/Main Road rural agricultural land use and scattered rural homestead settlements. Agriculture, primarily in the form of extensive Major Secondary Road No River livestock grazing, is the major contributor to the gross geographic product in the municipal area. Other than Perennial River agriculture, the area is a favoured ecotourism destination, attracting many birding enthusiasts, locally and abroad. 1-.7111.: Wetland :•••;.•• Built Structure/Homestead The broader area also supports mining, mainly coal, and commercial forestry. ____ National Heritage Site (SANG)) The PKISLM covers an area of 5 227krnz and supports a population of 83 235, and 19 838 households. The population (-1 Protected Ares WIMP 2013) growth is estimated at 0.30% p.a. and the unemployment rate is high at 36.10%. HYDROLOGY Ouatemary Catchments (http://www.localgovernment.co.za/locals/view/153/dr-pixlev-ka-isaka-seme-local-municipality) W51A Asseassi, Mawandlane and Mabola Other key features of the area include extensive rural settlements to the north east of the MPE (Dirkiesdorp and W518 Aeseassi and Ngularne KwaNgema), and Wakkerstroom to the south west. The properties that comprise the KPE are all privately owned and are W42A Phongoto and Pendell° currently not subject to any land claims. IrIEb V31A Wakkerstroom and Slang 1-7 Ftiverivlister COMO 32m Saner 2.4 THE CULTURAL HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT The Wakkerstroom / Luneberg area has a very significant cultural history that is traceable to the earliest African and Um European settlers. There is a long record of peaceful and warlike encounters between various people groups that makes for very interesting reading. Of particular importance is the fact that this area, which was owned by the Swazi tribe, was settled by German settlers as part of a deal negotiated by the Swazi's in the 1800's to act as a buffer against the predations of the warlike Zulus. Evidence of these earlier generations, remain across the area in the form of graves, buildings and other structures. The majority of the farm owners and managers in the greater MPE and KPE area, are between 3rd and 5th generation families of German descent who have kept much of their original heritage. The cultural history of the area adds value to the Protected Environment and should be considered in a separate cultural heritage management plan. Similarly, the labourers on the farms are generally between 3rd and 5th generation occupants and have good working relationship with the farmers.1 Cultural historic features identified on the MPE include graves and Boer War blockhouses, and are illustrated on Map 14. 'Adapted from: MTPA (2010).KwoMandlangampisi Protected Environment Five Year Management Plan 2011-2016. Unpublished 1111) Map 13: Hydrology 1 report, Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency, Nelspruit, South Africa. Vs, ______41.1 Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page /s ID 2.5 THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT The greater Wakkerstroom area, up to and beyond Luneberg in the east, is renowned for its natural splendour and Farms Identified for the Malvin Protected Ertvfroriment breath-taking views and vistas. The mountainous topography and gentle rolling hills provide a picture perfect Arterial/Main Road Major Secondary Road backdrop in almost any direction. The paucity of development and major through roads adds to the aesthetic value of Non-perennial River ____ Reserve& Myer the environment. 11.11 V•ttland _____ Built Structure/Homestead Although the spectre of coal mining continuously looms large, the area has largely escaped this threat, and the . r 1 National Heritage Site MANS!) - consequential visual, acoustic, traffic arid dust related aesthetic impacts. F1 Protected Area (AMP 20131 CULTURAL HISTORICAL SITES The MPE, by virtue of the topography, includes pockets of land that remain visually secluded from any outside I &aye Site interferences. These areas, generally located in the lower lying parts of secluded valleys, can still provide the * Nock House observer with a feeling of being in a true wilderness. Map 15 provides a Visual Assessment, illustrating zones of lower or higher exposure to main roads and populated places. This map was generated using thousands of points along such roads and populated places to determine the frequency of visual exposure within the study area. Map 16, Zones of Visual Influence, illustrates a visual footprint area, beyond and adjacent to the MPE, that would be visible from a significant portion of the MPE. Development within this visual footprint, or 'Zone of Visual Influence' could negatively impact on the aesthetic qualities of the MPE. Consequently, the management authority of the MPE should remain vigilant to any potential large scale developments within this area (especially mining operations), and Sem should engage in any EIA related processes within this area. irk 664. KivaZulu-Ntivei 11 Oudehartersai t .A,;01 %. Map 14: Cultural historic features Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 , .1"10 IVIABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT -.,#)*••' Farms Identified for the ir,".• Farms Identified foe the Mabel* • Mebole Protected Environment Protected Environment Arterial/Main Road ___ Arterlal/Mein Road Major Secondary Road [2f3 Major Secondary Road Non-perennial River I ___ l Nen-perennial River . Perennial River ____ Perennial River Wetland ill We tland Built Structure/Homestead NT-f Bu) StructuretHomestead E: National Heritage Site (SANS') National Heritage Site (SANS) F-1 Protected Area IMSSP 20131 Ti Protected Area IMSSP 20131 VISUAL ASSESSMENT Zones of Lamy or Higher AREAV1EWSHEO _ PROTECTION Visual Exposure Mebola Protected Environment (based on terrain observations IMPE Core Areal tviewshed analyses) from major roads and populated pieces) Viewshed Protection Area (This zone represents areas where developments Zone of Very Low Visual Exposure or activities could influence (remote and visuallY secluded) the aesthetic Welty of the Zone of tow Visual Exposure MPEI Zone of High Visual Exposure IIIII Zone of Very High Visual Exposure (exposed vantage points) N w r 5km • 0 11111111111 • Map 15: Visual exposure Map 16: Zones of visual influence February 2015 Page zo ( a c . , (Is4) abola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 2.6 SIGNIFICANCE V.T.O. LANDSCAPE PERSPECTIVE / REGIONAL CONTEXT / Approximately two-thirds of the MPE has been designated as Critical Biodiversity Areas, i.e. areas that are essential INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT / BIODIVERSITY for meeting biodiversity targets for species, ecosystems or ecological processes, while much of the northern third of the MPE is classified as an ESA: Local Corridor. This is an area that is not essential for meeting biodiversity targets, 2.6.1 Introduction but supports the functioning of adjacent CBAs and is important for ecosystem service delivery. The Wakkerstroom environment is widely recognised as an area of some of the most sensitive and unique The properties within the MPE are categorised within the MBSP as: biodiversity in the country. The area is acknowledged as having high biodiversity, categorised as a Critical 65,6 % Critical Biodiversity Area (5,644.5 ha); Biodiversity Area in the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan. The National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 16,8 % Ecological Support Area (1,443.2 ha); (Driver et. al. 2005) also identifies the area as important for biodiversity conservation and the National Protected 6,5 % Other Natural Areas (558,4 ha); and Areas Expansion Strategy (SANBI & DEAT 2008) as well as the Mpumalanga Protected Area Expansion Strategy 10,8% Modified Areas (926.7 ha). (MTPA, 2009) identifies the area as important for protected area expansion on account of the largely un- This implies that quantifiable targets for the conservation of specific terrestrial biodiversity features for the fragmented and intact grassland ecosystem. province cannot be met within any other land other than within the protected environment. 2.6.2 Links to other protected areas The key biodiversity features driving the Critical Biodiversity of the area are due to the presence of threatened species, the summit escarpment, large montane grassland patch, important forest patches and The MPE must be seen in the broader context within this region of Mpumalanga and extending into Kwazulu-Natal critical water sub-catchments. See map 17. Province, whereby current and future efforts are being undertaken to declare protected areas. Most of the MPE properties are close or adjacent to the declared KwaMandlangampisi Protected Environment (KPE) 2.6.4 National and Provincial Expansion Strategies and are strategically positioned to link and form a corridor with other properties to the KPE in the east. The KPE in The National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (SANBI & DEAT, 2008) classifies the area of the MPE turn, forms a corridor linking the lower-lying grasslands to the south and east to the higher-lying grasslands to the as part of a larger area identified for protected area expansion within the grassland biome. north and west. The KPE also links up two protected areas: Phongola Bush Nature Reserve and Paardeplaats Nature The MPE has been identified within the Mpumalanga Protected Area Expansion Strategy (MTPA, 2009) as an Reserve. In this respect, both the MPE and the KPE form a very important linkage and corridor in the broader important zone for protected area expansion and contains vast un-fragmented grasslands and irreplaceable landscape. biodiversity features. The properties within the MPE are identified as mainly priority 1 and priority 2 areas for The MPE also shares common boundaries with the Tafelkop Private Nature Reserve and Oudehoutdraai and Oshoek protected area expansion within the Mpumalanga Protected Area Expansion Strategy. These categories reflect the National Heritage Site (SANBI) in the south-west. It is not inconceivable that a conservation corridor be established biodiversity significance of the area for the province and the country. See Map 18. linking the KPE and MPE to the Wakkerstroom Wetland Nature Reserve on the outskirts of the town. The relative proportion of the MPE towards Protected Area Expansion targets as per the NPAES and MPAES is 2.6.3 Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan (terrestrial biodiversity) as follows: The Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan and the biodiversity baseline description in this report clearly indicate that, Table 3: Relative Proportion of the PE towards PA Expansion Targets while all untransformed natural habitat within the MPE is of conservation importance, certain portions of land have higher priority than others. Some areas support a greater proportion of key biodiversity features than others, such as 1! threatened flora and fauna, threatened vegetation types, wetlands and indigenous forest patches. Certain portions of 1 MPAES & NPAES 4808 56 land support more key landscape features that maintain ecological and evolutionary processes, as well as important 2 MPAES 3703 43 ecological infrastructure features such as migration corridors for flora and fauna. 3 NPAES 13 1 Page 22 Mabola PE: Management Plan 515-2019 February 2015 2.6.5 National Threatened Ecosystems The IDP further recommends that an Integrated Precinct Plan be developed for the Wakkerstroom area, which will ensure: The MPE falls within a listed threatened ecosystem in terms of Section 52 of NEM: BA as an endangered ecosystem —The Wakkerstroom/Luneburg Grasslands Threatened Ecosystem. The responsible development of the tourism sector; The responsible management of natural resources; 2.6.6 Aquatic Biodiversity Significance The sustainable socio-economic development of the area; The aquatic biodiversity significance of these properties includes some areas which are 84% irreplaceable and The sustainable economic development of the area; mostly highly significant according to the MBCP. This is due to the fact that the aquatic biodiversity targets have Applicable land use planning and management to support all activities. been selected in healthy sub-catchments of which this area qualifies. Spatially, the IDP defines the MPE and surrounds as a Primary Tourism Corridor, Ecological Corridor, and Biodiversity The area is also identified as important for water yield within the larger primary water catchment and as a Conservation Node. The IDP report does not, unfortunately, describe or qualify these terms. However, the IDP is freshwater ecosystem priority area. outcome orientated (as per the National Development Plan), and hereunder describes the '...Protection and enhancement of environmental assets and natural resources...' as a key outcome. This outcome focusses on 2.6.7 Pixley ka Isaka Seme Local Municipality Integrated Development Plan (IDP) enhancing the quality and quantity of water resources, and the protection of biodiversity amongst others. In The Pixley ka Isaka Seme Local Municipality (PKISLM) IDP identifies the Wakkerstroom — Luneberg as an terms of the latter, targets include rehabilitating wetlands, the reduction of deforestation, and the increase of land under conservation. area with'...high potential for additional tourism and agriculture development and growth...'.It further notes that the PKSLM municipal area '...is strategically important because it contains the sources of three river systems, 2.6.8 Wakkerstroom - Luneburg Agriculture & Biodiversity Conservation including an important source of water for the Gauteng region...'. Demonstration Area The IDP recognises that: The MPE falls within the 182 000 hectare Wakkerstroom - Luneburg Agriculture & Biodiversity Conservation Tourism in Wakkerstroom is largely based (and reliant on) on ornithological eco-tourism and outdoor Demonstration Area (WLABCDA), a SANBI and DEA project initiative. Almost 80% of this area remains in its nature based activities. natural state and a population of 45 771 people are resident in the project area. The area has been selected The area has the potential to become a major destination for domestic as well as foreign tourists, due to the for its high biodiversity significance; because the primary land uses are red meat and wool production, uniqueness of the area in terms of varied habitats that include wetlands, grasslands and forests and which are highly compatible with biodiversity conservation; and because there is institutional capacity and especially the large variety abundance of bird species associated with those habitats. willingness for implementation. The objective of this initiative is as follows: The Wakkerstroom Wetland Reserve is the main centre for bird watching in South Africa. To ensure that major production sectors ore directly contributing to the achievement of biodiversity The IDP clearly earmarks the area for tourism development and '....will entail an emphasis on access to a quality conservation priorities within the grasslands biome. tourism experience for both international and domestic tourists, and for current as well as future generations..: The IDP goes on to identify the following goals in support of tourism development in the area by targeting the following The programme objective will then be achieved through the following five areas of intervention: three broad goals: Strengthening the enabling environment for biodiversity conservation in production landscapes Tourism development in the area should aim to improve the quality of human life; Mainstreaming grassland biodiversity conservation objectives into agriculture Economic growth through tourism development; Ensuring the forestry sector contributes directly to biodiversity conservation objectives in the grasslands Equitable access to the benefits of tourism development; biome Sustainable use and protection of resources for tourism development. Mainstreaming grassland biodiversity management objectives into the urban economy of Gauteng Securing biodiversity management in the coal mining sector (http://www.rodoyo.com/grasslands/) Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 22 MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT Lel Farms Identified for the Mabola Farms Identified for the Maim& Protected Environment Protected Environment 121 Arterieghtein Road Wen Arterlal/Main Road Major Secondary Road i;331 Maier Secondary Road ___ J Non-perennial River ____ Nemperennial Rivet ___ Perennial River r?:1 Perennial River 11111 Wetland Wetland Win Structureflirrmesteed N•71 Built Structure/Homestead National Herdage Site (SANDI) National Heritage Site (SAM/ - 1 7 Protected Area IMBSP 20131 [fl Protected Area IMBSP 2013) MPUMALANGA BIODIVERSITY NP310NALMPLIMALANGA SECTOR PLAN 2013 Terrestrial INPAES/MPAES) - CBA Level 1 PROTECTED AREAS EXPANSION STRATEGIES III Critical Biodiversity Area . NPAES Priority INN Ecological Support MN MPAES Priority Area MN Other Natural Areas all all Combined NPAES & MPAES Protected Areas Priority 11111 Modified Protected Area _____ 111.A. 5km *Oa* xv.,M,oltdfmkowlicit. 404 P1,11,c; 0-4! amv,,nremnt Map 17: Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan (MBSP) Map 18: NPAES & MPAES (combined map) Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 23 Value+2 where the feature is deemed to be sensitive (e.g. ESAs or vegetation types that are critically endangered 2.7 SENSITIVITY VALUE ANALYSIS or threatened) 2.7.1 Approach Value+1 where the feature is deemed to be sensitive due to its natural status (e.g. other natural areas that are The methodology for the determination of the environmental sensitivity index for the Mabola Protected Environment not modified/transformed) (MPE) is based on an adapted (simplified) version of the Sensitivity-Value Analysis Zonation Process for Blyde Canyon Value 0 where the feature is deemed to be neither sensitive, nor permanently transformed (i.e. old agricultural National Park as undertaken by Dr. Stephen Hotness for the IUCN (The World Conservation Union). fields) Value -1 where the feature is deemed to be of low environmental significance (e.g. built-up land or open cast 2.7.2 Input layers mines/quarries) The input data/information sourced seek to address the various facets that make up the environmental sensitivity of The features present within each of the data categories (input layers) are displayed in the legend/key of each map the Protected Environment. These include: and was awarded one of the above values. Biodiversity The environmental sensitivity index displays the result of the combined rating for each facet, with values ranging Habitat value - vegetation map (Northern Afrotemperate Forest) from greater than 6 (very high sensitivity) to 0 (lower sensitivity — e.g. the coal mine). Terrestrial Biodiversity (MBSP 2013 — CBAs, ESA and other natural area) The environmental sensitivity classification is a simplification of the index. Facets with a zero value on the Habitat transformation - land cover map (all natural land cover types are deemed sensitive) sensitivity index are considered to have a lower environmental sensitivity, a value of one indicates a moderate Topographic — terrain morphology and slope (elevated and scenic topographical features and steep slopes sensitivity, a value of two or three indicates high sensitivity, and a value of four or more indicate very high sensitivity. are sensitive) Where the value for any of the input data categories was negative, the default sensitivity classification is very low Soils map (display and information purposes only) (e.g. the coal mine). In this case the classification may include proposed remedial action, e.g. that environmental Hydrological sensitivity - hydrology map (water courses, water bodies, wetlands and aquatic habitats) rehabilitation may be required. Geology map (display and information purposes only) Some features may be considered to be of critical importance (e.g. hydrological features that have both an Identified Red Data Species — species of conservation concern (where present they are included as special inherently high environmental value (habitat) as well as a significant function (drainage) within the environment) and management areas) may be considered as environmental overrides, which will be awarded the highest value on each sensitivity index Aesthetic (critical importance). Zonation Visual assessment — zones of lower visual exposure (remotely located and visually enclosed areas are sensitive due to the absence of visual clutter and human activities) The result of the above process will aid in the identification of broad land use/conservation zones and ultimately a draft zonation/management plan for the MPE that is both transparent and scientifically defensible. Other factors, Heritage such as existing developments within the area, infrastructure cost, existing access roads and farming activities, etc. Cultural historical sites - cultural historical sites e.g. graves and cemeteries (where present they are included as may influence the final zonation/management plan. special management areas) The ultimate purpose of the environmental sensitivity mapping exercise and the resultant zonation process is aimed at 2.7.3 Sensitivity Value Ratings striking a balance between environmental protection and the development required to meet the broader economic and social objectives of the MPE. The value rating for this project is: See maps 19 and 20. Value+3 where the feature is deemed to be highly sensitive (e.g. CBAs) Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 24 77 MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT 11. MABOUt PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT Ce?..- Farms Identified for the Mabola Farms Identified for the Mabola Protected Errrironment Protected Environment r.e• Arterial/Main Road EZ) Arterial/Main Road Major Secondary Road cer!'n Major Secondary Road Non-perennial River Non-perennial River _____ Perennial River Perennial River Wetland Wetland a Suitt Structure/Homestead Built Structure/Homestead =:1 -- _____ National Heritage She (SANB1) National Heritage Site4SANBI) r r ____ 1 Protected Area (MBSP 20131 7. Protected Area IMBSP 20131 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY CLASSIFICATION SENSMVITY INDEX 111111 Very tow Sensitivity < 0 Very Low (Rehabilitation required) low SeretItivrty la 1 IN Moderate Sensitivity 7.7.: 2 High Sensitivity 1116 3 Very High Sensitivity 4 Critical Importance 5 > (Very High N 0 a Zulu -N atal • • . • Map 19: Environmental sensitivity index Map 20: 20: Environmental sensitivity classification Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 25 2.8 SUMMARY OF OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS Table 4 below captures the key issues that have been identified in the preceding conservation and resource utilization mandates. These issues are described in terms of the opportunities they may offer, or the constraints that they present in terms of the management of the MPE. Table 4: Opportunities and Constraints — - • Accessible from main tourist feeder areas. • Wakkerstroom is a popular area for birding, attracting local and international visitors (high levels of In terms of attractions, the area is very much focused on birding and may • Product development will need to take TOURISM LANDSCAPE awareness). not be as attractive to any other tourism markets. place in the MPE itself to attract tourists • The town of Wakkerstroom provides diverse Currently, there is no tourism specific infrastructure or products in the MPE. from Wakkerstroom to this specific area. tourist accommodation. • Most of the infrastructure on farms in the MPE is privately owned and therefore privately maintained. • Management plan action item — (minimizing challenges associated with government • Impacts of road upgrades on wetlands in the MPE is a significant issue which INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES engage with relevant roads authorities owned and managed infrastructure). needs to be addressed. regarding impact of public roads on • The MPE is well serviced with ESKOM power. wetland functioning. • A coordinated and sustained effort • Coal mining is a constant threat. The existing open cast mine on Loskop farm, and to contest current and future mining the potential for a new underground mine on the Yzermyn farm, and coal mining applications is required. CURRENT LAND USE • The area provides very good winter grazing for on the adjacent Inmalkaar farm, collectively pose a significant threat to biodiversity • The management plan must clearly cattle/sheep farmers. and tourism potential of the area. describe the legal rights and • Lack of understanding and compliance with relevant legislation by landowners (i.e. requirements of landowners in terms of construction of dams and other infrastructure without relevant approvals). environmental compliance. • The area hosts a range of endangered and threatened species. • Soil erosion is a perennial problem, especially evident along old disused tracks along • Preservation of biodiversity, the • The area has a good diversity of habitat types which mountain sides. rehabilitation of degraded land and the adds to a good diversity of species. • Exotic invasive plant species including black wattle, poplar and fire-candles BIODIVERSITY neutralizing of threats to conservation • The MPE is located adjacent to the KPE, and • Bush encroachment, especially Ouhout (Leucosidea sericea) efforts, are key performance areas that strategically positioned to expand existing protected • Illegal hunting (with trained hunting dogs) and poaching (snares) is a common need to be addressed in the management areas within this region of the province. problem and threat to the biodiversity of the area. plan. • The traditional farming community in the MPE is well • Very high unemployment rates translates into crime (including stock theft), and • established and a supportive platform to implement The management plan must address SOCIO POLITICAL ground root and political support for non-sustainable short term economic projects of this nature. resource utilization options, to the benefit development such as mining. of the landowners and local community. • The participating landowners have established a Landowner Association which has committed to • The management plan must address an implementing the management plan. • Specific communities and landowners surrounding the MPE do not necessarily outreach and educational initiative, aimed INSTITUTIONAL • The Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency has support the project or land use. Most of these communities or landowners are not at sensitizing neighbours to the benefits committed to provide support in terms of the overall sensitized to the value of conservation. of the MPE. management of the area and to provide technical input as and when required. 11r. 0 Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 26 Table 4: Opportunities and Constraints (cont.) ISSUE OPPORTUNITIES STRENGTHS .,..CONSTRAINTS /THREAT The area has a good range of Heritage features, especially from the Anglo Boer War period (blockhouses, post house and other historic buildings). Bushman/San paintings can be found in the region. Although the value of cultural historic features are acknowledged by landowners, Historic farmsteads, which are still working farms, levels of interpretation and protection are very low. This could therefore have a could be included in the tourism product from an The management plan must include a long term impact on these features and they will eventually no longer play a role CULTURAL HISTORICAL interpretation point of view. heritage survey and mapping exercise, in the cultural or tourism landscape. There is a large amount of oral history in the area, to update the existing database. The precise location and distribution of cultural historical features is not well held by local farmers/residents. This however needs known or well mapped. to be captured more effectively for utilization in products and for the benefit of future generations One of the main attractions in the area is the open Development of mines and other industrial/commercial activities in the area The management plan must address landscape and the attractive views in the area. surrounding the MPE could have visual and noise impacts on the Aesthetic initiatives by the management authority, AESTHETIC The farming practices add value to the sense of place. Value and associated sense of place of the area. to monitor and contest inappropriate Opportunity to protect and conserve Critical development on the doorstep of the MPE. Biodiversity features including threatened species, the summit escarpment, large montane grassland patches, important forest patches and critical water The presence of Critical Biodiversity features requires that significant limitations be Resolve any conflicts in the land use zoning VALUE AND SIGNIFICANCE sub-catchments. placed on current and future land use practices, where conflict may or does occur. and management plans. ______)144 Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 27 [Jr\ Jy tl Photo 3: Soil erosion along the foot slopes and drainage lines Photo 4: Bush encroachment, especially Ouhout (Leucosidea Photo 5: Eradication of black wattle, - timber used for charcoal Photo 6: Open cast coal mine on Loskop farm. sericea) production Photo 7: Traditional building styles complement the scenery. Photo 8: Poorly designed culverts regime of wetlands. Photo 9: Cattle farming is the main form of livelihood in the MPE. Photo 10: The Assegaai river has its source in the MPE. Photo 11: Local labourers resident in the MPE are reliant on Photo 12: The MPE includes cultural historical sites, including the Photo 13: Charcoal kilns on the farm Loskop, for the processing of Photo 14: Idyllic Wakkerstroom town nestled below the subsistence agriculture. remnants of Boer War blockhouses. harvested alien invasive trees. Ossewakop (2176m) PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 28 Photo 15: Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland Vegetation Type Photo 16: Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland Vegetation Type Photo 17: Northern Afromontane Forest Vegetation Type (Photo: W Photo 18: Nerine platypetala (Photo: M Lotter) (Photo: W McCleland) (Photo: W McCleland) McCleland) Photo 19: Oribi (Endangered) (Photo: W Tarboton) Photo 20: Wattled Crane (Critically Endangered) (Photo: W Photo 21: Channelled Valley-bottom Wetland (Tributary of the Photo 22: Seep Wetland on the farm Platjesfontein (Photo: W Tarboton) Assegaai River (Photo: W McCleland) McCleland) Mabola PE: M:n.:ernent Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 29 PART THREE: STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK 3.1 VISION The Vision for the MPE, in terms of the aspirations for the area, the desired state, and the long terms management goals, Category 2: Utilization Management was established at a Stakeholders Workshop on the 23' September 2014, in Wakkerstroom. Objective 8: To manage and maintain sustainable resource utilization practices in such a way that the livelihoods of users are not compromised, whilst at the same time, the integrity of the natural, cultural To ensure that grassland and wetland conservation takes place, whilst maintaining historical and aesthetic environment is not threatened. Objective9: To encourage and foster non-consumptive utilization of the resource, specifically focussing on livelihoods from responsible and sustainable farming and tourism' eco-tourism, providing enlightening, participatory and interactive visitor experiences in a responsible manner Objective 10: To continuously foster and safeguard the image of the area as renowned birding destination; Objective 11: To develop and maintain appropriate infrastructure, services and utilities without compromising the 3.2 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ecological integrity of the area; Objective 12: To remain cognisant of, and responsive to, the provisions of the Pixley ka Isaka Seme Local Management objectives have been defined in support of the above vision, and address: Municipality Integrated Development Plan, which defines the area as a priority eco-tourism development node. Resource management (natural, man-made, socio economic, cultural historic and aesthetic values of the MPE) Utilization management (agriculture, mining, tourism) Category 3: Benefit Flow Management Benefit flow management Objective 13: To maintain and foster the eco-tourism potential of the MPE and agricultural sector, as a means to maximising economic development, job creation, and skills transfer and training. These objectives form part of a hierarchy, branching downwards from the vision to explicit technically stated targets. Key Objective 14: To maintain positive relations with interested and affected parties and key stakeholders, to ensure objectives defined in support of the Vision, include the following: effective participation in terms of matters of mutual interest, and in so doing contribute to the preservation of the protected area. Objective 15: To foster environmental awareness amongst the local communities. Category 1: Resource Management Objective 16: To manage existing human settlement and activities within the MPE, to minimize conflict with conservation Objective 1: To ensure the maintenance of terrestrial biodiversity and ecological processes, (with specific focus on objectives. wetlands and grasslands), within the MPE. Objective 2: To manage the natural and artificial aquatic resources and aquatic biodiversity, and safeguard the natural functioning and health of all aquatic systems within the MPE. Objective 3: To manage and safeguard viable populations of threatened and endangered plant species and veld types within the MPE. Objective 4: To manage and safeguard viable populations of fauna and avifauna, that are specifically adapted to this habitat. Objective 5: To manage and preserve existing cultural, archaeological and historical sites within the MPE. Objective 6: To monitor and engage with any adjacent external developments that may threaten the above listed objectives. Objective 7: To remain cognisant of, and responsive to, the provisions of the NEMPAA, and the inherent conservation values and significance of the MPE as defined in the MBSP. ola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 30 PART FOUR: LAND USE ZONING 4.1 APPROACH TO LAND USE ZONING Each zone is described in terms of defining characteristics, recommended management guidelines, appropriate activities and facilities, access types and roads. It was accepted at the first project workshop that the Conservation Development Framework (CDF) approach would be Refer to Map 21. used as the vehicle for establishing a land use zoning plan for the MPE. This approach to land use zoning has been adopted by the MTPA in the zoning of provincial nature reserves, and has become the standard for developing land use zoning plans for many protected areas in South Africa. NOTE: The Land Use Zoning Map extent covers the neighbouring KwaMandlangampisi Protected Environment, as this PE is A Conservation Development Framework (CDF) is a spatial plan which delineates land use zones, and also serves as a physically links the northern and south components of the MPE. management tool to reconcile conservation and development needs within a Protected Area. The CDF is based on an understanding of the PE's significance and sensitivity in terms of biophysical, heritage and scenic resources; and development and resource utilization needs, preferences, expectation. The CDF aims to ensure that the MPE's environmental integrity is not compromised whilst providing for sustainable utilization of the resource (in the case of the MPE, agriculture and perhaps limited tourism). Table 5 summarises the Land Use Zones and the Road Categories recommended for the MPE. The zoning exercise emanates from the previously determined opportunities and constraints of both the Conservation and the Resource Utilization Mandates, and responds to a range of informants, including: Environmental Sensitivity; Proximity to existing development and infrastructure; Nature of adjacent land uses; Tourism product development potential; and Safety and security concerns. The zones include: Terrestrial Zones; Special Management Overlay Zones (SMZ) SMZ's make allowance for special conservation areas, rehabilitation areas, land use that is not traditionally associated with conservation. In the case of the MPE, the latter would include cultivated lands. ) 14 M ola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 e l W1 February 2015 Page 31 G ib 4 1 1 1 1 1 j Table 5: Land Use Zones for the MPE LAND USE ACCESS / ROADS CHARACTERISTICS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES APPROPRIATE ACTIVITIES APPROPRIATE FACILITIES ZONE TYPE OF ROAD Note: Use Zones relate to visitor experiential qualities TERRESTRIAL ZONES In the context of the MPE, this area is as close to 'wilderness' as one may find within the PE. The Remote Zone should be primarily managed as a It is a largely unmodified natural landscape, conservation zone with specific focus on retaining Farming: Grazing of livestock should not easily accessible by road, mostly visually habitat integrity and ecosystem functioning, and be limited to period of fodder secluded, with very limited intermittent views preserving the natural state and wilderness shortage elsewhere, and at stocking Rustic overnight trails camps could of human activities and development outside character of the area. In this regard, no additional rates of 60-80 % below the be developed in this zone, as well of the PE. roads or tracks, structures or cultivated lands should commercial stocking rate, relevant as discreet viewpoints and hides. Access should be limited to REMOTE ZONE The Remote Zone is primarily defined by be developed within this zone. Where possible, to present condition. non-motorized access (RZ) sensitive landscapes, including wetlands, existing human disturbances should be removed and Tourism: This zone is ideally suited for (hiking, biking, horseback). rivers, steep slopes and ridge lines. As a rehabilitated over time. This should include degraded passive recreational pursuits, No farming related infrastructure None. result, the area is likely to include very high areas (alien infestations), and disturbed areas specifically nature appreciation (bird should be developed within this species diversity. (erosion, excavations, mining scars). watching etc.) via non-motorized zone. access (hiking, bridle and mountain The RZ may also include Habitat Corridors, Farmers should aim to limit the grazing of this area bike trails. (small fragments of natural habitat within the by commercial livestock to period of extraordinary or transformed portions of the farms that emergency conditions (i.e. drought, fire). connect the conservation areas). walks, low impactall- Farming: Grazing camps that are used Management of this zone should be focused on regularly for commercial livestock Limited and controlled The Primitive Zone is a transitional zone preserving the rural farmland appeal and character production and are thus grazed at a Ideally, all major farming motorized access on between the RZ and LIDZ, and includes of the area. sustainable commercial stocking rate infrastructure, including designated routes. All derelict structures and unused roads and tracks PRIMITIVE landscapes that are generally in a natural state, relative to present veld condition. , farmsteads staff housing sheds ZON , but may include limited transformed areas should be removed and rehabilitated. and barns should be located in the Ideally only 2-spoor Tourism: Primarilyame game Ideally, the long term objective for this zone (including cultivated lands, and small scale walks, hiking trails, LIDZ. weather farm tracks (Tr2 infrastructural development). should be focused on reclaiming and rehabilitating mountain bike trails, bird Small (<48 beds) permanent or as per table 6) should be old fallow and presently cultivated lands. watching, horseback trails, temporary low impact tourist camps permitted in this zone. adventure activities. are appropriate to this zone. Within the context of the MPE, This is a highly motorized This is an accessible, modified landscape, Management of this zone should strike a this zone may include area including public largely defined by farmsteads, cultivated lands LOW compromise between resource utilization and The LIDZ can farmsteads, staff through roads (tarred and and busy transportation corridors along main gravel), and access roads INTENSITY conservation. generally accommodate accommodation, workshops, public through roads. This landscape can to farmsteads and related DEVELOPMENT Management of this zone should be focused on an unrestricted range of tourism and sheds and barns, as well as absorb larger concentrations of people and can infrastructure. This zone ZONE (LIDZ) preserving the rural farmland appeal and character farming activities, including high tourist infrastructure such as accommodate infrastructure necessary for the of the area. density, high impact activities. lodges, B&B's, information can therefore accessibility and management of the area. centres, picnic sites etc. accommodate busses and delivery vehicles. Ma o February 2015 Page 32 46.) la PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 LAND USE ZONE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES APPROPRIATE ACTIVITIES APPROPRIATE FACILITIES ACCESS MANAGEMENT OVERLAYS Mainly for scientific and Scientific and conservation activities Areas of extreme sensitivity (e.g. red data Limited access area. only. None, pending EIA approval (for but some access for SPECIAL and endemic species). No vehicular access. example may include education and CONSERVATION Area of exceptional diversity, endemism As a rule, no development should be permitted boardwalks through wetland interpretation can be and rarity. within these areas, unless an EIA process is (BIODIVERSITY) areas) considered. Includes wetlands and seeps in the MPE. undertaken. No roads, pedestrian conservation measures, access only Specific areas of cultural historical or archaeological value, that require specific Access for tourism, protection against degradation, vandalism Limited access area. education and SPECIAL etc. As a rule no development (including restoration Any facilities must be carefully interpretation can be Scientific and conservation activities CONSERVATION In the context of the MPE, this may include and or demolition) should be permitted within planned and screened in an EIA considered. Access for tourists. (HERITAGE) gravesites, graveyards, buildings or these areas, unless an EIA or HIA process is or HIA process. Ideally, these areas structures protected under the National undertaken. should be accessed by Heritage Resources Act, bushman painting foot. etc. Total removal of all alien invasive plant species, with base zoning (PZ or RZ). This overlay zone includes all areas within REHABILITATION primary focus on the RZ, and secondly, the PZ. (INVASIVE the MPE that are currently infested with N/A No specific restrictions The goal is to reinstate this overlay zone to the Removal of timber can be used for EXOTIC SPECIES) alien invasive vegetation. charcoal production within the LIDZ. This overlay zone includes all areas within REHABILITATION the MPE that are currently degraded or Total rehabilitation of these areas, with primary (EXCAVATIONS, disturbed as a result or soil erosion, focus on the RZ, and secondly, the PZ. N/A N/A No specific restrictions MINING AND overgrazing, excavations (gravel pits etc.) The goal is to reinstate this overlay zone to the EROSION) and mining scars (tailings dumps, slimes base zoning (PZ or RZ). dams, etc.) Fallow lands should be allowed to rehabilitate and ultimately contribute to the grassland conservation This overlay zone includes fallow lands and effort. Provision of cultivation for cultivated lands that are used regularly for Cultivated lands should be keenly managed to commercial crop production. CULTIVATION commercial crop production and are thus N/A No specific restrictions ensure that they do not impact on the Limited opportunities for species ploughed, irrigated, harvested and conservation of sensitive biodiversity features of conservation replanted on a regular basis. the MPE (wetlands and seeps, riparian areas and rivers, etc.) The Viewshed Protection Zone defines The management authority of the MPE should areas adjacent to the MPE, that are VIEWSHED remain vigilant to any potential large scale visually exposed to the MPE. To the PROTECTION developments within this area (especially mining N/A N/A N/A extent that any major development within ZONE operations), and should engage in any EIA related this area will have a significant negative processes within this area. visual impact on the MPE. Is PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 33 4.2 APPROACH TO VEHICULAR CIRCULATION The road definitions used in the zoning descriptions have been taken from the MTPA Road Classification Definitions (Table 6 below), and are generally applied to nature reserves. These roads are described terms of type, substrate required, specified use, maximum speed limit and maintenance specifications. The Tr2 (2m wide 2 spoor tracks) and G2 (4m wide gravel) road categories are appropriate for the MPE (excluding provincial and district public through roads). Table 6: Proposed Road Categories for the CATEGORY ROAD TYPE SUBSTRATE USE ZONE MPE MAX. MAINTENANCE COMMENTS Cement strip Management access, other Primitive-, Low & SPEED Maintain by hand mowing, slashing or Intended for frequent use such as Two Cement strips, permitted activities. Mostly vehicles roads for various High Intensity tractor slasher. Maintenance & repairs of maintenance of hiking trail huts, pump Tr 1 single vehicle track that can handle off-road conditions, 20 km/h purposes of Development concrete strips. Slash middle & 1 meter on stations or other infrastructure. Also tourist width. however some routes may provide access. Zone both sides of road access to facilities. access for ordinary family vehicles. 11111pr Well vegetated, driven open, dirt two-trackMaintenance ....mr --r— Management access as well as Primitive-, Mr by hand mowing or tractor Intended for freii r.''" ,. has ' roads. cement permitted activities.(such as Remote-, Quiet-, slasher. No surface disturbance. Frequent maintenance of hiking trail huts, pump Tr 2 Vehicle tracks, strips/gravel filled in concessions). Vehicles that can Low & High 20 km/h water diversion structures. Cement strips stations or other infrastructure &/or game handle off-road conditions. Seasonal Intensity maximum 2 some sensitive or gabions in sensitive sections. Slash drives. Permit or concession agreement will use restrictions may apply. Fence Development meters wide. sections, stabilized middle & 1 meter on both sides of road. specify vehicle type & frequency use allowed. service roads. Zone river crossings. _____ Vehicle tracks Maintenance by hand mowing or tractor & Low frequency, management access maximum 2 Well vegetated driven slasher. No surface disturbance except for Not intended for frequent use. Restricted, routes, 4x4 vehicles only. (Fire Tr 3 meters wide. open, two track dirt All Zones 20 km/h erosion & water diversion structures. purpose only to provide defined access into management, Alien plant control, (Management roads. Slash middle & 1 meter on both sides of management areas. emergencies) access only). road if required. Low & High Gravel filled, compacted & shaped roads. Gravel, 4 to 6 Intensity 60 km/h or as Grading of road with road building plant as Intended for general dual directional G1 Gravel All vehicles meters width Development specified locally & when needed. Slash 1 to 2 m both sides traffic & frequent use. Roads that has Zone of road if required. potential to be upgraded to Ti roads. ." • . ,. .. Gravel ft , compacted & shaped roads. Primitive-, Low & 20 to 40km/h Follow-up grading generally not required, Gravel, maximum ' High Intensity Primarily intended for one way traffic & G2 Gravel All veht es depending on maintained by slashing (1 to 2) m both frequent use. Roads that has potential to be 4 meters width. Development sides, aPPrOpriate water diversion Zone, terrain .. . ,,..,.._. .., •.. upAraded to Gl, T 2 or C 1 roads. Major tourism High frequency use, Entrance to Low & High 60 to 100 km/h • routes, Tar, Paving bricks, park, Delivery of goods, All vehicle Intensity Specialised road surfacing equipment. Provincial roads, peripheral or other roads T 1 or as specified permanent Cement types, busses, caravans, Dual Development Slashing 1 to 2 meters both sides of road. connected to high intensity use. locally. surfaced directional. Zone Primitive-, Low & Other permanent Tar, Paving bricks, All vehicles including Tour busses, High Intensity 60 km/h or as Specialised road surfacing equipment. Restrictions on the frequency & types of T 2 surfaced Roads Cement cars, caravans, etc. Development specified locally Slashing 1 to 2 meters both sides of road. vehicles allowed may apply. Zone Cement roads Primitive-, Low & Access to specific facilities in park Single or sectional dual directional traffic (generally 3 but Full width cement High Intensity 20 to 40 km/h, Concrete work. Slashing 1 to 2 meters C 1 where terrain does not allow for width. Restrictions on the frequency & types up to 4 meters surface Development specified locally. both sides of road. other types of road surface of vehicles allowed. width) Zone la PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 34 4 . 3 RESOURCE UTILIZATION MASTER PLAN Hiking Horseback riding 4.3.1 Approach Mountain biking o Bird watching would undoubtedly be the main draw card, however, experiencing the scenic beauty, Resource utilization within the MPE, must primarily accommodate the current farming practices (cultivation and livestock), biodiversity and the rural charm of the area, should also feature as key activities for visitors. but must also accommodate possible tourism opportunities. o Once the MPE has developed a name as a tourist destination, larger events could be considered, Currently, no tourism facilities are located within the MPE. The bulk of the regional tourism related activities and such as 'The Mabola Protected Environment Mountain Biking Challenge' with temporary facilities are concentrated in or immediately around the town of Wakkerstroom. The MPE is ideally suited for low accommodation for large numbers of visitors. impact, non-invasive tourism, capitalising on the primary draw cards or attractions of the area, namely the prolific o Similarly, the MPE could accommodate education eco-tourism, catering for school groups, birding groups, birdlife, wetlands, biodiversity and scenic splendour. It is therefore recommended that the MPE focus on the cultural groups, team building groups etc. development of nature based tourism, providing tourists with appropriate access and amenities to the various Facilities attractions of the MPE. o In support of the proposed activities, it will be necessary to develop a trails network, accommodation, It is important that any future development of tourism activities and facilities does not conflict with the primary viewpoints, hides, interpretation facilities etc. objectives of the MPE, namely conservation and farming. It is therefore imperative that any future development of Bed and Breakfast facility (ideally at the start / end of the trails network). tourism infrastructure, takes cognisance of the management plan, and receives the support and approval of the Trails camps (rustic chalets, 16 beds, basic water and sanitation, solar power). management authority. Viewpoints, with seating, refuse bins, interpretation board. Bird hides with interpretation boards. 4.3.2 Proposal Basic design considerations It is proposed that the development of tourism within the MPE be underpinned by a collaborative initiative, whereby o The trail system should accommodate a broad local and international demographic, including tourists are encouraged to visit and experience the whole of the MPE, and not selected farms or areas. In this way, children, the elderly and seasoned trailists. Portions of the trail should be developed to be the goal would be to develop the MPE as an end destination where visitors are encouraged to spend 3 to 5 days as universally accessible to the disabled. opposed to a stop off destination where visitors are more inclined o The trail system should provide controlled access to established attractions, including birding hotspots, to overnight and then move on. In order to accomplish this, it is Mabola wetlands, rivers, peaks, viewsheds, challenging obstacles, and cultural historic features. ProtocIr•ti Fon a/forimrnt proposed that the landowners collectively develop an identity for florchriti Trall o Overnight accommodation must be positioned at strategic points along the network, with due regard to ran , Dp; the MPE, which is presented in a tourist route or meander, taking the availability of potable water and access for maintenance and possible emergencies. in the length and breadth of the MPE, as well as the KPE o A uniform design theme and style is recommended. Extension. Ideally, this route should be negotiated on foot o Consideration must be given to ultimately expanding the trails network to take in regional attractions, (hiking), horseback or mountain bike. Map 22: Resource protected areas and existing trail networks. Development Plan, conceptually illustrates this concept. The Awareness and marketing following activities and facilities are proposed: o Without the proper marketing strategy and tools, any tourism initiative is doomed to failure. The MPE should be appropriately marketed as a premier eco-tourism destination. Activities 44111111r o Trail based development of activities, where visitors o In marketing the area, use must be made of established tourism associations i.e. The Wakkerstroom are encouraged to spend more than 2 nights, traversing a route covering the full extent of the MPE. Tourism Association, Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency, as well as other strategic partners, such as Birdlife South Africa, National Hiking Clubs and Mountain Biking Clubs. o Activities, linked to the trail would typically include on-motorised traversing such as : so Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 35 LAND USE ZONING ILSE 11.0.44 fiEvOlt Zt;t4 4A nCti hxtAlhehAR VAAA C014931400,4 *S.A Itravrtli 4 seem mottylri.VAN AMA 4....ma.A. !',nog ,Aadry,; MA40410,1.40 fix.c. fawn. Nen. CIAP.Atftt tAAIDS 06.0144AtiV4C101 X1r416C1A4R k DocAtiontikalprolutoo etteang Wale fate. ..t A !A ePLA 000t.1 !it:1,141,1W tttil I ROAM PONS ANA 400 IPkiflittlAi 400'00000 PLANIVAL Eft t: OMR PatAl Atil) MAUS itY1tre4A0 141410.91001,11. 0000; 000 00000.744 , I: , , Ai 0440S 000 Mtn LAND USE ZONING PLAN I W W 1 . . 9 1 PROPOSED FACILITIES APPROPRIATE ACTIVITIES LAND USE ZONING USE aoto APP100.111AN ACORNS fillOAK* toNt *telt° tit a1104hT ZONE M lit tit 00,6 iMENEre Cei it *CM(fit 16 TAkPf4 i0000: 040ARY frOVE1 4r0A02 IT:WM.0A ROIABAZY PAC AND MRS 0 INA YTERIal) I 0Difilat OE MOWRY [ 0.0 FPACe, K-Kr as A, V ,{ F RESOURCE UTILIZATION MASTER PLAN PART FIVE: OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK The following components have been identified in playing a role in the institutional structure of the MPE: 5.1 ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK MTPA: The MTPA, as the Provincial Conservation and Tourism Agency in Mpumalanga are expected to provide 5.1.1 Introduction support and guidance to the MPE in the implementation process. This Management Plan has been developed for the Mabola Protected Environment to provide the necessary policy Management Authority: In terms of the Protected Areas Act, a Protected Environment is not required to statements and strategies to address management issues associated with the area on an ongoing basis. have an appointed Management Authority who will be responsible for the implementation of the management plan. It is however preferred that a Protected Environment appoint an entity to drive the The purpose of the Management Plan is that it functions as an integrated document encompassing all aspects of the implementation of the Management Plan. The existing Landowners Association of the Mabola Protected Protected Area pertaining not only to conservation, but also issues such as sustainable utilisation (farming practices), Environment has been elected as the so called Management Authority. tourism opportunities, neighbour relations, etc. External Support: The Management Authority of the MPE cannot function in isolation and will require the input of The Management Plan includes management programmes which are largely informed by the Land Use Zoning Plan and external parties such as Working for Water, Working for Wetlands, Stewardship Officers and other conservation Utilisation Master Plan for the Protected Environment and any other existing management plans which have been agencies/organisations (Birdlife SA, EWT, etc.). developed for the Protected Area or its relevant components. Stakeholders/Communities: Any protected area needs to acknowledge and engage with relevant stakeholders. This plan conforms to the requirements of the National Environmental Management: Protected Area Act [No. 57 of 2003] These stakeholders could include local police services, community organisations, etc. (NEMPAA) , and has been developed according to a format provided by the MTPA in accordance with the formalised Management Plan guidelines developed for Protected Environments in South Africa. The Management Plan is developed MPE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE with a focus on answering questions such as: - What (key objectives/ aspects to be managed); Management Authority Management Authority 41--► How (mission, pOlicies); MPE Landowners MPE Landowners Who (responsibilities of relevant parties); When (time frames). 5.1.2 Legal Framework Implementation of External In order to manage the Mabola Protected Environment effectively, the Landowners Association must ensure that all Management Plan and Support/Stakeholders management and operational activities are undertaken in terms of relevant legal requirements and statutes. A database of J relevant statutes and other legal requirements should be developed and maintained by the Landowners Association. The MTPA should provide guidance and interpretation of relevant statues where necessary. See Table 1. Annual Plan of Operation 5.1.3 Institutional Structure and Annual Financial In order for the management plan to be effectively implemented, relevant role-players need to understand their specific roles and responsibilities. It is important that the Landowners Association takes ownership of the plan and provide the necessary commitment. The MTPA's functions in the implementation process mainly relate to advisory Monitoring and Reporting Figure 4: MPE Institutional Structure and technical support services, they are not responsible for the actual implementation of the Management Plan. Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 38 The MPE must initiate and institutionalise a security strategy that ensures co-ordinated participation in all possible 5.1.3 Implementation Strategy and Reporting local and regional security forums and networks while optimising security in and around MPE. This strategy must Although the Management Plan will provide an overarching management framework for the MPE, each individual ensure sufficient capacity to deal with conservation related illegal activities in the MPE and contribute to a network landowner will be responsible for implementing specific management activities on his/her individual properties. It is of local, regional and provincial law enforcement intelligence. however essential that each landowner implements management activities within the parameters of this management plan. Management objectives/targets This management plan should also be utilised as a reference document by landowners in terms of their internal The specific management objectives/targets relating to safety and security have been confirmed as follows: decision making processes. Annual reporting must be done at the end of each financial year. The report should be Over the five year period, reduce the occurrence of illegal activities within the MPE to a point where no submitted to the MTPA and other relevant stakeholders for performance/progress monitoring purposes. The MTPA illegal activities are recorded annually. could also fund and conduct independent audits on an ad-hoc basis. The outcomes of these audits should be included in management planning strategies. Specific action projects The MTPA should provide detailed support and guidance in terms of annual reporting and review processes. Specific Action Projects relating to this aspect includes the following: Conduct security and safety audit to identify risk areas. 5.2 MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK AND OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES Develop and install communication network/ system to ensure efficient and effective communication system between landowners within the MPE, law enforcement officials and other 5.2.1 Security and Safety relevant parties. Implement access control methods within existing scope of operations, on each farm within the Description of Status Quo: MPE. Illegal activities within and around MPE can be a severe threat to the integrity of its natural and cultural heritage, Actively participate in security/community policing forums locally. Establish formal line of communication as well as the safety of MPE users and their relevant business activities. This could also significantly affect the with the local South African Police Service. attainment of the MPE's stated Vision and Management Objectives. The current safety/security threats being faced by the MPE include the following: 5.2.2 Neighbour Relations Stock theft (including cattle and sheep); Description of Status Quo: Trespassing on private property; There are existing labour households on the farms included in the MPE. There are however residents on the Cases of opportunistic theft on an ad hoc basis; and properties who are not part of the labour force of the relevant farms and their status needs to be clarified. Poaching of small species of animals, usually with dogs. Additionally, the MPE has neighbouring farmers with various interests and land-uses and at this stage, these At this stage, the occurrence of illegal activities is limited with the main issue being stock theft in certain areas of the MPE. properties have chosen not to participate in the MPE. The landowners within the MPE are dealing with stock theft on an individual basis and a holistic approach is not yet being Communities living around the MPE are limited and the most significant settlement in the area is Dirkiesdorp. The implemented. main challenges associated with surrounding communities includes illegal hunting on the properties, run away (unplanned fires), hunting dogs and their associated impacts on the relevant properties included in the MPE. Management policies and framework It is essential that the MPE strategically review all security and safety threats within and surrounding the MPE in a comprehensive security audit. February 2015 la PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 P a g e 39 Management policies and framework ecosystem has been gazetted under Criterion F (Priority areas for meeting explicit biodiversity targets as defined in a systematic biodiversity plan) as an Endangered ecosystem because of very high irreplaceability and medium level of In order to effectively implement the management plan for the MPE, it is essential that good relationships are build and threat. maintained with neighbours and surrounding communities. With immediate neighbours, the value of the Protected Environment should be portrayed with an end result of more farmers contributing their land to formal protection and thereby expanding the MPE in the form of future phases. Management policies and framework Ecosystems can be effectively managed by implementing a Land Use Zoning Plan within the MPE. The Land Use Wherever possible, successes and achievements of the MPE should be advertised and surrounding communities Zoning Plan will assist Landowners in understanding which areas they can implement which activities on the relevant should be made aware of the intentions of the MPE and what the Protected Area is trying to achieve. This will farms. By having zoned land uses, impact on natural features which form an integral part of the Ecosystem of the hopefully change the mind sets of these communities towards conservation and the value which the MPE adds to MPE will be minimised. the area. These zones include the following: Special Conservation Zone — Biodiversity: Area of extreme sensitivity, exceptional diversity and Management objectives/targets includes wetlands and seeps. These areas should have limited access, should not be traversed by vehicles and developments within these zones should be supported by Environmental Impact The specific management objectives/targets relating to Neighbour Relations have been confirmed as follows: Assessment Processes. This zone will ensure that remaining undisturbed natural elements and core Develop good working relationships with all surrounding landowners. ecosystem components are maintained. Create awareness of the value of the MPE and its contribution to conservation in the region and Rehabilitation Zone — Invasive exotic species: These are areas which are infested with alien or province. invasive vegetation which has a direct impact on the ecosystem. By implementing invasive plant Minimise community related impacts on the MPE. removal campaigns, the areas returned to a natural state will effectively contribute to ecosystem functioning. Specific action projects Rehabilitation Zone — Excavations, Mining and Erosion: Includes all areas within the MPE that are Specific Action Projects relating to improved Neighbour Relations in the MPE include the following: currently degraded or disturbed as a result or soil erosion, overgrazing, excavations (gravel pits etc.) and Ongoing articles in local publications regarding the successes achieved within the MPE mining scars (tailings dumps, slimes dams, etc.). The long term impact of these areas on ecosystems, Ongoing efforts to effectively engage with neighbours and build open and positive relationships should they continue to be unmanaged, could be considered as significant. 5.2.3 Ecosystem Conservation Cultivation — This zone includes fallow lands and cultivated lands that are used regularly for commercial crop production and are thus ploughed, irrigated, harvested and replanted on a regular Description of Status Quo: basis. Cultivated lands should be keenly managed to ensure that they do not impact on the The MPE is situated within the Wakkerstroom / Luneberg Grasslands Threatened Ecosystem, an area of 250 000 ha conservation of sensitive biodiversity features of the MPE (wetlands and seeps, riparian areas and that is approximately 90% untransformed. The ecosystem forms critical habitat for at least 18 threatened or near rivers, etc.). This will add value to Ecosystem Conservation. threatened plants, such as Asparagus fractiflexus, Aloe modesta, A. kniphofioides, Indigofera hybrida and Nerine platypetala; 22 threatened bird species, such as the Critically Endangered Wattled Crane and White-winged Flufftail, Management objectives/targets and Endangered species such as Botha's and Rudd's Larks, African Marsh Harrier and Grey Crowned Crane; and three Although the farms are largely used for livestock grazing (Cattle and sheep), it is important that the landowners threatened mammals, namely Oribi, Samango Monkey and Rough-haired Golden Mole. commit to implementing the zoning plan as discussed. The overall objective would be to ensure no further The two main vegetation types within this threatened ecosystem are Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland and degradation of the ecosystems by managing land uses effectively and broadening natural conservation areas within Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland, with Northern Afrotemperate Forest embedded within these grasslands. The the MPE. Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 40 Specific action projects Conduct a specialist assessment which identifies threats to protected species and proposed Specific Action Projects relating to Ecosystem Conservation includes the following: recommendations for mitigation these threats. (Birdlife South Africa to support in this regard) Formal adoption of Land Use Zoning Plan 5.2.5 Fire Management Development of require infrastructure to formally implement zoning plan practically. Description of Status Quo: The occurrence of fire in the MPE is limited to planned burns implemented by individual farmers, natural fire starting in the 5.2.4 Protection of important species MPE and unplanned runaway fires which originate outside the MPE (usually within or around human settlements. At this Description of Status Quo: stage, the MPE is not planned as a unit when determining areas to be burned in any given year. Farmers make the decisions themselves based on historic burning practices. One of the primary purposes of the MPE is for the conservation of species and there are many populations of red listed species that are located in the MPE and these contribute significantly to the conservation importance of the area from a national and provincial perspective. Several of these species populations will be afforded some basic Management policies and framework Fire plays an important role in the ecological dynamics of grasslands and interactions between fire and grazing have protection by ecosystem conservation proposed in 5.2.3 above. There are however some plant and animal important effects on vegetation composition, primary productivity and nutrient cycling. A key ecological principle, populations that will be the focus of specific management interventions or requirements (See section 5.2) which is considered important in maintaining species and ecosystem diversity, and which applies to fire and its interactions with grazing, is the need to maintain spatial and temporal heterogeneity. Fire should be applied, as far Management policies and framework as possible, in an irregular manner, which mimics a natural burning regime. In natural systems, a single large area Those known populations of listed species that require specialised protection or interventions for their persistence of grassland will seldom get burnt every year and when fires do occur they are unlikely to occur with uniform must be managed as separate biodiversity features where possible. Such interventions will be specified for cranes, intensity across the landscape. relevant small mammals and wetlands. In some cases, to avoid conflict in management requirements, it may be necessary to manage a specific portion of a farm for one of these biodiversity features. These areas have been Populations of animals and plants that are unable to escape fire are generally replaced from neighbouring source included in the Special Biodiversity Conservation Zone which should be implemented. populations, so long as they are not too far away. Thus it is important to avoid burning too large a patch size, otherwise certain populations of fire-intolerant species could become locally extinct. The farmers should introduce as Management objectives/targets much variation in the timing, intensity and frequency of fire for any one portion of land to ensure that the same Habitat that supports existing populations of listed species will be effectively managed in an effort to ensure their type of fire is not put in at the same time each year. It is preferable that any one camp be burnt in a variety of ways persistence in the long-term. All existing crane nest sites will continue to be used by breeding pairs of cranes. There over the years as in some instances a hot intense fire may be preferable in conditions in which there is bush is an ongoing assessment to increase the knowledge and understanding of the specific locations and conservation encroachment. Different fire intensities will also favour different plant species, particularly grasses. A patch mosaic status of specific populations. All listed species populations should at least be mapped and monitored on at least a of burnt and unburnt camps should be negotiated and implemented by all the MPE farmers prior to the fire season. five-yearly basis. The burning of camps should be done in a way that promotes unclean or patchy burns to leave natural refugia for animals. A high degree of coordination between farmers and managers will be required to achieve this level of fire Specific action projects management, requiring a functional fire protection association. Mowing of natural grasslands as an alternative to burning is not recommended. While the resultant defoliation of the veld mimics burning to a certain degree (both Ongoing identification of specific populations of important species, as identified in the Ecological bulk removal), mowing has a number of detrimental impacts. These include excessive soil compaction, crushing Assessment for the MPE. subterranean forb root structure, removal of nutrients from the system (in the case of bailing), direct disturbance Formal implementation of the Special Biodiversity Management Zone. Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 41 caused by the vehicle, and often impacts related to mowing at the wrong time of year (which should follow burning Grazing the new growth immediately after a burn can increase susceptibility to soil erosion and result in loss of the recommendations), as mowing does not have the same associated risks of burning in dry, windy conditions. humus layer in which many invertebrates live, thereby decreasing prey availability to grassland birds such as Blue Swallow (Wakelin 2006). This also results in nutrient leaching of the soil, causing reduced productivity of the grassland and hence lower carrying capacity for grazing animals. Although this grazing practice is very common because Management objectives/targets livestock do well on the 'green flush', it should not be done over the entire management area every year. The MPE should apply to be established as a Fire Protection Association to serve as the coordination mechanism for MPE-wide fire planning and management. The association should generate a 5-year burning programme that Management objectives/targets strives to meet the fire protection, conservation and livestock production goals of the MPE. Stocking rate — grazing intensities must be kept as low as financially feasible in an effort to minimise the ecological effects of livestock grazing. Stocking rates are maintained below agricultural stocking rates, relative to present veld Specific action projects condition, in the zones that have a conservation objective, in an effort to minimise the impacts of livestock grazing. Establishment of a Fire Protection Association which includes external stakeholders. Grazing assessments were conducted on each property by a rangeland specialist. These assessments should be Development of a 5 year burning programme and protection plan which will ensure that the MPE is utilised for decision making purposes. managed as an ecological unit, with an aim of achieving the vision. (Refer to Birdlife SA guidelines) Livestock type and ratios — in order to avoid selective grazing, which causes a decline in forbs, sheep should be 5.2.6 Grazing Management intensively managed (i.e. not left in an area for extended periods) and cattle to sheep ratios should be maximised. Where sheep are used high cattle to sheep ratios are applied, preferably cattle : sheep ratios of 1:1 or higher. Description of Status Quo: The grasslands of the MPE are in the process of adapting to the intensity of livestock grazing or the livestock species Specific action projects used there. Although it is likely that grazing has always been an aspect of the ecology of the region, it probably Grazing in conjunction with autumn burning — sustained grazing following burning in autumn will occurred naturally on a far more sporadic basis, at far lower intensities and the species involved were probably detrimentally affect cover and composition of the grassland and will lead to reduced livestock production. smaller-bodied than the livestock that are currently utilised. Because of this, there are likely to be considerable Accordingly a maximum of three months grazing should be allowed after the relevant autumn burn, followed ecological impacts associated with current livestock grazing practices, particularly with respect to the forb by at least 12 months rest to enable the sward to recover. Spring burning should be undertaken just before component, which constitutes over 80% of grassland diversity. plant growth starts, but not once it has commenced, as this leads to impacts on plant vigour and changes in species composition. Only grassland that has been rested for the full previous growing season should be burnt, Management policies and framework as it will have good vigour and will be able to grow quickly in the new growing season. Grazing management practices must be designed to minimise the impacts on biodiversity whilst ensuring Each part of a farm receives a full season's rest at least every four years, which will allow plant recovery and that livestock production remains economically viable. Grazing assessments were conducted by a rangeland recruitment following grazing and trampling, in an effort to maintain the species composition and ecosystem specialist for each of the farms within the MPE. integrity of the grassland. In an effort to encourage lower intensity use of the rangelands within the MPE, planted pastures that can support high Pastures, designed to reduce existing stress on rangelands, must be approved by the management authority intensity use in concentrated areas should be supported. Such areas must not be used to increase the overall stocking and may only be established within the already transformed areas. If anew pasture is established on a farm rate on farms but may be strategically established to reduce the ecological pressures on the rangeland, particularly at within the MPE, a significant reduction in stocking rate on the surrounding rangeland areas must be realised, times of stress such as a drought or a particular time of the year when fodder availability is low. Planted pastures commensurate with the increase in carrying capacity associated with the pasture (i.e. the new pasture is to should be limited to land that has already been transformed, e.g. old fields. At this stage, it will be very difficult to reduce rangeland stocking and not increase the overall capacity of the farm). zone grazing areas due to the fact that most of the farms are used for grazing in their entirety. Very sensitive areas should be excluded from grazing areas by fencing infrastructure. XI! Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 ______Page 421 5.2.7 Soil erosion control introduction, problem animal control is being managed by each individual farmer on a case by case basis and formalised approach to dealing with these problem animals should be developed and implemented. Description of Status Quo: Human-induced soil erosion in the reserve is primarily the result of impacts caused by old roads and historic tracks, as Management policies and framework well as the creation of paths by live stock to permanent water points. Although very rare, Old quarry sites / borrow pits and areas that have been cleared of invasive alien vegetation and which need rehabilitation plans primarily to prevent Species introductions soil-erosion should be identified and recorded. Individual farmers within the Protected Environment are implementing The primary objective of wildlife management at MPE will be to maintain, within the ecological carrying capacity of soil erosion interventions on their individual portions of land. At this stage there are no significant erosion areas, other the nature reserve, viable indigenous wildlife populations that historically occurred in the area and are suited to the than those associated with old mining areas. particular habitats offered by LDNR. Where possible, a minimal intervention management strategy will be followed in terms of indigenous wildlife management. Management policies and framework Exceptions would be the specific strategies identified in terms of the National Norms and Standards for the Erosion is a natural process and Gradual natural soil erosion processes will be allowed to continue. However, in the management of specific species in accordance with NEMBA and/or this MP and/or additional actions case of human-induced and/or aggravated erosion, appropriate remedial management action should be taken. recommended by the MTPA. Potential human impacts must be avoided through appropriate planning and maintenance of infrastructure such as roads, which forms the largest contributor to aggravated soil erosion. Problem animal control Animals that become a danger or excessive nuisance to persons and property due to either habituation or aberrant Management objectives/targets behaviour, may be destroyed humanely or captured and removed from the Protected Environment, by the relevant There should be no natural areas in the MPE that are actively eroding at rates more than would be expected in a Landowner or Landowners Associations. This also applies to animals that escape or leave and return periodically natural environment. The MPE should have an erosion control plan to prioritise re-vegetation of the most serious and cause damage outside the Protected Environment. problem areas first, i.e. areas that are impacting on the quality of water resources or that are growing bigger. The To minimize the need to control problem animals, pro-active and preventative measures (e.g. fencing) should be erosion areas have been captured in the Rehabilitation Zone and this should be formally implemented. considered a priority, while affected public or neighbours need to be informed appropriately regarding the relevant animal behaviour and / or dangers. Where the only solution to the problem lies in destroying or capturing animals, the methods decided upon must be applied with due regard for animal welfare and possible public criticism. Specific action projects Map soil erosion areas and develop a MPE soil erosion plan to prioritise areas for rehabilitation. Suitable erosion and soil conservation measures are implemented to halt any continuing Management objectives/targets erosion in areas in which it has historically occurred. An overall objective would be that the landowners of the MPE consider both livestock and wildlife species to achieve their grazing and economic objectives. In addition to specie introduction, comes the management of problem animals. 5.2.8 Species introductions and problem animal control Description of Status Quo: Specific action projects The MPE is currently predominantly utilised for livestock grazing and introduction of other species of animals has Development of a list of potential wildlife species to be stocked on the MPE. been limited. The value of a Protected Environment is the fact that it opens new opportunities for the introduction Development and implementation of a problem animal control protocol. of additional species, as the area now provides a more formalised conservation service. In relation to specie Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 43 5.2.9 Practical research 5.2.10 Invasive species Description of Status Quo: Description of Status Quo: Existing research programmes currently being undertaken in the MPE and its surrounding areas is limited to One of the quaternary catchments within the MPE (W51A) is listed in the top 15 highest priority quaternary species specific research being implemented by Birdlife South Africa. Other specialist studies have been limited to catchments in Mpumalanga for invasive plant species control (Forsyth et al., 2011).5eventeen invasive alien plants as the ecological assessment conducted as part of the management planning process and then additionally specialist listed in the NEM:BA Alien and Invasive Species List have been recorded from the quarter-degree grids in which the studies conducted as part of Environmental Impact Assessments for proposed development in the area. MPE is situated during the South African Plant Invaders Atlas. Twelve of these are priority species for invasive alien plant control operations according to van Wilgen et al. (2008). The alien species that pose the greatest risk to Due, to the biodiversity and cultural history associated with the farms included in the MPE, there are a large number of biodiversity in montane grassland within the MPE are the three Acacia species, Campuloclinium macrocephalum and research opportunities available in the MPE. Pyracantha angustifolia, while Populus species pose the greatest threat to wetlands. However, an invasive indigenous species, Leucosidea sericea, is also a significant risk to biodiversity of montane grasslands, particularly on steep Management policies and framework slopes and valley bottoms. This species has invaded significant portions of the farms Oudehoutdraai 123 HT, Priority will be given to research that provides information and understanding that is of direct benefit to the Goudhoek 124 HT, Tweehoek 128HT and Rustfontein 129 HT and will need to be addressed in the management plan Environment and will guide the management interventions required to achieve the protected area's biodiversity along with the above invasive alien species. and cultural heritage conservation objectives in the most cost-effective manner. Opportunities will, however, be considered and provided for both applied and theoretical research. Management policies and framework Long term research and monitoring is desirable and necessary as a result of the dynamic and stochastic nature of the Invasive alien species are widely considered as a major threat to biodiversity and can have a negative impact on ecosystem and to ascertain whether management actions are having their desired effect in terms of achieving the water production, indigenous vegetation, fire intensity and the overall natural landscape. The control and biodiversity and cultural heritage conservation objectives. management of invasive alien species is of utmost importance and is considered a top management priorit y. Where feasible, all alien plant species should be removed in the most responsible, but effective manner. Management objectives/targets If considered appropriate by the MPE Landowners Association, certain non-invasive alien plants may be demarcated The Landowners Association will welcome all relevant research projects which will add value to the overall decision making and retained for horticultural and farming purposes. These plant species should not be replaced should they die due processes in the MPE. These research projects will be selected based on relevance, credibility and the conditions of access to cultural-historical reasons, unless approved by the Landowners Association. All seedlings of demarcated alien to land by landowners. plants must be removed annually. Alien species in this case would not include crop plants which are cultivated on the relevant farms Specific action projects Any plant species that have been declared as alien weeds and invasive plants under section 29 of the Conservation of A partnership is established with a suitable tertiary institute to enable research into the effects of livestock Agricultural Resources Act (Act No. 43 1983)[CARA] must be strictly controlled in terms of the regulations stipulated grazing within the protected environment on its biodiversity by 2015. in the Act. An ongoing alien species monitoring and control programme must be developed in order to effectively A strategic research programme is initiated and implemented as soon as possible in order to effectively control the alien weeds and invader plants. State poverty relief programmes such as 'Landcare' , 'Working for Water', measure the impacts of changes in livestock management practices within the MPE. "Working on Fire' and 'Working for Wetlands" should be used to full effect to complement the reserve budget for this management task. Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 44 Management objectives/targets cabinet member responsible for mineral and energy affairs. When prescribing these specific conditions, the Minister must take into account the vision and management policies of the Protected Environment. In accordance with section 76(1) of the Biodiversity Act, an invasive species control and eradication strategy is developed for the entire MPE, which will include a survey of all current and emerging invasive Listed Invasive Species plants. This The Landowner Association will actively participate in the public participation processes associated with proposed mining strategy should be integrated into the MPE 5-year management plan to ensure that: activities in the surrounding areas of the Protected Environment. There are no new infestations of weed species within the MPE. Management objectives/targets Current levels of invasive plant species infestation are reduced by 80% by 2016, including follow-up The overall objectives relating to mining in and around the MPE include the following: commitments, to the point at which they can be maintained within the farm budgets. Absolutely no commercial mining takes place on the properties included in the MPE without the written An ongoing annual invasive plant control programme is applied in an effort to ensure that infestations permission from the Minister. are effectively managed. 100% of applications for new mines lodged on properties adjacent to the MPE and the greater surrounding area are reviewed and where necessary, objected to. Specific action projects Assess and identify the occurrence of all alien species found in the Reserve, including their Specific action projects distribution. Enforcement of no commercial mining policy within the MPE Develop and Implement an alien species monitoring and control programme. Register as an Interested and Affected Party in all proposed mining applications and where necessary, lodge formal objections. 5.2.11 Mining Description of Status Quo: At this stage, the natural and cultural heritage of the Wakkerstroom area is under threat due to proposed mining activities in the area. Certain areas of the MPE were previously impacted on by mining activities and at this stage, existing activities are not operational and neither have they been rehabilitated. Mining activities could significantly compromise the natural and cultural resources of the area and therefore will not be tolerated. Management policies and framework In terms of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003), despite other legislation, no person may conduct commercial prospecting or mining activities in the Mabola Protected Environment without the written permission of the Minister and the Cabinet member responsible for mineral and energy affairs. Subsistence mining activities associated with the day to day operations and management of the Protected Environment may be considered. These mining activities could include borrow pits, subsistence sand mining and any other activities which would provide required material for the maintenance of land uses included in the zoning plan of the Protected Environment, as described in this management plan. All existing mining activities which were initiated before the declaration of the Mabola Protected Environment, may be required to operate under specific conditions prescribed by the Minister, in consultation with the appropriate Page 45 Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 ) February 2015 PART SIX: MONITORING AND AUDITING 6.1 ANNUAL MONITORING SCHEDULE Proportions of plant cover In areas Fixed point photography Soil erosion and of erosion concern Annually The annual monitoring schedule should be used to monitor the implementation of the plan. It should be used as a control State of rehabilitated areas Fixed point photography Annually scientific monitoring programme. The primary purpose of monitoring will be to: Introduced species Species introductions Written record Per event - Determine how effectively the management plan has been implemented by the Management Authority. Areas of heavy invasive plant Fixed point photography Annually Listed invasive plant - Assist in determining the focus for the annual plan of operation and the setting of appropriate timeframes infestation control Herbicide usage Written record and budget. Annually - Enable adaptive management by identifying and solving problem areas. 6.2 ANNUAL REVIEW The below schedule of monitoring activities should assist with the planning and implementation of monitoring On a 5-yearly basis, this Management Plan should be reviewed and adjusted, based on a biodiversity assessment (see activities: next section). To achieve this, the following questions (and others as needed) should be addressed: ...... Table 7: Monitoring Activities _ Did the Management Plan make a meaningful contribution to management of the MPE? 11 Were individual management actions realistic and achievable? Were they written unambiguously or was there room for misunderstanding? • Installation of Photogr writt Upon Were budgets for each management activity realistic? signage and access aphs / en installatio control measures record n Were sufficient staff members of the right qualifications allocated to each management activity? • incidents Security and safety IllegalPhotographs / written Per event record As there will be some overlap between the 5-year review and the annual audit they should therefore be done at the • Articles in local same time, by the same team. The goal of the review should be the next 5 year management plan. publications recordWritten Per event The Management Programme must be reviewed on an annual basis to determine progress made in the • exclusionMeasures offor Photogr writt Upon livestock aphs / en installatio implementation of Action Projects for a specific year. This review can be used to monitor management from key record n Ecosystems • Grazingecosystems history per performance and expenditure. All relevant projects which weren't achieved within the specific timeframe provided camp for previous recordWritten Annual season must be investigated to determine what the challenges were in their implementation. These projects will then be • Use of fodder Written Annual reserves for grazing record carried over to the following year for implementation • Population surveys Photogr writt Per event Important of key species en The Management Programme is amended on an annual basis and the Project Implementation Budget determined species aphs / record for each year based on implementation requirements. The Management Team is accountable for the effective and • FPA meetings Written Annual Fire • Burning history per record successful implementation of the Project Programme. This Programme should be reviewed at the end of each manageme camp nt • financial year and the overall performance must then be included in an annual report. • ListRatio of of unplanned cattle to firessheep recordWritten Annually • Camp grazing rest 6.3 BIODIVERSITY MONITORING Grazing periods Written Annually manageme record Biodiversity monitoring refers to the regular assessment of the biodiversity features on the property with the 4 nt • Use of autumn Written Annually burning record intention of monitoring the state and trajectory of the specific biodiversity features that make the area important. To ha Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 46 4 l 4 make monitoring sustainable (in terms of time and cost) the simplest, least expensive and most practical method of monitoring will be implemented for each biodiversity feature ensuring the method is scientifically defensible and statistically rigorous. In order to ensure that the biodiversity integrity and ecosystem function of the MPE is appropriately protected, a programme of biodiversity monitoring and reporting is required. This will take the form primarily of visual inspections, photographs and periodic reports on specific biodiversity issues. All biodiversity monitoring must be done by the MTPA scientists or their designated representatives. Considering that monitoring aims to measure a change in biodiversity (for better or worse), it is essential to have good baseline data from which deviations over time can be measured. Without the baseline it is impossible to decide whether the management activities have been beneficial or detrimental to the biodiversity features that are the goal of the management plan. The key to successful monitoring in the context of limited scientific services support will be partnerships with NGOs, such as Birdlife South Africa. Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 47 CI" cAll PART SEVEN: COSTING PLAN The below table provides an estimated costing plan. It should however be noted that this is merely an estimate and operations/budget on further detailed assessments will need to be undertaken by the Landowner Association. Many of the Action Projects farms. require further assessment and consultations. This table has however been developed as a starting point for further Grazing Management Incorporated into Owners investigation. existing operations Table 8: Monitor* Activities and budgets. E5111VIATE15 COS- ' PROPOSED SOURC Soil Erosion Control and Rehabilitation R 150 000.00 Owners Administration Fees for five year period R 40 000.00/annum. Owners/Participants (Estimate subject to detailed erosion study Security and Safety: Signage and Access Points R 24 000.00 Owners (With input from and plan). Municipality) Invasive Plant Control R 500 000.0 (Estimate Owners/Government Security and Safety: Illegal Incidents (Investigation) R 12 000.00/annum Owners/Victim of subject to detailed Programmes (Working for incidents assessment and Water, etc.) Security and Safety: Articles in Local Publications R 20 000.00 (Where Owners/Media Houses finalisation of possible, free articles methodology) should be placed in local and regional publications). This should be done by developing relationships with media houses. Ecosystem Management (Installation of fencing and other TBD Owners/Conservation management interventions) Agencies Important Species TBD Owners/Conservation Agencies Fire Management Incorporated into Owners existing o, February 2015 Page 48 c Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 PART EIGHT: ANNUAL PLAN OF OPERATION (MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME) The Annual Plan of Operation and associated Management Programmes, deal with the management activities which need to be implemented in the MPE over the 5 year period. Although this programme has been submitted to the MEC, it may change annually based on internal decisions taken by the relevant landowners. Each of the management interventions listed in Section 5.2 are expanded upon in this section. Essentially this deals with the day-to-day activities of the protected area, outlining responsibilities and management activities for each of the management programmes. This section provides the basis for budgets and annual business plans, cost estimates and operational plans in terms of staff and projects. Support required is set out in such a way that, if the budget is not met, actions will be cut/held over are identified. Objectives are specific, measurable, time limited and practical. A list of actions (what, how, when, who and where they will be done) all lead to the objectives. The table overleaf presents the Management Programme. Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 49 Table 9: Management Programme --_-- Management Objectives Management A Landowner Responsibility MTPA/Partner Tirnnf-, Responsibility Labour Relations . Local communities are made aware The communities that neighbour the MPE are not considered a threat 2015 of the presence of the Landowner to its objectives, and there is no antagonism between the MPE Association as an avenue to address community issues. farmers and these neighbouring local communities concerning the management of the MPE. Liaison between the Landowner As needed Association and local communities to address issues as they arise. Appropriate access control Undertake works such as Provision of There are no incidents of illegal activity within the MPE. Ongoing measures to deter illegal activities signage and fencing materials, or are instituted on each farm within More environmentally financial support, the MPE friendly access control if required. measures (e.g. Problem animal control, hunting dog control). More effective liaison with neighbours (see above). Incidents that occur are reported to Report to the Landowner • Provision of support, if As needed the Landowner Committee for Committee. necessary, mediation record-keeping and follow up between landowners actions. and the community. Protection of ecosystems Areas zoned as fodder reserves will Identification of sensitive • Biodiversity monitoring Ecosystems in the MPE in terms of the species composition, Ongoing only be utilized during periods of ecosystems in accordance • Provision of materials or ecosystem functioning or ecological integrity are maintained or fodder shortages. with the zonation plan. financial support, if Erection of fencing where required. improved. required to manage the fodder reserves. Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page so Identified area of indigenous forest Planning of works • Provision of materials or 2016 that must be excluded from grazing Provision of labour to install financial support, if or provision of shelter will be works required. physically protected through fencing • Biodiversity monitoring ) or other mechanisms. Table 9: Management Management Objectives Programme ManagementActivj,t,, Landowner Responsibility MTPA/Partner Timing Responsibility Conduct a detailed assessment of Fencing plan per farm . All important habitat features, including key forests, wetlands and Technical assistance.t 2015 the fencing requirements to corridors are protected from unmanaged livestock by suitable fencing. implement the MPE management plan. Periodic surveys coordinated by the Access to the land for survey Provision of scientific There are ongoing surveys to locate new populations of listed species. As needed Landowner Committee are teams. support. undertaken within the MPE. EWT and other organizations will Surveys and/or ongoing Provision of scientific Populations of listed species will be maintained or increased due to Ongoing assist the Landowner Committee monitoring within individual support. proposed management activities. and landowners in monitoring the farms. Biodiversity monitoring status of key species within the (EWT). MPE. If threats to key species are Modification of livestock and Provision of scientific As needed identified, appropriate remedial land management practices, and rangeland actions will be instituted. where necessary. expertise support Monitoring of threats. - Grazing management , Based on veld condition •• Grazing system of Stocking rate- grazing intensities are kept as low as financially feasible in Ongoing assessments and/ or accepted designAuditing (2015) management and implementation an effort to minimize the ecological effects of livestock grazing. agricultural norms, determine and (2016-2020). performance. implement appropriate stocking rates. Ensure that a ratio between 1:6 or Grazing system design and Auditing of Livestock type and ratios — Use of sheep should be minimised, and Ongoing 1:3 is maintained. implementation. management where they are used, ratios of cattle to sheep should be maintained performance. Ensure that cattle and sheep are Grazing system design and Auditing of betweenl:6 and 1:3 or higher. Ongoing grazed concurrently or that sheep implementation. management grazing occurs following cattle performance. grazing. As far as possible minimise the use Grazing system design and Auditing of After an autumn burn, a maximum of three months grazing should be Ongoing of autumn burning but where it is implementation. management allowed, followed by 12 months rest to enable the sward to recover. applied, ensure that grazing does performance. not occur for more than three months and that a full 12 months rest is applied following it. Ensure that the camp and grazing Grazing system design and Auditing of A full season's rest will allow plant recovery and recruitment following Ongoing system designed for the farm implementation. management grazing and trampling, in an effort to maintain the species enables each camp to receive a full performance. season's rest at least once every four composition and ecological structure and functionality of the years. February 2015 Page 51 ,..8) Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 Table 9: Management Programme ..., . „ . . -. ., . .. . .,, . Management Activity Landowner Responsibility VITPA/Partner Ti yin;, Management Objectives ,.,. ., . grassland. Pastures, designed to reduce existing Submission of proposed Provision of scientific If a new pasture is established on a farm within the MPE, a visible As needed stress son rangelands, must be plans to Landowner support and approval reduction in stocking rate on the rangeland areas must be seen approved by the Management Committee and/or of proposed works. commensurate with the increase in carrying capacity associated with the Authority and may only be designated Management established within the High Intensity Authority. pasture. (Commercial) zone of the MPE. .' _ .... _ . Fire Management Fire Protection Association Membership in the FPA. Scientific and technical Areas designated for fire protection are burnt annually in autumn. 2015 constituted, established or link to an support. existing FPA — ensure all MPE farmers are members. Develop a 5-year Fire management Participation in the planning Scientific and technical 2016 plan. for MPE burning to ensure a support. mosaic of camps is achieved over the five years. Firebreaks and other fire protection Burning regime design and Auditing of Ongoing measures are implemented in implementation. management accordance with the Fire Protection performance. Act and the rules of the Fire Protection Association. Soil erosion and control , Map soil erosion areas and develop Identification of problem Technical assistance There are no natural areas in the MPE that are actively eroding at rates Ongoing a MPE wide soil erosion plan to areas. with developing the more than would be expected in a natural environment. prioritise areas for rehabilitation. soil erosion plan. 5-yearly assessment as part of monitoring framework In areas in which plant cover is low, Corrective measures to Auditing of Ongoing appropriate measures are taken to address erosion risks, management address impacts before erosion primarily through performance. begins to occur. management of livestock. Suitable erosion and soil Implementation of soil Provision of technical 2015 conservation measures are conservation measures such assistance. implemented to halt any continuing as barriers and mulching. erosion in areas in which it has historically occurred. Suitable rehabilitation measures are Implementation of Provision of technical, 2015-2020 implemented to address areas rehabilitation works. financial and/or impacted upon by soil erosion. materials assistance. a PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 52 Table 9: Management Programme Management Objectives Management Activity Landowner Responsibility MTPA/Partner Tim i nr; Responsibility Species introductions Agree on a list of species suitable Agree on list Provision of scientific Indigenous species only - any species introductions into the 2015 for introduction. Submission of support and approval MPE will be undertaken with due consideration to the Only species that have proposed plans to of introductions as per As needed ecological integrity of the region. historically occurred in the region Landowner Committee. standard permitting will be introduced into the MPE requirements. Species introduced into the MPE will Submission of Provision of scientific Any species introductions into the MPE will be undertaken with due As needed be sourced from populations that proposed plans to support and approval consideration to the genetic integrity of existing wild populations in occur in similar habitat within Landowner Committee. of introductions. the region. southern Mpumalanga or Northern Facilitation of KwaZulu-Natal. Permitting. Practical research A research plan is prepared to meet Assist the MTPA and its MTPA and its A strategic research programme is initiated and implemented as 2015 the needs of practical management partners where possible in partners prepare a soon as possible in order to effectively measure the impacts of questions that are still outstanding. contributing to the research plan. changes in livestock management practices on biodiversity indices Secure partnership with relevant drafting of the plan. Provision of technical institution to establish biodiversity Assistance with site visits, assistance. within the MPE. baselines in summer of 2015/16. logistics and information Approaches to tertiary A suitable research programme compilation institutions. is established in partnership with the landowners. Baseline Biodiversity completed by relevant academic partners. Listed Invasive Species Control lir 1, IPI Work with Working for Water to Initiate partnership with the Provision of technical There are no new infestations of Listed Invasive Species within the 2015 develop an invasive species WfW programme. assistance in preparing MPE. monitoring, control and eradication the plan. plan for the MPE. Identified areas of heavy invasive Implementation of invasive Facilitation of Current infestations are significantly reduced, including follow- 2015-2020 plant infestation are identified for plant control measures. herbicide assistance up commitments, to the point at which they can be maintained concerted, sustained control to landowners. within the farm budgets. efforts in an effort to achieve the target of reducing invasive plant infestation by 80% by 2020. Herbicide assistance to implement Implementation of invasive Facilitation of Ongoing invasive plant control is provided plant control measures. herbicide assistance by Working for Water. to landowners. Mining '11111111P 111F Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Table 9: Management Programme Management Objectives Management Activity Landowner Responsibility MtRAtr'rtner Responsibility Enforcement of no commercial Landowners to be aware of Provide technical input Absolutely no commercial mining takes place on the properties Ongoing mining policy within the MPE land uses in and around the and support regarding included in the MPE without written approval by the Minister. MPE and any developments mining applications taking place. and law enforcement. Register as an Interested and Actively register and engage Provide technical input 100% of applications for new mines lodges on properties adjacent to Ongoing Affected Party in all proposed in Environmental Impact and support regarding the MPE and the greater surrounding area are reviewed and where mining applications and where Assessment Processes mining applications. necessary, lodge formal objections. necessary, objected to. Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page .54 REFERENCES DEA, Government Notice, Republic of South Africa (2011). National Environmental Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004): National list of ecosystems that are threatened and in need of protection. De Wet, F (2014). Opname vir WWF-SA/SANBI: Veldtoestand Bestuursriglyne ter Bevordering van Biodiversiteit. Various unpublished reports, Mabola Protected Environment. Driver, A, Maze, K, Rouget, M, Lombard, AT, Ne1,1, Turpie, JK, Cowling, RM, Desmet, P, Goodman, P, Harris, 1, Jonas, Z, Reyers, B, Sink, K & Strauss, T. (2005). National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in South Africa. Strelltzia 17.South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Dr. Pixley Ka Isaka Seme Local Municipality (2013)./ntegrated Development Plan 2013/2014. Unpublished report,Dr. Pixley Ka Isaka Seme Local Municipality. Volksrust. http://www.isric.ordprojects/soter-south-africa http://www.dwatgov.za/Groundwater/Groundwater_Dictionary/ McCleland, W (2014). Mabola Protected Environment Biodiversity Baseline Assessment. Unpublished report. Mucina, L., Rutherford, M.C. & Powrie, L.W. (eds) (2007). Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, edn 2, 1:1 000 000 scale sheet maps. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. MTPA (2006).Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan.Unpublished Report, Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency, Nelspruit. MTPA (2009). Mpumalanga Protected Area Expansion Strategy. Unpublished Report.Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency, Nelspruit. MTPA (2013). Motivation for the Declaration of the Mabola Protected Environment in Southern Mpumalanga in terms of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act. Unpublished Report, Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency, Nelspruit. MTPA (2010).KwaMandlangampisi Protected Environment Five Year Management Plan 2011-2016. Unpublished report, Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency, Nelspruit, South Africa. SANBI & DEAT, (2008).The National Protected Area Expansion Strategy, 2008-2012. A Framework for Implementation.Unpublished Report, South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). Pretoria. Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 55 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Plant species of conservation concern occurring in the vicinity of the MPE Zantedeschia albomaculata Araceae LC MNCA 1 Zantedeschia rehmannii Araceae LC MNCA 1 1 Conservation Protection Family 2730AB 2730AC 2730AD Asparagus fractiflexus Asparagaceae EN - 1, 2 Species Status Status Aloe arbonsscens Asphodelaceae LC MNCA 1 Agapanthus caulescens Agapanthaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Aloe ecklonis Asphodelaceae LC MNCA 1 1 1 Agapanthus inapertus Agapanthaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Aloe kniphofibides Asphodelaceae VU MNCA 2 1, 2 1, 2 Khadia alticola Aizoaceae Rare - 1, 2 Aloe maculata Asphodelaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Boophone disficha Amaryllidaceae Dec MNCA 2 2 2 Aloe marlothii Asphodelaceae LC MNCA 1 Brunsvigia grandiflore Amaryllidaceae LC MNCA 1 Aloe modesta Asphodelaceae VU MNCA 2 2 Brunsvigia natalensis Amaryllidaceae LC MNCA 1 Aloe mudenensis Asphodelaceae LC MNCA 1 Brunsvigia radulosa Amaryllidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Aloe wyheidensis Asphodelaceae LC MNCA 1 Crinum bulbispermum Amaryllidaceae Dec MNCA 1, 2 Kniphofia albescens Asphodelaceae LC MNCA 1 1 1 Cyrtanthus breviflorus Amaryllidaceae LC MNCA 1 Kniphofia baudi Asphodelaceae LC MNCA 1 Cyrtanthus epiphyticus Amaryllidaceae LC MNCA 1 Kniphofia fiuviatilis Asphodelaceae LC MNCA Cyrtanthus macowanii Amaryllidaceae LC MNCA 1 Kniphofia laxiflora Asphodelaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Cyrtanthus obrienii Amaryllidaceae LC MNCA 1 Kniphofia linearifolie Asphodelaceae LC MNCA 1 1 1 Cyrtanthus stenanthus Amaryllidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Kniphofia multiflora Asphodelaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Cyrtanthus tuckii Amaryllidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 1 Kniphofia porphyrantha Asphodelaceae LC MNCA Haemanthus humilis Amaryllidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Asplenium stoloniferum Aspleniaceae Rare" 2 Haemanthus montanus Amaryllidaceae LC MNCA 1 Getters aurantiaca Asteraceae EN 1, 2 Nerine angustifolia Amaryllidaceae LC MNCA 1 Helichrysum aureum var. argenteum Asteraceae VU - 1, 2 1, 2 Marine Blob Amaryllidaceae LC MNCA 1 Gymnosporia devenishii Celastraceae Rare - 1 Nerine platypetala Amaryllidaceae VU MNCA 1, 2 1, 2 Sandersonia aurantiaca Colchicaceae Dec - 1 1, 2 1, 2 Scadoxus puniceus Amaryllidaceae LC MNCA 1 Cyathea dregei Cyatheaceae LC MNCA Searsia dracomontana Anacardiaceae NT - 1, 2 Dioscorea cotinifolia Dioscoreaceae LC MNCA 1 Alepidea emalymbica Apiaceae VU - 2 2 Dioscorea mundil Dioscoreaceae LC MNCA 1 Aspidoglossum demissum Apocynaceae DD - 1, 2 Dioscorea quartiniana Dioscoreaceae LC MNCA 1 Aspidoglossum xanthosphaerum Apocynaceae VU - 2 1 Dioscorea retusa Dioscoreaceae LC MNCA 1 Aspidonepsis shebae Apocynaceae VU - 1 Dioscorea sylvatica Dioscoreaceae VU MNCA 2 Brachystelma remotum Apocynaceae Rare MNCA 1, 2 lndigofera hybrida Fabaceae: Papilionoideae VU - 1, 2 Brachystelma villosum Apocynaceae Rare MNCA 1 Leobordea difformis Fabaceae: Papilionoideae VU - 2 Cempegia meyed Apocynaceae LC MNCA 1 Lotononis amajubica Fabaceae: Papilionoideae Rare - 1, 2 1, 2 flex mitts var. mitts Aquifoliaceae Dec - 1 Gunners perpensa Gunneraceae Dec - 1, 2 1. 2 Zantedeschia aethlopica Araceae LC MNCA 1 1 Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 55 >14 Eucomis autumnalis subsp. clavata Hyacinthaceae Dec MNCA 2 2 Disa chrysostachya Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Eucomis bicolor Hyacinthaceae NT MNCA 1, 2 Disa cooped Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Eucomis montana Hyacinthaceae Dec MNCA 2 1,2 Disa comuta Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Eucomis pallidit7ora subsp. pole-evansii Hyacinthaceae NT MNCA 2 Disa galpinii Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Merwilla plumbea Hyacinthaceae NT NEMBA 1 1, 2 Disa maculomarronina Orchidaceae NT MNCA 2 Schizocarphus nervosus Hyacinthaceae LC MNCA 1 Disa nervosa Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Gladiolus appendiculatus Iridaceae VU • MNCA 2 2 2 Disa oreophila Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Gladiolus aurantiacus Iridaceae LC MNCA 1 Disa patula Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Gladiolus crassifolius Iridaceae LC MNCA 1 1 1 Disa rhodantha Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Gladiolus dalenii Iridaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Disa stachyoides Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Gladiolus densifforus Iridaceae LC MNCA 1 Disa versicolor Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Gladiolus ecklonii Iridaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Disperis cardiophora Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Gladiolus longicollis Iridaceae LC MNCA 1 Dispeds cooped Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Gladiolus paludosus Iridaceae LC MNCA 1 Disperis fanniniae Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Gladiolus papilio Iridaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Dispeds tysonii Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Gladiolus pubigerus Iridaceae LC MNCA 1 Disperis wealei Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Gladiolus scabridus Iridaceae LC MNCA 1 Eulophia aculeata Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Gladiolus sericeovillosus Iridaceae LC MNCA 1 Eulophia calanthoides Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Gladiolus woodii Iridaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Eulophia foliosa Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Hesperantha coccinea Iridaceae LC MNCA 1 1 1 Eulophia hians Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Moraea robusta Iridaceae Rare • - 2 Eulophia meleagris Orchidaceae Rare • MNCA 2 Watsonia densiflora Iridaceae LC MNCA 1 Eulophia ovalis Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Watsonia latifolia Iridaceae Rare • MNCA 2 1, 2 1, 2 Eulophia parviflora Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Watsonia lepida Iridaceae LC MNCA 1 Eulophia welwitschfi Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Watsonia pulchra Iridaceae LC MNCA 1 1 1 Habenaria clavata Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Watsonia watsonioides Iridaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Habenaria dives Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Lobelia trullifolia subsp. delicatula Lobeliaceae Rare • - 2 Habenaria dregeana Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 1 Rapanea melanophloeos Myrsinaceae Dec - Habenaria epipactidea Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 1 Brachycorythis ovata subsp. ovata Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Habenaria laevigata Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Brownleea galpinii subsp. galpinii Orchidaceae LC MNCA Hebenaria lithophila Orchidaceae LC MNCA Brownleea parviflora Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Liparis bowkeri Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Corycium dracomontanum Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 1 Mystacidium flanaganii Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Corycium nigrescens Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Neobolusia tysonil Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Disa aconitoides subsp. aconitoides Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Polystachya ottomans Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Disa baud! Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Pterygodium hastatum Orchidaceae LC MNCA 111 1 Disa brevicomis Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Pterygodium magnum Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 II Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 57 Satyrium bracteatum Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Protea parvula Proteaceae NT MNCA 1 1 Satyrium cristatum Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 1 Protea roupelliae Proteaceae LC MNCA 1 1 1 Satyn'um hallackii Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Protea simplex Proteaceae LC MNCA 1 Satyrium longicauda Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Protea subvestita Proteaceae Rare • MNCA 1, 2 1, 2 Satyrium microrrhynchum Orchidaceae Rare MNCA 1, 2 Bowkeria citrina Scrophulariaceae Rare - 1, 2 1, 2 Satyrium neglectum Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 1 Selago longicalyx Scrophulariaceae Rare' - 2 Satyrium parvifforum Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 Woodsia angolensis Woodsiaceae Rare • - 2 Satyrium trinerve Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Schizochilus flexuosus Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 Threat Categories:Protection Status: Schizochilus zeyheri Orchidaceae LC MNCA 1 1 MNCADD = = Data Mpumalanga Deficient Nature Conservation Act Pittosporum viridiflorum Pittosporaceae LC NFA 1 1 Dec = Declining Podocarpus falcatus Podocarpaceae LC NFA 1 EN = Endangered Data Sources: Podocarpus henkelii Podocarpaceae LC NFA 1 1 =LC POSA = Least Concern 2 = MTPA Podocarpus latifolius Podocarpaceae LC NFA 1 1 NT = Near Threatened Protea caffra Proteaceae LC MNCA 1 1 1 VU = Vulnerable Protea gaguedi Proteaceae LC MNCA 1 1 = MTPA status only 1 1,• 44141110401. Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 58 Appendix 2: Confirmed and potentially occurring threatened plant species in the Mabola Protected Environment Threat Likelihood of Species Habitat Reason Status Occurrence Asparagus fractiffexus EN High altitude, open grasslands, on rocky outcrops or among boulders. High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on an adjacent property (Oshoek 127 HT) Gerbera aurantiaca EN Mistbelt grassland, well-drained doleritic areas. High Suitable habitat present and confirmed within a 10 km buffer (Groothoek 171 HT) Nerfne platypetala VU Edges of permanently moist vleis and levees of river banks; occasionally in montane grassland. Moderate Limited suitable habitat present and confirmed within a 10 km buffer (Martinus Wesselstroom 121 HT) Alepidea amalymbica VU Along streams and drainage lines in moist grassland High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on an adjacent property (Oshoek 127 HT) Aspidoglossum xanthosphaerum VU Montane grassland, sometimes in marshy sites. High Suitable habitat present and confirmed within a 10 km buffer (Martinus Wesselstroom 121 HT) Aloe kniphoffoides VU Montane grassland. High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on an adjacent property (Chance 106 HT) Aloe modesta VU Montane grassland, 1600-2000 m. Confirmed Sub-populations on the farm Rustfontein 129 HT within the MPE, and other populations on adjacent farms Helichtysum aureum var. argenteum VU Montane grassland, 1800-2000 m. Confirmed Sub-population on the farm Tweehoek 128 HT Dioscorea sylvatica VU Wooded, moist areas such as thickets and forests High Suitable habitat present and confirmed within a 10 km buffer (Middelpunt 100 HT) Indigofera hybdda VU Dry highveld grassland. Low Has not been recorded within a 10 km buffer of the MPE Leoborrlea difformis VU Grassland High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on an adjacent properly (Donkerhoek 398 HT) Gladiolus appendiculatus VU • Montane grassland High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on an adjacent property (Tafelkop 126 HT) Threat Categories: EN = Endangered VU = Vulnerable = MTPA status only Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 59 Appendix 3: Confirmed and potentially occurring other plant species of conservation concern in the Mabola Protected Environment Threat Likelihood of Species Habitat Status Occurrence Reason The only known population is in rock crevices in montane grassland on a Aspidoglossum demissum DD mountain summit at 2 040 mast. Moderate Limited grassland habitat at that altitude, but known population within 5 km of MPE boundary Within the Grassland Biome, usually in short montane grassland on Boophone disticha Dec plateaus or gentle slopes; usually not on steep rocky slopes Confirmed Known subpopulations on Loskop 105 HT and Yzermyn 96 HT Along banks of rivers or streams in wide valleys, often in seasonally Crinum butbispermum Dec flooded habitats High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on adjacent farm (Marthinus Wesselstroom 121 HT) Ilex mills var. mills Dec Along rivers and streams in forest and thickets Moderate Some suitable habitat present, but no known populations within the MPE Sandersonia aurantiaca Dec In moist grassland on hillslopes, sometimes in scrub at forest margins Moderate Some suitable habitat present, but no known populations within the MPE Gunnera perpensa Dec In unchanneled valley-bottom wetlands or large hillslope seeps Confirmed Known subpopulations on Goudhoek 124 HT and Rustfontein 129 HT Eucomis autumnalis subsp. ciavata Dec Short montane grassland and edges of wetlands Confirmed Known subpopulation on Goudhoek 124 HT Eucomis montane Dec Rocky outcrops in grassland, rocky slopes Confirmed Known subpopulation on Rustontein 129 HT Rapanea melanophloeos Dec Montane forest, low thicket on rocky outcrops Moderate Some suitable habitat present, but no known populations within the MPE Searsia dracomontana NT Dolerite grasslands at the edge of scrub forest, 1700-2100 mast High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on an adjacent property (Oshoek 127 HT) Well-drained hillslopes in montane, along watercourses and on rocky Eucomis bicolor NT cliffs, at higher altitudes up to 2800 mast. High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on an adjacent property (Donkerhoek 398 HT) Eucomis palliditlora subsp. pole-evansii NT Wetlands in grassland, often in standing water up to 300 mm deep. High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on an adjacent property (Oshoek 127 HT) Merwilla piumbea NT Steep, rocky slopes in grassland, or low cliffs Confirmed Known subpopulation on Loskop 105 HT In or along edges of vleis, seasonally flooded grassland, seepages on Disa maculomarronina NT rock sheets Low Has not been recorded within a 10 km buffer of the MPE Protea patvula NT Short montane grassland, often in rocky areas Moderate Some suitable habitat present, but no known populations within the MPE Montane grasslands, grows in shallow soils on shale outcrops, 1600-2200 Brachysleima remotum Rare mast. High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on nearby property (Naauwhoek 283 HT) Brechysteima villosum Rare Plateau grassland at around 1500 mast Low Has not been recorded within a 10 km buffer of the MPE Gymnosporia devenishii Rare Understory of montane forest Moderate Some suitable habitat present, but no known populations within the MPE Lotononis amajubica Rare Well-drained, high altitude grassland, 1600-1800 m. Moderate Some suitable habitat present, but no known populations within the MPE Montane grassland in shallow, sandy, humus-rich soil pockets and Khadia aiticoia Rare crevices between rock plates above 2000 mast. High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on an adjacent property (Oshoek 127 HT) Satyrium microrrhynchum Rare Stream banks or seepage areas in moist montane grassland High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on an adjacent property (Retirement 348 HT) Bowkeria citnna Rare Along streams in grassland, forest margins Moderate Some suitable habitat present, but no known populations within the MPE 1 Mab PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 60 Asplenium stoloniferum Rare • Among boulders and leaf litter on forest floor Confirmed Known subpopulation on Goudhoek 124 HT Moraea tobusta Rare • Montane grassland High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on an adjacent property (Oshoek 127 HT) _.. Watsonia latifolia Rare • Montane grassland Confirmed Sub-population on the farm Rustfontein 129 HT within the MPE, and other populations on adjacent farms Lobelia twill/011a subsp. delicatula Rare • Damp, sheltered areas among rocks in grassland Low Has not been recorded within a 10 km buffer of the MPE Eulophia meleagris Rare • Undergrowth of dense Leueosidea thickets Moderate Some suitable habitat present, but no known populations within the MPE Montane grassland, usually in infrequently burnt areas, often associated Rare • Confirmed Protea subvestita with gullies, scarps and forest margins. Known subpopulation on Goedgevonden 95 HT, and other subpopulations on adjacent farms Selago longicalyx Rare * Rocky grassland near forest margins. High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on an adjacent property (Oshoek 127 HT) At base of boulders in montane grassland, along seepage lines in kiss! Woodsia angolensis Rare • Low Has not been recorded within a 10 km buffer of the MPE forest or at forest margins Threat Categories: DD = Data Deficient Dec = Declining NT = Near Threatened = MTPA status only Mabola 1E: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 51 1114,-). Appendix 4: Weeds and invasive alien plants recorded from the general vicinity of the MPE Threat Likelihood of Species Habitat Reason Status Occurrence Asparagus fractillexus EN High altitude, open grasslands, on rocky outcrops or among boulders. High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on an adjacent property (Oshoek 127 HT) Gerbera aurantiaca EN Mistbelt grassland, well-drained doleritic areas. High Suitable habitat present and confirmed within a 10 km buffer (Groothoek 171 HT) Notice platypetala VU Edges of permanently moist vleis and levees of river banks; occasionally in montane grassland. Moderate Limited suitable habitat present and confirmed within a 10 km buffer (Martinus Wesselstroom 121 HT) Alepidea amalymbica VU Along streams and drainage lines in moist grassland High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on an adjacent property (Oshoek 127 HT) Aspidoglossum xanthosphaerum VU Montane grassland, sometimes in marshy sites. High Suitable habitat present and confirmed within a 10 km buffer (Martinus Wesselstroom 121 HT) Aloe kniphofioides VU Montane grassland. High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on an adjacent property (Chance 106 HT) Aloe modesta VU Montane grassland, 1600-2000 m. Confirmed Sub-populations on the farm Rustfontein 129 HT within the MPE, and other populations on adjacent farms Helictnysum aureum var. argenteum VU Montane grassland, 1800-2000 m. Confirmed Sub-population on the farm Tweehoek 128 HT Dioscorea sylvatica VU Wooded, moist areas such as thickets and forests High Suitable habitat present and confirmed within a 10 km buffer (Middelpunt 100 HT) Indigolera hybtida VU Dry highveld grassland. Low Has not been recorded within a 10 km buffer of the MPE Leobordea difformis VU Grassland High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on an adjacent property (Donkerhoek 398 HT) Gladiolus appendiculatus VU • Montane grassland High Suitable habitat present and confirmed on an adjacent property (Tafelkop 126 HT) Threat Categories: EN = Endangered VU = Vulnerable = MTPA status only Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 62 0, 1 = MTPA Database 2 = Friedmann & Daly 2004 3 = NSS Report Appendix 5: Potentially occurring mammal species of conservation concern in the WIPE Lesser Grey-brown Musk Shrew Crocidura silacee DD - 2 2 2 Dark-footed Forest Shrew Myosorex cater DD Common Name Scientific Name Red List Status NEMBA Status 2730AB 2730AC 2730AD - 2 Forest Shrew Myosorex varius DO - 2 2 Rough-haired Golden Mole Chrysospalax villosus VU - 1 1 Sloggett's Vlei Rat Otomys sloggetti DD - 2 Samango Monkey Cercopithecus mills labiatus EN - 1 Striped Weasel Poecilogale elbinucha DD - 1 White-tailed Rat Mystromys albicaudatus EN - 2 Cape Fox Vulpes chama LC Pr 2 2 Oribi Ourebia cured/ EN EN 1 1 Swinny's Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus swinnyi EN - 1, 3 CR = Critically Endangered Highveld Golden Mole Amblysomus septentrionalis NT - 1 1 DO = Data Deficient Brown Hyaena Hyaena brunnea NT Pr 2 2 EN = Endangered Serval Leptailurus serval NT Pr 1,3 LC = Least Concern Spotted-necked Otter Lutra maculicollis NT Pr 2 NT = Near Threatened Honey Badger MeIlivora capensis NT Pr 2 Pr = Protected Species Natal Long-fingered Bat Miniopterus natalensis NT - 1, 3 VU = Vulnerable Temminck's Hairy Bat Myotis tricolor NT - 1, 3 Leopard Panthers pardus NT VU 2 2 Rusty Pipistrelle Pipistrellus rusticus NT - 3 Geoffrey's Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus clivosus NT - 1, 3 Sclater's Golden Mole Chlorotalpa sclateri DD 1 Reddish-grey Musk Shrew Crocidura cyanea DD - 1, 3 Greater Red Musk Shrew Crocidura tlavescens DD - 2 2 Swamp Musk Shrew Crocidura mariquensis DO - 1, 3 „...1),. Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 63 Appendix 6: Obligate habitat specialists present in the Mabola Protected Environment 2730AB 2730AC 2730AD Common Name Obligate Habitat TOTAL African Endemic Endemic Highlands South Afrotropical 2705_3015 2705_3020 2710_3015 2710_3020 2715_3010 2720_3010 12715_3015 _1 2715_3020 African Grass Owl Grassland 1 1 Barratt's Warbler Afromontane Forest x x 2 3 1 6 Black-winged Lapwing Grassland 2 2 Blue Korhaan Grassland x 5 5 Broad-tailed Warbler Grassland 1 1 Buff-streaked Chat Grassland x x 1 1 6 1 5 20 1 35 Bush Blackcap Afromontane Forest x x 1 2 3 1 7 Cape Grassbird Grassland 3 1 5 3 2 3 2 19 Chorister Robin-Chat Afromontane Forest x x 1 1 2 Cloud Cisticola Grassland 2 2 2 1 7 Denham's Bustard Grassland 2 2 3 1 8 Drakensberg Prinia Grassland x 2 4 1 7 5 3 2 24 Eastern Long-billed Lark Grassland x 1 1 1 10 13 Forest Canary Afromontane Forest x x 2 2 Lemon Dove Afromontane Forest 1 1 Long-tailed Widowbird Grassland 3 1 7 5 11 28 5 3 63 Olive Bush Shrike Afromontane Forest x 1 4 1 6 Olive Woodpecker Afromontane Forest 2 1 1 1 5 Pale-crowned Cisticola Grassland 2 1 2 3 1 9 Red-winged Francolin Grassland 1 2 2 4 1 1 11 Sentinel Rock Thrush Grassland x 1 1 25 1 28 Southern Bald Ibis Grassland x x 3 2 1 3 15 3 1 28 Swee Waxbill Afromontane Forest x x 1 1 Wailing Cisticola Grassland 1 5 3 4 2 2 17 White-starred Robin Afromontane Forest x 1 1 Wing-snapping Cisticola Grassland 1 1 4 5 3 11 3 1 29 Yellow-breasted Pipit Grassland x x 13 13 Yellow-throated Woodland Warbler Afromontane Forest x 1 1 2 TOTAL NO. OF RECORDS 15 5 48 21 42 153 40 22 TOTAL NO. OF SPECIES 28 11 12 8 5 17 11 11 17 18 17 *The numbers in each cell, represents the number of recordings of each specialist in the relevant grid blocks provided. bola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 64 Appendix 7: Bird species of conservation concern occurring in the general vicinity of the MPE Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni NT (VU*) 1 1 1 Common Name Scientific Name Red Data Status 2730AB 2730AC 2730AD Maccoa Duck Oxyura maccoa NT 1 African Crowned Eagle Stephanoaetus coronatus VU 1, 2 1, 2 Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus EN 1 1 1 African Grass Owl Tyto capensis VU 1, 2 1, 2 1 Orange Ground Thrush Zoothera gumeyi NT 1 African Marsh Harrier Circus ranivorus EN 1 1, 2 1 Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus NT 2 African Rock Pipit Anthus crenatus NT 1 1 1 Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus NT 1 1 Black Harrier Circus maurus EN 1 1 Rudd's Lark Heteromirafra ruddi EN (CR*) 1, 2 2 Black Stork Ciconia nigra VU 1 1 2 Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius VU 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 Black-bellied Bustard Lissotis melanogaster NT 1, 2 1, 2 1 Southern Bald Ibis Geronticus ca/vus VU 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 Black-winged Lapwing Vanellus melanopterus LC (*NT) 1 1, 2 1 Southern Ground Hombill Bucorvus leadbeateri EN 1 Black-winged Pratincole Glareola nordmanni NT 2 Wattled Crane Bugeranus caruncu/atus CR 1, 2 1 1, 2 Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus NT (VU*) 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 White-bellied Korhaan Eupodotis senegalensis VU 1, 2 1 1, 2 Blue Korhaan Eupodotis caeru/escens LC (VU*) 1, 2 1, 2 1 White-winged Flufftail Sarothrura ayresi CR 2 Botha's Lark Spizocorys Magiflans EN 1, 2 'Yellow-breasted Pipit Anthus chloris VU 2 1, 2 1, 2 Broad-tailed Warbler Schoenicola brevirostris LC (NT*) 1, 2 Bush Blackcap Lioptilus nigticapillus VU 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 Cape Vulture Gyps coprotheres EN 1 CR = Critically Threatened Status represented in (brackets *) states MTPA status only. EN = Endangered Denham's Bustard Neotis denhami VU 1, 2 1, 2 1 LC = Least Concern European Roller Coracias garrulus NT 1 1 NT = Near Threatened Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus ruber NT 1 1, 2 VU = Vulnerable Greater Painted Snipe Rostratula benghalensis VU 1 1 = SABAP2 Grey Crowned Crane Balearica regu/orum EN 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 2 = MTPA Half-collared Kingfisher Alcedo semitorquata NT 1 1 1 *. MTPA status only Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus VU 1, 2 1, 2 1 Lesser Flamingo Phoenicopterus minor NT 1 II14%1 February 2015 Page 65 411111111111111 ola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 7 Appendix 8: Threatened and near threatened birds recorded within the vicinity of the MPE during SABAPZ Common Name Scientific Name RD Status African Marsh Harrier Circus ranivorus EN Black Harrier Circus maurus EN Grey Crowned Crane Balearics regulorum EN African Rock Pipit Anthus crenatus NT Black-bellied Bustard Lissotis melanogaster NT Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus NT European Roller Coracles ganvlus NT Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni NT Black-winged Lapwing Vanellus melanoptervs NT * Broad-tailed Warbler Schoenicola brevirostna NT" African Crowned Eagle Stephanoaetus coronatus VU African Grass Owl Tyto capensis VU Black Stork Ciconia nigra VU Bush Blackcap Lioptilus nigricapillus VU Denham's Bustard Neotis denhami VU Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus VU Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius VU Southem Bald Ibis Geronticus calvus VU White-bellied Korhaan Eupodotis senegalensis VU Yellow-breasted Pipit Anthus chloris VU Blue Korhaan Eupodotis caerulescens VU * TOTAL 21 EN = Endangered VU = Vulnerable NT = Near Threatened *= MTPA provincial status Mabola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 66 Appendix 9: Reptiles and frogs confirmed to occur in the general vicinity of the MPE through atlas projects Common Crag Lizard Pseudocordylus melanotus melanotus Common Name Scientific Name Red Data Status 2730AB 2730AC 2730AD LC x x x Montane Dwarf Burrowing Snake Scetotes minis LC x REPTILES Cape Skink 7rachylepis capensis LC x x x Southern Tree Agama Acanthocercus atricollis LC x Speckled Rock Skink Trashylapis punctatissima LC x x x Short-headed Legless Skink Acontias breviceps VU " x Variable Skink Trashylapis varia LC x x Thin-tailed Legless Skink Acontias gracilicauda LC x SUBTOTAL 36 17 20 26 Bibron's Blind Snake Afrotyphlops bibronii LC x x FROGS Distant's Ground Agama Agama aculeata distanti LC x x Rattling Frog Semnodactylus wea/ii LC x x Many-spotted Snake Amplorhinus multimaculatus NT* x Raucous Toad Amietophrynus rangeri LC x Puff Adder Bib's anetans LC x Karoo Toad Vandijkophrynus gariepensis nubicola VU " x x Berg Adder Bitis atropos LC x Cape River Frog Amietia fuscigula LC x x x Flap-neck Chamaeleon Chamaeleo dilepis LC x x Common Platanna Xenopus laevis LC x x Coppery Grass Lizard Chamaesaura aenea NT x Common Caco Cacostemum boettgeri LC x x x Cape Grass Lizard Chamaesaura anguina NT " x Bronze Caco Cacostemum nanum nanum LC x Common Girdled Lizard Cordylus vittifer LC x x x Common River Frog Afrana angotensis LC x x x Red-lipped Snake Crotaphopeltis hotamboeta LC x x x Striped Grass Frog Ptychadena porosissima LC x Rhombic Egg-eater Dasypeltis scabta LC x Striped Stream Frog Strongylopus fasciatus LC x x x Yellow-throated Plated Lizard Gerrhosautus flavigularis LC x x x Clicking Stream Frog Strongylopus grayii LC x x x Rinkhals Hemachatus haemachatus LC x x x Natal Sand Frog Tomoptema natalensis LC x x x Striped Harlequin Snake Homoroselaps dorsalis NT x Guttural Toad Bufo gutturalis LC x x Spotted Rock Snake Lamprophis guttatus LC x Natal Ghost Frog Heleophtyne natalensis VU * x Incognito Thread Snake Leptotyphlops incognitos LC x Painted Reed Frog Hyperolius marrnoratus LC x x Peter's Thread Snake Leptotyphlops scutifrons LC x x Bubbling Kassina Kassine senegalensis LC x x x Dusky-bellied Water Snake Lycodonomorphus laevissimus LC x Mozambique Rain Frog Breviceps mossambicus LC x Brown Water Snake Lycodonomorphus rufu/us LC x x SUBTOTAL 17 10 14 12 Cape Wolf Snake Lycophidion capense LC x TOTAL 53 27 34 40 Spotted Dwarf Gecko Lygodactylus oce//atus LC x x Delalande's Sandveld Lizard Nucras lalandii LC x x LC = Least Concern Van Sons Gecko Pachydactylus vansoni LC x x x NT = Near Threatened Burchell's Sand Lizard Pedioplanis burchellii LC x x VU = Vulnerable Short-snouted Grass Snake Psammophis brevirosttis LC x "= MTPA provincial status Cross-marked Grass Snake Psammophis crucifer LC x x Spotted Grass Snake Psammophylax rhombeatus LC x x x Mole Snake Pseudaspis cane LC x x bola PE: Management Plan 2015-2019 February 2015 Page 57 Centre for EnvironmentatRights , Advancing Environmental Rights in South Afri6x- li 111 Ms Skumsa Mancotywa Acting Deputy Director-General: Biodiversity and Conservation Department of Environmental Affairs Pretoria 0001 By email: smancotywa@environmentgovia cc Mr Simon Malete Administrative Support Biodiversity and Conservation Department of Environmental Affairs By email: [email protected] Your ref: Ms Mancotywa Our ref: MF/CH/MT Date: 23 February 2015 URGENT Dear Ms Mancotywa THE PROPOSED YZERMYN UNDERGROUND COAL MINE IN THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT 1. The Centre for Environmental Rights is a non-profit organisation and law clinic established to advance environmental rights in South Africa. One of our areas of work, which we regard as central to realisation of section 24 of the Constitution, is the protection and defence of protected areas and areas of critical biodiversity and hydrological value and sensitivity. The Centre also works closely with numerous other civil society organisations concerned with ensuring transparency, accountability and environmental compliance in the mining sector. This includes WWF South Africa and Bird Life South Africa who have worked for the protection of the broader grasslands area in Mpumalanga, KwaZulu-Natal and Free State for many years, as well as the Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network for South Africa. 2. For these reasons, we supported the declaration of the Mabola Protected Environment under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (NEMPAA) by the Mpumalanga MEC in January 2014. 3. It now appears from media reports and other sources that, since that declaration, the Mpumalanga Regional Manager for the Department of Mineral Resources (DM R) has granted a mining right to Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (AAV) in respect of a mining area that falls within the Mabola Protected Environment. It further appears that AAV intends pursuing the exercise of those rights despite the provisions of section 48 of NEMPAA. 4. We urgently need to confirm the following with you: 4.1. Has the Minister or the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) received any request from the Minister of Mineral Resources, DMR or AAV for the Minister of Environmental Affairs' written permission to mine 2" Floor: Springtime Studios, I Scott Road. Observatory, 7925 ?-\ Cape Town: South Africa Tel 021 447 1647. Fax 086 730 9008 Email infoOcer,org.za, vitham.ceinorg.ta CEIEVP:, for ErIvicOnmenlai Rialfis pIPC Is nn-profit company uPth regnicolonalltbor 20(0. ne/OH. NPCI Ref 075-Mi. Eta ela F2W57220 and a Low etinic Leg o Gtoti Rope I DreclOW Caioyn Eflaneth AC Shane, Joantia Amr nay:woad, Muhanym-J Saiiern Fakir. Mairsza Fowl, kExecrulive). SIWIen. Man', Lear {Chair) Montoya: U.Fan Ohara Tracey Laura! Dayton. Mel aa Fonda, Camerae Herstreth. Saban thrzabeth Dim°. Sylvia Icarne)flja, Rhode Layer, Mar-than Tithed ConEiklato Attoinyfa, Matomo Let110)6 Dana. Aynnith Mota!a, Te:hoho Masao Seb0900i inside the Mabola Protected Environment in terms of NEMPAA's Section 48? If so, we citgently neW --41es of such a request and any response from the Minister or DEA, i 4.2. If not, has the Minister of Environmental Affairs or DEA received hey other request fr;tim the Minist ier of \ Mineral Resources, the DMR or AAV in relation to AAV's proposed arctivities inside the Mabola Protected Environment? This includes a request to comment on the environmentalmenagement progrieitydattached to the mining right referred to above. If so, we urgently need copies of such -correspondenteThetiisten AAV__ and/or the Minister of Mineral Resources, the DMR, and the Minister of Environmental Affairs and/or DEA. 4.3. If the Minister of Environmental Affairs is considering any request for permission to mine inside the Mabola Protected Environment in terms of NEMPAA, please advise what public participation process has been initiated or is being contemplated to ensure compliance with the requirements of NEMPAA, NEMA and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000? 4.4. Has the Minister of Environmental Affairs or DEA received any notification from the Mpumalanga MEC or the Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs regarding an intention or any steps taken to withdraw the declaration of the Ma bola Protected Environment or to exclude part of the Mabola Protected Environment under section 29 of NEMPAA? If so, we urgently need copies of such correspondence. 5. As there is a short and limited time period for lodging an appeal against the granting of a mining right inside the Ma bola Protected Environment, please could you assist us with this information as a matter of great urgency, and no later than 25 February 2015. Yours sincerely CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS per: Melissa Fourie Executive Director Direct email: [email protected] 2 Suzanne Powell From: Melissa Fourie Sent: 26 February 2015 12:03 PM To: Catherine Horsfield; Marthan Theart; Canaan De Villiers Subject: Fwd: Proposed Yzermyn Underground Coal Mine in the Mabola Protected Envi ------Original message ------From: Milicent Solomons Date:26/02/2015 11:50 (GMT+02:00) To: Wilma Lutsch Cc: Melissa Fourie ,Fiona Grimett ,Humbu Mafumo ,Ishaam Abader ,Jones Muleso Kharika ,Karl Naude ,Sabelo Malaza ,Pumeza Skepe ,Skumsa Mancotywa ,Siboniso Mbense Subject: Re: Proposed Yzermyn Underground Coal Mine in the Mabola Protected Envi Dear Wilma Your email below refers; please note that the queries related to the Protected Areas Act and authorisations that need to be obtained from the Minister to mine in the protected environment. We do not deal with these matters and it should be directed to the D: Protected Areas for a response. We currently have one in-process application for environmental authorisation and the amended Final EIR was only received in February 2015. The decision has not yet been made and is only due in approx 100 days. This query relates to an already obtained Mining Permit. Kind regards Milicent This message and any attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If you have received this message in error please destroy it and notify the sender. Any unauthorized usage, disclosure, alteration or dissemination is prohibited. The Department of Environmental Affairs accepts no responsibility for any loss whether it be direct, indirect or consequential, arising from information made available and actions resulting there from. The views and opinions expressed in this e-mail message may not necessarily be those of Management. >>> Wilma Lutsch 02/25/15 4:08 PM >>> Dear Millicent The attached letter was received from Mellissa Fourie, Executive Director of the Centre for Environmental Rights, requesting a response to a number of questions regarding the granting of a mining right to Atha-Africa Ventures in respect of a mining area that falls within the Mabola Protected Environment. After investigations in this regard, it became apparent that your section dealt with this matter at a previous occasion, and therefore a friendly request to respond as a matter of urgency to Ms Fourie, as she has to lodge an appeal against the granting of a mining right. Please also find a response to a media query in this regard for your information. Kind regards Wilma Lutsch Director: Biodiversity Conservation Department of Environmental Affairs Tel 012 3998827 Centre for Environmental Rights Advancing Environmental Rights in South Africa The Honourable Minister BEE Molewa TTN Minister of Environmental Affairs Environment House Corner of Steve Biko and Soutpansberg Roads Arcadia 0083 Attention: Gail Ramutshila Appointments Secretary to the Minister By email: [email protected] And attention: Lebogang Mphuthi Acting Chief of Staff By email: [email protected] And copied to: Ms Wilma Lutsch Director: Biodiversity Conservation Department of Environmental Affairs Environment House Corner of Steve Biko and Soutpansberg Roads Arcadia 0083 By email: [email protected] Your ref: Minister Molewa Our ref: CH/MT 2 April 2015 URGENT Dear Honourable Minister Molewa NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL LODGED AGAINST THE GRANT OF A MINING RIGHT TO ATHA-AFRICA (PTV) LTD TO CONDUCT COAL MINING IN THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT REQUEST TO NOT CONSIDER, EVALUATE OR DECIDE REQUEST FOR WRITTEN PERMISSION IN TERMS OF SECTION 48(1)(b) OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PROTECTED AREAS ACT TO CONDUCT COMMERCIAL MINING IN THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL 1. The Centre for Environmental Affairs represents Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg, Birdlife South Africa, the Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network of South Africa, the Endangered Wildlife Trust, Federation for a Sustainable Environment, Bench Marks Foundation, Association for Water and Rural D evelopment (AWARD) and groundWork in an internal appeal to the Minister of Mineral Resources in terms of section 96 of the Mineral and 2'16 Floor, Springtime Studios, 1 Scott Road. Observatory, 7925 Cape Town. South Africa Tel 021 447 1647, Fax 086 730 9098 Email [email protected], www.cer.org.za Genre for Environmental Rights MPG is a non-profit company with registration number 200910.20736103, MPG Ref 075 -863, P90 Ho 930032226 and a Law Clinic registered mitt the Law Society of I) Gape of Good Hope I Directors - Carolyn Elizabeth All Shane. Joanna Amy Eastwood. Mohamed Salient kakis MelESSEI Fauna (Execulwe) Stephen Mark Law (Chair) ka rats() Matlawa Maelane I Attorneys: R-Fen Chian, Tracey Laurel Davies. Melissa Fonda. Catherine Horsheld Robyn Elizabeth Huge, Syl via Karnanja Nirote Laser. marthan Theart I Candidate Attorneys: Malome Lathe's° Kapa. Ayesha Motala Tabors) Moses Sebogodi 1 Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (MPRDA) against the grant of a mining right to Atha Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (Atha) to conduct underground coal mining in the Mabola Protected Environment. 2. The Mabola Protected Environment was declared by the Mpumalanga MEC under section 28 of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 (NEMPAA) on 22 January 2014. One of the primaty motivations for the declaration of the Mabola Protected Environment was to protect this unique anent -replaceable area from the detrimental environmental risks and impacts of coal mining. 3. In the internal appeal under the MPRDA, the appellants seek the setting aside of the grant of the mining right in its entirety, including a number of vague and unlawful conditions pertaining to the environment which were imposed when the mining right was granted. 4. Given the extreme environmental sensitivity of the area, the appellants simultaneously lodged an application for the suspension of the mining right pending the outcome of the appeal. 5. On 16 May 2014 the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) notified Atha's environmental consultants, EcoPartners, that the Final Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) had been rejected by the Department. 6. One of the reports submitted by a consultant appointed by Atha itself recommended that the area should be declared "no go" for mining, because of the impacts of mining on biodiversity and on the supply of water to the surface water resources. As far as the appellants are aware, Atha subsequently submitted an amended EIAR to the DEA, and that the DEA is still considering the amended EIAR. 7. The mining right was granted notwithstanding that: - a. as far as the appellants have been able to establish, the written permission of the Minister of Environmental Affairs and the Minister of Mineral Resources in terms of section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA to conduct commercial mining in the Mabola Protected Environment has not been obtained, or sought; b. the mining right is in respect of properties that: i. are classified as of "irreplaceable" biodiversity value in the terrestrial biodiversity assessment contained in the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan of 2006; ii. form part of the Wakkerstroom/Luneburg Grasslands Threatened Ecosystem, listed as an endangered ecosystem in the National List of Ecosystems that are Threatened and in Need of Protection published in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 10 of 2004; iii. fall within a National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area and a Strategic Water Source Area, determined by the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) as part of the National Freshwater Ecosystem Project, funded by the Water Research Commission, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, SANBI, the Department of Water Affairs (now the Department of Water and Sanitation) and DEA; iv. are identified in the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (2008) as an area that requires urgent legal protection; v. the express objection to the granting of the right by the Department of Water and Sanitation; vi. the express objection to the granting of the right by the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency; vii. ongoing and repeated objections from civil society organisations, including members of the multi- stakeholder Grassland Programme such as WWF South Africa and BirdLife South Africa, 8. In the circumstances of all of the above, the appellants request, pending the final determination of whether the grant of the mining right to Atha was lawful, that the Minister not take any steps to consider, evaluate or 2 Axs determine any such application as may be made by Atha for the Minister's written permission to conduct commercial mining in the Mabola Protected Area. Yours faithfully CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS it--dt_--i. p er Melissa Fourie Executive Director Direct email: [email protected] 3 Centre for Environmental Rights Advancinc Environmental Rights in South Africa TTNI The Honourable Minister Ngoako Ramatlhodi Minister of Mineral Resources Department of Mineral Resources Block 2C, 4th Floor Trevenna Campus Corner of Francis Baard and Meintjies Streets Sunnyside Pretoria By email: [email protected] By fax: 012 461 0859 Your ref: MP30/5/1/2/2/10069MR Our ref: CH/MT 2 April 2015 URGENT Dear Minister Ramatlhodi APPEAL AGAINST THE GRANT OF MINING RIGHT TO ATHA-VENTURES (PTY) LTD APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE MINING RIGHT PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE APPEAL REQUEST TO NOT CONSIDER, EVALUATE OR DECIDE ANY REQUEST FOR WRITTEN PERMISSION IN TERMS OF SECTION 48(1)(b) OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PROTECTED AREAS ACT TO CONDUCT COMMERCIAL MINING IN THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL 1. On 1 April 2015, eight civil society and community organisations, represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights, submitted an appeal against the grant of a mining right to Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (Atha) to conduct underground coal mining in the Mabola Protected Environment declared as such under section 28 of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 57 of 2004 (NEMPAA). 2, The eight organisations are: Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg, Birdlife South Africa, the Mining and Env ironmental Justice Community Network of South Africa, the Endangered Wildlife Trust, Federation for a Sustainable Environment, Bench Marks Foundation, Association for Water and Rural Development (AWARD) and groundWork. 3. One of the primary motivations for the declaration of the Mabola Protected Environmentwas to protect this unique and irreplaceable area from the detrimental environmental risks and impacts of coal mining. 291 Floor, Springtime Studios, 1 Scott Road, Observatory, 7925 Cape Town. South Africa Tel 021 447 1647, Fax 086 730 9098 Email [email protected], www.cer.org.za centre for Environmental Rights MPG ;s non-proN company witn registrafton mimber 2009/020736/08 11P C; Re; 07 MM, Pe() No 93003222d and a Law OMR regsstered; with the L aw Society of the Cape of Good Hope I Difectoss: CEPOlyn azabeth Ah Shene, Joanne AmyEastwood Mohamed Salient Fakir. Melissa hedne (Execulive) Stephen Made, Law (Cnoh), Rambo Matlawa Maelane I Li- Attorneys Fen Chien, Tracey Laurel Davies, Melissa Cause, Ca ne=rve Mansfield Robyn Elizabeth Hugo. Sylvia Kamam a, NicoN LonerM arthen mean Melanie Lethabo (ape, Ayesha Metals Teboho Mooes Sebogedi ($.}- 4. In the internal appeal under the MPRDA, the appellants seek the setting aside of the grant of the mining right in its entirety, including a number of vague and unlawful conditions pertaining to the environment which were' imposed when the mining right was g r a n t e d . 5. Given the extreme environmental sensitivity of the area, the appellants simultaneously lodged an, application for the suspension of the mining right pending the outcome of the appeal. 6. One of the grounds of appeal is that the mining right was granted notwithstanding that, as far as the appellants have been able to establish, the written permission of the Minister of Environmental Affairs and the Minister of Mineral Resources in terms of section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA to conduct commercial mining in the Mabola Protected Environment has not been obtained, or sought. 7. The appellants have addressed a letter to the Minister of Environmental Affairs requesting that, pending the final determination of whether the grant of the mining right to Atha was lawful, the Minister not take any steps to consider, evaluate or decide any such application as may be made by Atha for that Minister's written permission to conduct commercial mining in the Mabola Protected Environment. A copy of that letter to the Minister of Environmental Affairs is attached. 8. The appellants hereby make the same request to the Minister of Mineral Resources. 9. Furthermore, the appellants expressly request the Minister of Mineral Resources to consider and determine the appellants' application for suspension of the mining right pending the final determination of whether the grant of the mining right to Atha was lawful. 10. The appellants expressly reserve the right to approach the High Court at any stage should it become necessary to take urgent steps to protect this unique, irreplaceable and highly environmentally sensitive area. Yours faithfully CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS per: Melissa Fourie Executive Director Direct email: [email protected] 2 latM n is vO sa ANNExtgE MINISTER MINERAL RESOURCES REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Enquiries: L Mugagadeli Ref No: MP 30/6/1/2J2/10069MR REGISTERED MAIL The Directors Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd PO Box 1569 SANDTON 2157 Fax No. (011) 784 7467 Gentlemen/Ladies APPLICATION FOR A MINING RIGHT IN TERMS OF SECTION 22 OF THE MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2002 (ACT 28 OF 2002); IN RESPECT OF THE FARMS BLOEMHOF 92 HT, GOEDEGEVONDEN 95 HT, KROMHOEK 93 HT, PORTION 1 OF THE FARM NAUWGEVONDEN 110 HT, PAARDEKOP 109 HT, UITZICHT 108 HT, PORTION 2 AND THE REMAINING EXTENT OF THE FARM VAN DER WALTSPOORT 81 HT, VIRGINIA 91 HT, WAALHOEK 87 HT, PORTION 1 AND THE REMAINING EXTENT OF THE FARM YZERMYN 96 HT AND ZOETFONTEIN 94 HT SITUATED IN THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OF WAKKERSTROOM. 1. After careful consideration, I, Ngoako Abel Ramatihodi, Minister of Mineral Resources, in terms of section 103(4)(b) of the Act, hereby amend the decision made by the Director-General on 19 September 2014, to grant a mining right to you subject to the conditions contained in the granting letter. 2, This therefore serves to inform you that your abovementioned application for a mining right to mine Coal in respect of the abovementioned properties has been granted in terms of section 23(1) a el a A ba of the abovementioned Act. The Regional Office will prepare the final copies of the right to be signed. 3. Take note that the Regional Manager will approve the relevant Environmental Management Programme and sign the right. 4. Further note that in terms of Section 23(5) of the Act, the mining right comes into effect on the date on which the Environmental Management Programme is approved. In terms of Section 25(2) (b) mining activities must commence within one year of the effective date. 5. In light of the afore-going, you are requested to: 41. Ensure that all outstanding matters regarding your application are finalized and that relevant documents are submitted to the Regional Office no later than 30 days prior to the date mentioned in paragraph 2 above, which outstanding matters include the submission of; (a) financial provision be provided before execution (b) the particulars of your authorized representative who will sign the right, (c) the particulars of the public notary, before whom the right must be signed, (d) two (2) copies of the final mining work programme, (e) A diagram prepared by a surveyor 6 (six) originals in accordance with the requirements of the Mining Titles Registration Act and which shall indicate- (i) the north point; (ii) the scale to which the plan has been drawn; WITHDRAWAL OF DECISION OF DIRECTOR-GENERAL: MINERAL RESOURCES TO AMEND PARAGRAPH 6 (I) AND (III OF THE GRANTIGN LETTER ATHA-AFRICA VENTURES (PTV) LTD MINING RIGHT (10069 MR) d l J APV.0411' I (Hi) the name, number registration division and portion of the farm or farms on which the relevant area is situated; (iv) the shape of the relevant area in relation to the farm boundaries and co-ordinates points: (v) the region in which the relevant farm is situated and; (vi) be certified, approved signed and dated by the professional land surveyor, unless the Director General otherwise indicates. (vii) two (2) copies of the Social and Labour Plan 4.2. Please make arrangements for the public notary, authorized representative(s) of your company and a witness lo be present and attend the signing of the mining right once the aforesaid outstanding matters are verified and an execution date has been finalized by this Office. 6. Note further that in terms of Section 25(2)(a), the signed/executed mining right must be lodged for registration at the Mineral and Petroleum Titles Registration Office, Pretoria, within 30 days as from the date of approval of the relevant environmental management program. 7. Finally, noting the provisions of section 23(6) of the Act, the following shall also be applicable: (i) You may not commence with mining operations prior to the obtaining of a Water License from the Department of Water Affairs; (ii) You may not commence with mining operations prior to the obtaining an of Environmental Authorization from the Department of Environmental Affairs; and WITHDRAWAL OF DECISION OF DIRECTOR.GENERAL: MINERAL RESOURCES TO AMEND PARAGRAPH 6 II) AND (II) OF THE GRANTIGN LETTER ATHA -AFRICA VENTURES (PTY) LTD MINING RIGHT (10069 MR) ("1,-\ r\J ASSw (iii)You must comply with all other related legislations before the commencement of mining. 8. Failure to comply may result in the withdrawal, suspension or cancellation of the right in question. Yours faithfully r ) - v v t o t , kr C-- to. ADV N A RAMATLHODI MINISTER MINERAL RESOURCES DATE: i Ltlat lac( 5 WITHDRAWAL OF DECISION OF DIRECTORGENERAL: MINERAL RESOURCES TO AMEND PARAGRAPH 6 (I) AND (II) OF THE GRANTIGN LETTER ATHA-AFRICA VENTURES (PTY) LTD MINING RIGHT (16069 MR) Centre for Environmental Rights Advancing Environmental Rights in South Africa Mr Andries Gamede MEC: Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs Mpumalanga Province Nelspruit By email: [email protected] By fax: 013 766 8437 Date: 20 August 2015 URGENT Dear MEC REQUEST BY ATHA-AFRICA VENTURES (PTY) LTD FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE DECLARATION OF THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT 1. As you are aware, a portion of the endangered Wakkerstroom Wet Grassland Ecosystem was declared by the MEC for the then Department of Economic Development, Environment, and Tourism in Mpumalanga Province as the Mabola Protected Environment in terms of section 28 of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2004 (NEMPAA) on 22 January 2014. 2. On 19 September 2014, the Director-General (DG) of the Department of Mineral Resources granted a mining right to Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (AAV) in respect of a portion of the Mabola Protected Environment. On 14 April 2015 the Minister of Mineral Resources exercised his powers in terms of section 103(4)b of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (MPRDA) to amend the mining right, alternatively to withdraw the DG's decision to grant the mining right and to grant it afresh. 3. In terms of section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA, AAV may not conduct commercial mining in a protected environment without the written consent of the Minister of Environmental Affairs and the Minister of Mineral Resources. Application for the withdrawal of the declaration of the Mabola Protected Environment by AAV 4. In the environmental impact assessment report submitted by AAV to the Department of Environmental Affairs as part of its application for environmental authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (NEMA), AAV stated that it has applied to the MEC for the withdrawal of the declaration of the Mabola Protected Environment. S. In terms of section 32 of NEMPAA, a notice of withdrawal of the declaration of a protected environment, or the exclusion of any part of a protected environment, in terms of section 29 of NEMPAA, may not be issued unless a prior consultative process has been conducted. In terms of this section, the MEC concerned may follow such consultative process as may be appropriate in the circumstances, but must, inter alia, follow a process of public participation in accordance with section 33 of NEMPAA. 2"d Floor, Springtime Studios, 1 Scott Road, Observatory, 7925 Cape Town, South Africa Tel 021 447 1647, Fax 086 730 9098 Email [email protected],za, worw.cer.org.za Centre far Environmental Rmhts NEC is a non-protit company with yegiskralion number 2009/020736/08. YIDO Ref 075-863. PBS No 930032226 and a Lan Clinic repsterea with the Law Society of ft Cape of Good Hope I Du-eclat: Carolyn Elizabeth Ali Shane, Joanna Ante Eastwood, Mohamed Sahara Fakir, Melissa Fovea (ExeYutive). Stephen Mark Law (Chain, Mambo Matlawa Maelana I Attorneys Tracey Laurel Davies. Melissa Foune, Catharine Horsfielcl. Robyn Elizabeth Hugs Sylvia Kamanja Lose:, Ayesha Morale, Christine Kann Randall. Marthan Thean I Candidate Attorneys. Materna. Lelhabo Kapa. Taooho Moses Sebogodi I 6. In terms of section 33 of NEMPAA, the relevant MEC must, inter alio, publish the intention to issue.a notice of intention to withdraw the declaration of a protected environment or the exclusion of land from a protecfedI environment in the Mpumalanga Provincial Gazette and in at least two national newspapers distributed in t he' area in which the affected area is situated. Such a publication must in terms of section 33(2) — • (a) "invite members of the public and the person referred to in subsection (1)(b), if applicable, to submit toThe Minister or MEC written representations on or objections to the proposed notice within 60 daysfrom the date of publication in the Gazette; and (b) contain sufficient information to enable members of the public to submit meaningful representations or objections, and must include a clear indication of the area that will be affected by the declaration." 7. In terms of section 33(3), the MEC "... may in appropriate circumstances allow any interested person to present oral representations or objections to the Minister or the MEC, or to a person designated by the Minister or MEC, but such representations or objections must be allowed where the proposed notice will affect the rights or interests of a local community." 8. Section 33(4) of NEMPAA provides that a relevant MEC "... must give due consideration to all representations or objections received or presented before publishing the relevant notice." Appeal against the grant of the mining right to AAV and imminent review proceedings 9. On 1 April 2015, the Centre for Environmental Rights, on behalf of 8 civil society and community-based organisations, launched an appeal to the Minister of Mineral Resources in terms of section 96 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (MPRDA) against the decision of the DG to grant a mining right to AAV in respect of the Mabola Protected Environment. 10. After the appeal was launched, the Minister of Mineral Resources sought to amend the mining right, alternatively to withdraw the grant of the mining right and issue a fresh mining right to AAV. As no appeal lies against such a decision of the Minister in terms of the MPRDA, our clients intend to approach court to apply for the decision of the Minister and the grant of the mining right to be set aside on review. 11. As the content of our clients' founding affidavit in these review proceedings may well be significantly influenced by the present protected area status of the land comprising the Mabola Protected Environment, we request that the MEC: 11.1. advises us as a matter of urgency whether or not AAV had indeed requested the MEC to withdraw the declaration of the Mabola Protected Environment, and if so, what steps the MEC has taken, if any, to effect such withdrawal; and 11.2. notifies us directly of any notice of intention to withdraw the declaration of the Mabola Protected Environment or to exclude land from the Mabola Protected Environment, should such a notice be issued. 12. We submit that, now that our clients' interests have been brought to the MEC's attention, direct notification of any notice of intention to withdraw the declaration of the Mabola Protected Environment or the exclusion of land from the Mabola Protected Environment is required by the public participation obligations in NEMPAA, read with sections 3 and 4 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 and the national environmental management principles contained in section 2 of NEMA. It will also be in the interest of justice that all the relevant information pertaining to AAV's mining right and the protected areas status of the Mabola Protected Environment be placed before Court. 13. Our clients reserve their rights to seek appropriate relief from a Court should no such direct notification be given, or indeed if the MEC attempts to withdraw the protected environment status of the Mabola Protected Environment. 2 14. Given the urgency of this matter, we respectfully request that the MEC responds to our request forthe information described in paragraph 11.1 above within 7 days, i.e. by no later than 27 August 2015. Yours faithfully CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS per: Melissa Fourie Executive Director Direct email: [email protected] 3 Centre for Environmental Rights Advancine Environmental Rights in South Africa Honourable Ms BEE Molewa Minister of Environmental Affairs Environment House 473 Steve Biko Road Arcadia, Pretoria By email: [email protected] Ms N N Ncgaba Director-General Department of Environmental Affairs Environment House 473 Steve Biko Road Arcadia, Pretoria By email: [email protected] CC The Directors Atha Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd Email: [email protected] NEAS Ref: DEA/EIA0001965/2013 3 DEA Ref: 14/12/16/ /3/3/85 Our ref: CER/CH/MT 27 August 2015 URGENT Dear Mesdames REQUEST FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE PROCESSING OF ATHA-AFRICA VENTURES (PTY) LTD's APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION, AND THE SUSPENSION OF ANY DECISION MAKING TO PERMIT COMMERCIAL MINING INSIDE THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT, PENDING THE OUTCOME OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF GRANT OF MINING RIGHT 1. We address you on behalf of our clients, EarthLife Africa Johannesburg, BirdLife South Africa, the Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network of South Africa, the Endangered Wildlife Trust, Federation fo r a Sustainable Environment, Bench Marks Foundation, Association for Water and Rural Development and groundWork. 2. We are instructed to request that the Minister and Department suspend the processing of Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (AAV)'s application for environmental authorisation, and to suspend any decision-making process in terms of section 48(1)(b) of National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 (NEMPAA) to permit commercial mining inside the Mabola Protected Environment, pending the outcome of an application by our clients for judicial review of the grant of the mining right to AAV. 2"d Floor. Springtime Studios, 1 Scott Road, Observatory, 7925 Cape Town, South Africa Tel 021 447 1647, Fax 086 730 9098 Email [email protected], www.cer.org.za Centre for Environmental Rights MPG is a non-profit company with registration number 20001020730105. NPO Ref 075 -863. PRO No 030032225 and a Law Clinic registered with the Law Society of the Cape or Good Hops I Dreolors Carolyn Elizabeth Ph Shene. Joanna Amy Eastwood Mohamed Saliern Fakir. Melsesa Fauna (Exe cutive) Stophm, MaTS Lan ((Main Sarah° Matlawa Maelsne I Attorneys Tracey Laurel Davi es. Melissa FOLIrle, Catnenne Horeneld. Robyn Elizabeth Hugo Syissa Kaman's, ssole Loser. Ayesha Morala. Christine Karin Reid el! Marthan Thesis I Office Manager. Li-Fen Chien Candidate Attorneys: ThobsSyss Amanda Granada. Matorne Lethabo Rape. Nathan Peles -Jons) PhIlaIldet Teboho Rosen Sebogodi 1 The internal appeal 3. On 1 April 2015 our clients launched an internal appeal against a decision of the Director General, Department of Mineral Resources (DG-DMR) to grant a mining right to AAV in respect of land that falls within, and on the border of, the Mabola Protected Environment near Wakkerstroom in Mpumalanga Province. 4. On 2 April 2015 we addressed a letter to the Minister of Environmental Affairs in which we requested,/pending the final determination of whether the grant of the mining right to AAV was lawful, that she not take any steps to consider, evaluate or determine any such application as may be made by AAV for the Minister's written permission to conduct commercial mining in the Mabola Protected Environment as required by section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA. A copy of that letter is attached for your reference. The review 5. After the appeal was launched, the Minister of Mineral Resources sought to amend the mining right, alternatively to withdraw the grant of the mining right and issue a fresh mining right to AAV. As no appeal lies against such a decision of the Minister in terms of the MPRDA, our clients intend to approach court to apply for the decision of the Minister and the grant of the mining right to be set aside on review. 6. Papers have been drafted and are currently being settled by Counsel. We plan to launch proceedings in the North Gauteng High Court before the end of August 2015. The Minister of Environmental Affairs will be cited in those proceedings for her interest in the matter, but no costs will be sought against her unless she opposes the application. We will in any event send a copy of the papers by email to the Department. 7. As you are aware, on 16 May 2014, the Department rejected AAV's initial application for environmental authorisation for its proposed coal mining operation. In October 2014, AAV submitted an amended environmental authorisation application together with an amended environmental impact assessment report. This application is to our knowledge still pending. 8. The main thrusts of our application to review the Minerals Minister's decision to grant the mining right will be that the Minister's decision: 8.1 falls foul of section 23(1)(d) of the Mineral Resources and Petroleum Development Act, 2002. That section provides that a mining right must only be granted if the mining will not result in unacceptable pollution, ecological degradation or damage to the environment. All available evidence, including a report submitted as part of AAV's initial application for environmental authorisation indicate that the mining will result in unacceptable pollution, ecological degradation or damage to the environment. A report by a consultant appointed by AAV recommended that the area should be declared "no go" for mining, because of the impacts of mining on biodiversity and on the supply of water to the surface water resources; 8.2 failed to take into account relevant considerations that include the objections of other organs of state which administer laws relating to matters affecting the environment, and the fact that the mining right is in respect of properties that fall within the Mabola Protected Environment which: 8.2.1 is classified as of "irreplaceable" biodiversity value in the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan's terrestrial biodiversity assessment (terrestrial assessment) in the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan of 2006; 8.2.2 form part of the Wakkerstroom/Luneburg Grasslands Threatened Ecosystem, listed as an endangered ecosystem in the National List of Ecosystems that are Threatened and in Need of Protection published in terms of NEMBA; 2 8.2.3 fall within a National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area and a Strategic Water Source determined by the SANBI as part of the National Freshwater Ecosystem ProjeCt, funded by the] Water Research Commission, CSIR, SANBI, the Department of Water Affairs (now1 the Department of Water and Sanitation) and DEA; and 1 8.2.4 are identified in the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (2008) as an area /4that requires urgent legal protection. 9. The primary relief which will be sought in the review is that the grant of the mining right is reviewed and set aside in its entirety. Request for suspension 10. Since the outcome of the review application materially impacts on the Minister and the Department's decisions in relation to the application for an environmental authorisation and any request for permission in terms of NEM PAA to conduct commercial mining in the Mabola Protected Environment, we respectfully request the Minister and the Department to suspend further decision-making until the judicial review has been finalised. 11. Our clients are also extremely concerned about AAV commencing its mining operations if its environmental authorisation and/or permission to conduct commercial mine is granted. If AAV commences operations before the review application has been decided by the High Court, our clients would then be obliged to incur the costs of approaching a court for appropriate relief, such as an interdict — and would again have to cite the Minister of Environmental Affairs for her interest. Our clients would like to avoid doing so. 12. We are accordingly instructed to request that you suspend the processing of AAV's application for an environmental authorisation, and any decision making to permit commercial mining inside the Mabola Protected Environment, pending the outcome of an application by our clients for judicial review of the grant of the mining right to AAV. 13. Kindly acknowledge receipt of this letter. Yours faithfully CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS p e r : i k k c i L --I. Melissa Fourie Executive Director Direct email: [email protected] 3 Centre for Environmental Rights Advancing Environmental Rights in South Africa' URGENT The Honourable BEE Molewa Minister of Environmental Affairs Environment House 473 Steve Biko Road, Arcadia, Pretoria By email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Ms Nosipho Ncgaba Director-General Department of Environmental Affairs Environment House 473 Steve Biko Road, Arcadia, Pretoria By email: [email protected] NEAS Ref: DEA/EIA0001965/2013 DEA Ref: 14/12/16/3/3/3/85 Our ref: CER/CH/SP 2 September 2016 Dear Mesdames REQUEST TO CONSIDER APPEAL AGAINST ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION ISSUED TO ATHA-AFRICA VENTURES (PTY) LTD IN ANY APPLICATION TO PERMIT COMMERCIAL MINING INSIDE THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT, AND IN ANY EVENT TO SUSPEND THE MAKING OF ANY DECISION PENDING THE OUTCOME OF JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE MINING RIGHT 1. We address you on behalf of our clients, EarthLife Africa Johannesburg; BirdLife South Africa; the Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network of South Africa; the Endangered Wildlife Trust; Federation for a Sustainable Environment; Bench Marks Foundation; Association for Water and Rural Development (AWARD) and groundWork ("our clients"). 2. Our clients have instituted legal proceedings aimed at preventing the establishment of the Yzermyn coal mine inside the Mabola Protected Environment near Wakkerstroom in Mpumalanga Province, a declared protected environment in terms of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of2003 ("the Protected Areas Act"). The area in which the mine is proposed is, among other things: 2.1 designated in the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan 2013 as being an "Irreplaceable Critical Biodiversity Area"; 2nd Floor, Springtime Studios, 1 Scott Road, Observatory, 7925 Cape Town. South Africa Tel 021 447 1647. Fax 086 730 9098 Email info©cer.org.za, www.cer.org.za Centre for Environmental Rights NPC is a num profit company with regletration number 2009/0207M/08. NPD Ref 075-803 POO No 930032226 and a Law Clinic registered with Me Law Sooery of the Cape of Good Hope f Directors. Joanna Array Eastwood. Mohamed Sallee Fakir. Melissa Roane (Execulive). Tracy-Lynn Humby, Stepnen Mark Law (Chain), Karnbo Mailawa Maelane I Attorneys Aadila Agree, Tracey Laurel DevieS. Me lissa beanie, Catherine HorsfiRld Robyn Elizabeth Hugo, Sylvia Kamenja Matome Lethabo Kapa Nicole Loser Suzanne Karen Powell. Christine Kann Redden. Marthan Theart I Office Ma nager LI-Pen alien I Candidate Attorneys Thobeka Amanda Gurnede, Nathan Peter-John Philander I 2.2 a wetland area in close proximity to several Department of Environmental Affairs ("IDEA") designated Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas which are expected to be affected by both the cone of depression and groundwater contamination plume associated with the mine', 2.3 part of the Wakkerstroom/Luneburg Grasslands Threatened EcOsystem, which is classified as "Endangered" in terms of the National Environmental Management,Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004; 2.4 identified by the DEA in the Mining and Biodiversity Guideline, 2013 as having the "Highest Importance for Biodiversity" and as being at the "Highest Risk" from mining; and 2.5 an area which supports twenty-three springs which are used by commercial and subsistence farmers for domestic and livestock watering purposes, which are expected to be reduced or dried up as a result of the mine. 3. The mine is proposed by Atha-Africa Ventures Pty Ltd ("Atha"), part of the India-based Atha Group. 4. Our clients have launched an application in the North Gauteng High Court for the judicial review and setting aside of a mining right granted to Atha by the Minister of Mineral Resources and/or the Director-General of the Department of Mineral Resources under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 in respect of the Yzermyn coal mine (case no. 73278/15) ("the review application"). The review application was launched on 10 September 2015, and we currently await Atha's answering affidavits. 5. Our clients have also lodged an appeal to the MEC responsible for environment in the Mpumalanga provincial government ("the MEC") against environmental authorisation granted on 7 June 2016 by the Chief Director: Environmental Affairs, Mpumalanga to Atha in respect of the mine ("the NEMA appeal" and "the EN'). The NEMA appeal was launched on 19 August 2016, and we currently await Atha's responding statement. 6. We previously wrote to you on 27 August 2015, requesting you to suspend the processing of Atha's application for environmental authorisation, and any steps to consider, evaluate or determine any such application as may be made by Atha for the Minister's written permission to conduct commercial mining inside the Mabola Protected Environment in terms of section 48(1)(b) of the Protected Areas Act, pending the outcome of the review application. A copy of this letter is attached marked "A". At that stage, the application for environmental authorisation was, as far as we know, still before the DEA for consideration. 7. For the sake of completeness, we draw to your attention the fact that our clients have asserted as their first ground of appeal (in the NEMA appeal) that the MEC has been identified incorrectly as being the competent authority in terms of section 24C of NEMA. Our clients contend that Atha's EIA application ought to have remained within your remit as being the lawfully mandated competent authority. 8. This letter serves primarily however to draw your attention to the fact that the EA was granted by the Chief Director: Environmental Affairs, Mpumalanga, in the face of significant gaps in information which the DEA itself had identified when it rejected Atha's original Environmental Impact Report on 16 May 2014. A copy of the letter dated 16 May 2014 in which these gaps were identified by the DEA and communicated to Atha's Environmental Assessment Practitioners is attached marked "B". 9. The NEMA appeal sets out in detail the respects in which the DEA's concerns have not been addressed. A copy of the NEMA appeal grounds of appeal is attached marked "C". A copy of the appeal and its annexures, which are fairly bulky, will also be couriered to you. 2 10. A copy of the EA is attached marked "Dn. We note that the EA makes it an express condition that, prior to construction commencing, written permission in terms of section 48 of the Protected keas Act be obtained (condition 3.31). 11. Insofar as a decision in terms of section 48(1)(b) of the Protected Areas Act whether to grantor refuse permission to Atha to mine inside the Mabola Protected Environment has not yet been madelty the Minister , we respectfully submit that the contents of the NEMA appeal are directly relevant to that decision — particularly in view of the fact that Atha has failed to provide information which the DEA itself identified as being critical. 12. We therefore formally request the Minister to take the NEMA appeal into account when considering any application by Atha for such permission. We also reiterate our request of August 2015 that the Minister suspend her consideration of any such application until after the review application has been finally determined, 13. We appeal to the Minister to consider the requests made in this letter positively. Given the extraordinary facts of this case, and the importance and sensitivity of the environment in question, our clients would be forced to take any decision to grant permission in terms of the Protected Areas Act on review to the High Court. 14. We would be most grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this letter. Yours faithfully CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS per: Melissa Fourie Executive Director Direct email: [email protected] CC Mr lshaam Abader Deputy Director-General: Legal, Authorisations, Compliance & Enforcement Department of Environmental Affairs Email: [email protected] Mr Sabelo Malaza Chief Director: Integrated Environmental Authorisations Department of Environmental Affairs Email: [email protected] Ms Fiona Grimett Assistant Director Department of Environmental Affairs National and Public Sector Email: [email protected] The Directors Atha Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd Email: [email protected] fliv 3 Centre for Environmental Rights Advancing Environmental Rights in South Africa Francois Joubert GFJ Attorneys By email: [email protected] Our ref: CH/SP Your ref: Francois Joubert/Ashleigh 28 November 2016 Dear Mr Joubert PROPOSED YZERMYN UNDERGROUND COAL MINE / COMMENCEMENT AND UNDERTAKING OF ACTIVITIES 1. As you are aware, there have been extensive delays in the review application arising largely from the failure of the Minister of Mineral Resources ("the Minerals Minister") to file the record of decision in respect of the powers which he exercised in terms of section 103(4)(b) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 28 of 2002 ("the MPRDAT ("the Minerals Minister's decision"). 2. At the time that the review was launched we addressed a letter dated 8 September 2015 on behalf of our clients to the directors of Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd ("AAV") in which we sought an undertaking from AAV that it would give our clients 60 days written notice before commencing with any activities pertaining to the Yzermyn Underground Coal Mine in pursuance of its mining right. For ease of reference we annex a copy of that letter marked "A". 3. As appears from the letter, at that stage, your client's applications for environmental authorisation and for a water use licence were still pending. Furthermore, the land over which the mining right was granted was zoned for agriculture and conservation. 4. On 17 September 2015 AAV responded to that letter. A copy of the response is annexed marked "B". In their response AAV undertook to inform all registered interested and affected parties of any final decision made in respect of its mining right application, environmental impact assessment application and water use licence application within the respective statutory stipulated timeframes. There have been a number of relevant developments since then in respect of all the regulatory approvals which must be in place for AAV to commence activity on the site. 5. On 7 June 2016 the Chief Director: Environmental Affairs, Mpumalanga granted environmental authorisation to AAV in respect of several activities listed in the 2010 Listing Notices promulgated under All references to the MPRDA below are to the MPRDA prior to the amendments thereto giving effect to the One Environmental System. 2,d Floor, Springtime Studios, 1 Scott Road, Observatory, 7925 Cape Town. South Africa Tel 021 447 1647. Fax 086 730 9098 Email info©cer.org.za,.www.ger.org.za Centre far Fnvironmenial Rights NPC is a nor-profit company with registraiion number 200.9m20736/08, NPO Ref 075-863 Pen No 53.132225 and a Law Clinic registered with the Lain Sandi or the Cape of Good Hope I Directors: Mohamed Fallen' Fakir, Melissa Fourie (Executive]. Tracy-Lynn Humby. Stephen Math fax (Chair) kambo Matlawa Maelane poor-nova Aadila Agjee. Tracey Laurel Davies Melissa Fairly,, Catherine Hai-afield. Robyn Elizabeth Hugo, Sylvia Kamanja. Matome Lethaim Kape Nicole Loner. Suzanne Karen Powell Christine Karin Redden. Marihan Theart I Office Manager Li-Pen Chien I Candidate Attorneys Timbeka Amanda Gunrede. Nathan Peter-John Philander I the National Environmental Management Act, 107 of 1998 ("NEMA")("EA"). Our clients lodged an appeal against the EA, your client submitted a responding statement and, on 18 November 2016, our clients submitted an answering statement. The environmental authorisation is suspended 'pending the outcome of the appeal. 6. On 28 June 2016 the Department of Mineral Resources approved AAV's Environmental Management Programme in terms of section 39(4) of the MPRDA. On 13 October 2016 our clients lodged an appeal against the approval of the Environmental Management Programme. In terms of section 23(5) of the MPRDA, the mining right comes into effect on the date on which the Environmental Management Programme is approved. Our clients' appeal does not suspend the approval of the Environmental Management Programme. 7. On 7 July 2016 the Department of Water and Sanitation ("DWS") granted AAV's application for a water use licence. Our clients requested the DWS to furnish them with the written reasons for the decision, which the DWS complied with on 17 November 2016. Our clients have instructed us to lodge an appeal against the grant of the water use licence which we are in the process of compiling. The effect of such an appeal would be to suspend the water use licence pending the outcome of the appeal. 8. In terms of the EA, prior to construction commencing, written permission must be obtained from the Minister of Environmental Affairs and the Minerals Minister to undertake mining activities within the Mabola Protected Environment in terms of section 48 of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 57 of 2003 ("NEMPAA")("the NEMPAA approvals"). 9. One of the conditions imposed pursuant to the Minerals Minister's decision is that AAV may not commence with mining if it has not complied with all other related legislation (in addition to obtaining an EA and a water use licence). 10. In the circumstances, our clients have instructed us to make a number of requests to AAV which we do below. 11. Firstly, has AAV made an application for the NEMPAA approvals? If so, has an opportunity been given for Interested and Affected persons such as our clients and all the other role-players that participated in the establishment of the Mabola Protected Environment to make representations in respect of the application? Our clients have to date not received any communication granting them such an opportunity. We reserve our clients' rights should such an opportunity not have been (or be) afforded to them. Has AAV obtained the NEMPAA approval from (1) the Minister of Environmental Affairs and (2) the Minerals Minister? If so, kindly furnish us with a copy/copies thereof. If not, kindly confirm that AAV will notify our clients in writing upon receipt of each decision in terms of NEMPAA. This is particularly important because NEMPAA does not specify a mechanism and timeframe for the notification of interested and affected parties when such a decision is taken. 12. Secondly, has AAV applied for all the relevant planning approvals to commence activity on the site, including but not limited to, such rezoning approvals as it may require? If so, has an opportunity been 2 given for Interested and Affected persons such as our clients and all the other role-lglayers that participated in the establishment of the Mabola Protected Environrnent to make representations in respect of the application(s)? We reserve our clients' rights should such an opportunity ndt have been (or be) afforded to them. Has AAV already obtained all the relevant planning approvals? so, kindly furnish us with a copy(ies) thereof. If not, kindly confirm that AAV will notify our clients in wring upon/ receipt of the last of all such relevant planning approvals. 13. Thirdly, in light of all of the above, the contested nature of your client's proposed mining activities and the environmental significance and sensitivity of the site, our clients request a full indication in writing of your client's intentions and timeframes in respect of the commencement and undertaking of activities on the site, including but not limited to addressing the following: 13.1 Is AAV intending to undertake any activity on site whilst there are any internal statutory appeals and court proceedings pending? 13.2 If the answer to 13.1 above is yes, AAV is required to furnish full details thereof i.e. a programme (with timelines) of each of the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the granting of each of the mining right, the water use licence, the EA and the NEMPAA approvals. 13.3 Has AAV applied for and/or obtained a permit from the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency for the removal or destruction of indigenous protected and endangered plant and animal species? If so, kindly furnish us with copies of such application and/or permit. 13.41f the EA appeal is dismissed and the NEMPAA approvals are obtained in the period between now and the end of January 2017, does AAV intend to commence and undertake construction activities in that period? If so, please provide full details. 13.5 Is AAV prepared to furnish our clients with an undertaking that it will give our clients 30 days written notification of commencement of any activities on site? 14. Kindly respond to all the issues raised in this letter by no later than close of business on Friday 2 December 2016. All our clients' rights are reserved to approach a court for urgent interdictory relief should it become necessary to do so. 15. We await to hear from you. Yours sincerely CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS Per: Catherine Horsfield Attorney Programme Head: Mining Direct email: [email protected] 3 FORM A REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO RECORD OF PUBLIC BODY (Section 18 (1) of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (Act No. 2 of 2000) [Regulation 2] FOR DEPARTMENTAL USE Reference number: ______ Request received by: ______ (state rank, name and surname of information officer/deputy information officer) on ______(date) at ______(place). Request fee (if any): R Deposit fee (if any): R Access fee: R SIGNATURE OF INFORMATION OFFICER/DEPUTY INFORMATION OFFICER A. Particulars of public body The Information Officer/Deputy Information Officer: Ms Nosipho Ngcaba Department of Environmental Affairs Private Bag X447 Pretoria South Africa 0001 4 al Telephone: +27123103911 Fax: +27123224832 Email: nnqcabaenvironment.gov.za; psabekaenvironment.qov.za B. Particulars of person requesting access to the record o The particulars of the person who requests access to the record must be recorded below. o Furnish an address and/or fax number in the Republic to which information must be sent Proof of the capacity in which the request is made, if applicable, must be attached. Name of organisation: Centre for Environmental Rights Registration number: 2009/020736/08 Postal address: 2nd Floor, Springtime Studios, 1 Scott Road, Observatory, 7925 Fax number: 0867309098 Telephone number: +27214471647 E-Mail Address: Ichiencer.orq.za; mtheartcer.orq.za Capacity in which request is made, when made on behalf of another person: Attorney C. Particulars of person on whose behalf request is made This section must be completed ONLY i f a request for information is made on behalf of another person. Name of organisation: Federation for a Sustainable Environment Registration number: 2007/033134/08 (NPO no.: 062986-NPO) D. Particulars of record Provide full particulars of the record to which access is requested, including the reference number if that is known to you, to enable the record to be located. If the provided space is inadequate please continue on a separate folio and attach it to this form. The requester must sign all the additional folios. O y u 0 Description of record or relevant part of the record: Copies of the following records are requested: 1. In respect of the proposed Yzermyn underground coal mine in Wakkerstroom area, Mpumalanga Province: (i) The amended environmental impact assessment report (EIAR) submitted by Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (Atha) to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) following rejection of Atha's initial EIAR as per DEA's letter dated 16 May 2014 (attached as annexure "A"); (ii) Any approved environmental authorisation issued to Atha; (iii)Any correspondence between Atha and the DEA and/or Minister of Environmental Affairs contemplated by section 48(1)(b) of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 and (iv)All correspondence between the DEA and Atha and between the DEA and the Department of Mineral Resources and/or the Department of Water and Sanitation regarding Atha's proposed Yzermyn Project. Reference number, if available: In terms of the letter from DEA of 16 May 2014 (Annexure "A"), the following references were provided for the initial EIAR submitted by AAV — o NEAS reference: DEA/EIA/0001965/2013; and o DEA reference: 14/12/16/3/3/3/85. Any further particulars of record: n/a E. Fees A request for access to a record, other than a record containing personal information about yourself, will be processed only after a request fee has been paid. You will be notified of the amount required to be paid as the request fee. The fee payable for access to a record depends on the form in which access is required and the reasonable time required to search for and prepare a record. If you qualify for exemption of the payment of any fee, please state the reason for exemption. Reason for exemption from payment of fees: The requester, the Federation for a Sustainable Environment, is a non-profit organisation. In terms of the Exemptions and Determinations Regulations published under section 22(8) of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (GN R991 of 14 October 2005), access fees are not payable by persons with an annual income of less than R14 712. As a non-profit organisation, the requester is not in the business of generating income for profit. The requester relies on funding from donors to fund its activities; however, such funding is often unpredictable and limited. The requester therefore respectfully requests the Department to grant it exemption in terms of the aforementioned regulation. In the event that access to records requested is granted, the requester should be exempted from payment of any access fees. F. Form of access to record If you are prevented by a disability to read, view or listen to the record in the form of access provided for in 1 to 4 hereunder, state your disability and indicate in which form the record is required. Disability: Form in which record is required: Mark the appropriate box with an "X". NOTES: Your indication as to the required form of access depends on the form in which the record is available. Access in the form requested may be refused in certain circumstances. In such a case you will be informed if access will be granted in another form. (c) The fee payable for access to the record, if any, will be determined partly by the form in which access is requested. 1. If the record is in printed form: X Copy of Inspection of record record* 2. If record consists of visual images: (this includes photographs, slides, video recordings, computer-generated images, sketches, etc.). view the images copy of the images* transcription of the images* X 3. If record consists of recorded words or information which can be reproduced in sound: Listen to the X transcription of soundtrack* soundtrack (audio (written or printed document) cassette) 4. If record is held on computer or in an electronic or machine ? readable form: Printed copy X Printed copy derived from copy in computer readable of record* the record* form*(stiffy or compact disc) YES N * If you requested a copy or transcription of a record (above), do you O wish the copy or transcription to be posted to you? X A postal fee is payable. Note that if the record is not available in the language you prefer, access may be granted in the language in which the record is available. In which language would you prefer the record? ENGLISH . G. Notice of decision regarding request for access You will be notified in writing whether your request has been approved/denied. If you wish to be informed thereof in another manner, please specify the manner and provide the necessary particulars to enable compliance with your request. How would you prefer to be informed of the decision regarding your request for access to the record? BY EMAIL TO [email protected]; chorsfieldcer.orq.za; mtheartcer.orq.za amotalacer.orchza. Signed at CAPE TOWN this 16th of April 2015. SIGNATURE OF REQUESTER / PERSON ON WHOSE BEHALF REQUEST IS MADE Ms Li-Fen Chien (Attorney) Centre for Environmental Rights DM26w 7-411 environmental affairs ___ , Department: Environmental Affairs REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Private Bag X 447. PRETORIA • 0001. Environment House Cnr Steve Biko and Soutpansherg Rd. PRETORIA Tel (+ 27 12) 310 3126 Fax (+ 27 12) 320 7561 Enquiries: Lauren-Leigh Wentzel Tel: 021 441 2803 Fax: 021 441 2783 E-mail: [email protected] Ms Christine Reddell Centre for Environmental Rights 2nd Floor, Springtime Studios 1 Scott Road, Observatory, 7925 Cape Town, South Africa Via email: credell(th.cer.org.za and mtheart@cer,org,za Dear Madam REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT IN TERMS OF THE PROMOTION OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT 2 OF 2000 (PAIA) Your PAIA request received on 17 April 2015 has reference. On behalf of the Federation for a Sustainable Environment, you have requested copies of the following documents: 1. In respect of the proposed Yzermyn underground coal mine in Wakkerstroom area, Mpumalanga Province: (i) The amended environmental Impact assessment report (EIAR) submitted by Atha-Africa Ventures (Pfy) Ltd (Atha) to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) following rejection of Atha's initial EIAR as per DEA's letter dated 16 May 2014 (attached as annexure aks); (ii) Any approved environmental authorisation issued to Atha; (iii) Any correspondence between Atha and the DEA and/or Minister of Environmental Affairs contemplated by section 48(1)(b) of the National Environmental Management; Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 and (iv) All correspondence between the DEA and Atha and between the DEA and the Department of Mineral Resources and/or the Department of Water and Sanitation regarding Atha's proposed Yzermyn Project. Reference number, if available: In terms of the letter from DEA of 16 May 2014 (Annexure "A"), the following references were provided for the initial EIAR submitted by MV -NEAS reference: DEA/EIA/0001965/2013; and -DEA reference: 14/12/16/3/3/3/85. In respect of your request for: The amended environmental impact assessment report (EIAR) submitted by Atha-Africa Ventures (Ply) Ltd (Atha) to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) following rejection of Atha's initial EIAR as per DEA's letter dated 16 May 2014 (attached as annexure "A") and All correspondence between the DEA and Atha and between the DEA and the Department of Mineral Resources and/or the Department of Water and Sanitation regarding Atha's proposed Yzermyn Project. Reference number, if available: In terms of the letter from DEA of 16 May 2014 (Annexure "A'), the following references were provided for the initial EIAR submitted by AAV -NEAS reference: DEA/EIA/0001965/2013; and -DEA reference: 14/12/16/3/3/3/85. Any further particulars of record: n/a The request falls within the ambit of Section 44(1)(a) and (b) of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (Act No. 2 of 2000) (the Act) which gives the Information Officer a discretion to refuse to grant access to the requested record if the record contains an opinion, advice or report obtained or prepared for the purpose of assisting to formulate a policy or take a decision in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty conferred or imposed by law. An information officer may in addition refuse access to a record if the disclosure of the record could reasonably be expected to frustrate the deliberative process within the public body or between public bodies, by inhibiting the candid communication of advice, an opinion or a report or the conduct of a consultation or discussion. In light of the fact that this is still a pending application with the Department, the Centre for Environmental Rights and/or the Federation for a Sustainable Environment may register as an Interested and Affected Party in terms of Regulation 55 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and request the amended environmental impact assessment report (EIAR) submitted by Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd ("Atha") to the Department from the Environmental Impact Assessment Practitioner, Ecopartners. In respect of the request for: Any approved environmental authorisation issued to Atha, I confirm that the Department has no records herein. Further, in respect of the request for: Any correspondence between Atha and the DEA and/or Minister of Environmental Affairs contemplated by section 48(1)(b) of the National Environmental Management Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003, I confirm that the Department has no records herein. I have considered your request and perused the relevant documents and for the reasons outlined above and in accordance with section 44(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, refuse to grant you access to the requested documents. Should you wish to appeal this decision you are referred to sections 74 and 75 of the Act which allows you to lodge an internal appeal in the prescribed form to the Information Officer of the Department within 60 days. The subject and reasons for the internal appeal must be clearly indicated. Yours sincer Deputy Information Officer Department of Environmental Affairs Date: / 0 / O b i ? D T FORM A REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO RECORD OF PUBLIC BODY (Section 18 (1) of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (Act No. 2 of 2000) [Regulation 2] FOR DEPARTMENTAL USE Reference number: ______ Request received by: ______ (state rank, name and surname of information officer/deputy information officer) on ______(date) at ______(place). Request fee (if any): R Deposit fee (if any): R Access fee: R SIGNATURE OF INFORMATION OFFICER/DEPUTY INFORMATION OFFICER A. Particulars of public body The Information Officer/Deputy Information Officer: Ms Nosipho Ngcaba Department of Environmental Affairs Private Bag X447 Pretoria South Africa 0001 Telephone: +27123103911 Fax: +27123224832 307 Email: nncicabaAenvironment.00v.za; psabekaenvironment.qov.za; iabaderenvironment.qov.za B. Particulars of person requesting access to the record o The particulars of the person who requests access to the record must be recorded below. o Furnish an address and/or fax number in the Republic to which information must be sent o Proof of the capacity in which the request is made, if applicable, must be attached. Organisation name: Centre for Environmental Rights Registration number: 2009/020736/08 Postal address: 2nd Floor, Springtime Studios, 1 Scott Road, Observatory, 7925 Fax number: 0867309098 Telephone number: +27214471647 E-Mail Address: creddellAcer.orq.za Capacity in which request is made, when made on behalf of another person: Attorney C. Particulars of person on whose behalf request is made This section must be completed ONLY i f a request for information is made on behalf of another person. Organisation name: The Federation for a Sustainable Environment NPO number: 062986 — NPO D. Particulars of record Provide full particulars of the record to which access is requested, including the reference number if that is known to you, to enable the record to be located. If the provided space is inadequate please continue on a separate folio and attach it to this form. The requester must sign all the additional folios. 0 Description of record or relevant part of the record: Copies of the following records are requested: Copies of the following records are requested in respect of the proposed Yzermyn underground coal mine in Wakkerstroom, Mpumalanga Province: Any application or motivation by Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (Atha) to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) and/or Minister of Environmental Affairs (Minister) for consent/permission to mine commercially in the Mabola Protected Environment, as contemplated in section 48(1)(b) of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 (NEMPAA), including any such application or motivation submitted during or about May 2016. Any correspondence between Atha and the DEA and/or Minister regarding section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA. Reference number, if available: references in respect of the initial environmental impact assessment report submitted by Atha to the DEA: NEAS reference: DEA/EIA/0001965/2013; and 3 DEA reference: 14/12/16/3/ /3/85. Authorisation register number of Atha's environmental authorisation from the Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs: 17/2/3/GS-131. E. Fees A request for access to a record, other than a record containing personal information about yourself, will be processed only after a request fee has been paid. You will be notified of the amount required to be paid as the request fee. The fee payable for access to a record depends on the form in which access is required and the reasonable time required to search for and prepare a record. If you qualify for exemption of the payment of any fee, please state the reason for exemption. Reason for exemption from payment of fees: N/A F. Form of access to record If you are prevented by a disability to read, view or listen to the record in the form of access provided for in 1 to 4 hereunder, state your disability and indicate in which form the record is required. Disability: Form in which record is required: Mark the appropriate box with an "X". NOTES: ® Your indication as to the required form of access depends on the form in which the record is available. . Access in the form requested may be refused in certain circumstances. In such a case you will be informed if access will be granted in another form. (c) The fee payable for access to the record, if any, will be determined partly by the form in which access is requested. 1. If the record is in printed form: X Copy of Inspection of record record* 2. If record consists of visual images: (this includes photographs, skies, video recordings, computer-generated images,sketches, etc). view the images copy of the images* transcription of the images* X 3. If record consists of recorded words or information which can be reproduced in sound: Listen to the X transcription of soundtrack* soundtrack (audio (written or printed document) cassette) 4. If record is held on computer or in an electronic or machine ? readable form: Printed copy X Printed copy derived from X copy in computer readable of record* the record* form*(stiffy or compact disc) YES N * If you requested a copy or transcription of a record (above), do you O wish the copy or transcription to be posted to you? X A postal fee is payable. Note that if the record is not available in the language you prefer, access may be granted in the language in which the record is available. In which language would you prefer the record? ENGLISH G. Notice of decision regarding request for access a *a You will be notified in writing whether your request has been approved/denied. If you wish to be informed thereof in another manner, please specify the manner and provide the necessary particulars to enable compliance with your request. How would you prefer to be informed of the decision regarding your request for access to the record? In writing to: creddellcer.orq.za. Signed at CAPE TOWN this 20th day of October 2016. SIGNATURE OF REQUESTER / PERSON ON WHOSE BEHALF REQUEST IS MADE Ms Christine Reddell (Attorney) Centre for Environmental Rights U - _ $1 Sintnteel Plaza, 59 RillOrd0 ATHA-AFRICAVENTURES (Pty) Ltd Road, MerningSide, Sgmiton, 2144 Tel: +27 11 784-1885 Fax: +27 1.7 784- 7467 Registration No. 2004/020746/07 Place 8,‘ Date: JoharineSburg, 201 The Honourable Minister of Environmental Affairs; Mrs Edha Molewa Department of Environmental Affairs EnvironmentHouse, 473S teveBiko, Arcadia, Pretoria,0083 South Africa PER HAND DELIVERY RE: REQUEST TO GRANT PERMISSION TO MINE WITHIN THE IVIABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT (MPE) IN TERMS OF S48 OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREA ACT (ACT 57 OF 2003) (NEM:PAA) Dear Honourable Minister, Atha-Africa VentUreS (Pty) Ltd, ( AAV), is the holder of a valid Mining Right in respect of coal occurring' in, on or under the 12 farms, located in the Magisterial District of Pixley ka Seale Local Municipality, covering an area of 8360 hectares. A prospecting right Was initially granted by the Department of Mineral ReSources on August 17 th, 2006 and renewed on November 24th, 2011. SObseqUently after completing the prospecting activities and having fpund the cord resources to be economically and eriviromberitally feasible, a Mining Rig,frts application (MRA) was submitted to the Department of Mineral Resources on 19 th March 2013. The application was accepted by the Department on 25 April 2013. The Mining Rights was granted under the signature of the Minister for Mineral Resources on April 14`11, 2015 over the propertles/farms which included Bloemhot 92 FIT, Goedgevonden 95 HT, Krorhhoek 93 HT; Portion 1 of farm Nauwgevonden 110 HT, Paarclekop 109 HT, Uitzicht to8 HT, Portion 2 and the remaining extent of the farm van der Waltspoort 81 HT, Virginia 91 HT, Waalhpek 87 HT, portion 1 arid the remaining extent of the farm Yzermyn 96 HT, and Zdetfpntein 94 HT. Since part of the proposed Mining site falls within the now declared Mabola Protected Environment, in terms of the NEIVI:PAA of 2003, the Honourable Minister of Environment is the competent authority in terms Of the Act to take a deCision to permit mining within a Protected Environment.. £intiam, Sinosteel NAM, 159 Rivonia AT A-A RICA VENTURES IiPty' Ltd Road, Kilorniornide, S.:30ton, 2114 Tali 427 11'7-844885 Fax +27 11 284- 7467 Registration No. 2004/020746/07 The Relevant Provision NEM:PAA Section 473 of the National Environment Management: Protected Areas Ac 2003 (NEM:PAA) empowers the Minister responsible for National. Environmental Management to impose restrictions relating to prospecting and mining activities in protected areas. Notwithstanding the other relevant previSionS of NEM:PAA, the following are highlighted: "48 (1) Despite other legislation, no person May conduct commercial prospecting, mining, exploration, production or related activities — (b) in a protected environment without the written permission of the Minister and Cabinet member responsible for minerals and energy affairs" "48 (3) The Minister, after consultation with the Cabinet member responsible for mineral and energy affairs, may, in relation to the activities contemplated in subsection (2), as well as in relation to mining activities conducted in areas contemplated in that subsection which were declared Os such after the commencement of this section, prescribe conditions under which those activities may continue in order to reduce or eliminate the impact of those activities on the environment or for the environmental protection of the area concerned".. "48 (4) When applying thiS section, the Minister Must take into account the interests of local communities and the environmental principles referred to in section 2 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998." It is -therefore clear from the Act that. as the Mintster responsible for the National Environment Management, despite the granting of the Mining Rights by the .Minister of Mineral Resources, the HonourebleMinister for Environment should be the one for issuing 0 written permission under s48(1)(b)' of the Act and must also prescribe conditions 'uncle"' which the Mining must commence under $4.8(3) of the Act. MOTIVATION HonoUrable Minister, We ettech herewith 0 detailed motivation (ANNEXURE -1) which shall clearly demonstrate that in the broader National, Economic and Social interest of South Africa as enshrined in s48(4) of the NEM:PAA, the benefit to permit mining under the powers conferred to the Honourable Minister under 48(1)(h) of NEM:PAA, far outweigh the otitil detriment to the environment. Conclusion: Honorable Minister, the proposed mining development will have the potential to produce 225 million tons of coal per annum during its estimated life of mine of 15 years. The development would also- bring iri an FDI of apprwtimately 100 million DS Dollars besides generating approximately 550 jobs and generating R 12.94 billion through Job creation, transportation& logistics, tax Sc royalties, ruining services amongst ethers. The proposed mining development would also provide an opportunity to address the National Development Plan 'objectives in terms of -creation of decent jobs, sustainable • resource management, and speeding up of inclusive growth. in one of the Most ecOnoinicallv and socially depressed. areas of Mptimplanga Province. nn Sinwwel Plaza, 159 Rivortia. A HA-AERICA VENTURES (Pty) Ltd Rood, Mthrsingside„ Sandton, 2144 Tet +27 13. 7844885 Fax.: +27 11784. 7457 Registration No. 2004/020746/07 In light of the above and the attached motivation in Ann exure 1, We Sincerely believe that given the objectives of the WBS and the Mabola Protected Environment, and given the activities contemplated on the relevant Farms and the exclusion of one farm from the declaration by the Honourable MEC (Portion 1 of the Farm Yxermyn 96 HT), it would certainly he reasonable to permit Mining. We are of the opinion that it is possible to maintain a balance between the economic needs on alocal, provincial and national level, as well the environmental protection and conservation of a valuable biodiversity area. Therefore the most sensible exercise of powers for the purpbses of the coexistence of the Mabola Protected Environment and the Yzertnyn Project would be the logical, natural and rational corollary to concur with the Minister of Mineral ReSources decision to grant the Mining Rights and to give permission under the s48 of the NEMPAA to mine within the Ma bola Protected Environ ment We trust that you will find our motivation a reasonable and sensible one. We are more than willing to further engage with you Arid officials in the Department to discuss the motivation in more detail should you require more clarification. Yours Sincerely, PRAVEER TRIRATHI Sr. Vice President ATHA— AFRICA VENTURES (PM LTD Cell ; 072 84 8250 Email: preveer.tripathiPathagrotip.in cc; Ms N Gcaba Director-General: Department of Environmerital Affairs ATTACHMENTS: ANNEXURE I APPENDIX A - G )Type text] ANNEXURE - I MOTIVATION BY ATHA-AFRICA VENTURES TO MINE WITHIN THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT (MPE) IN TERMS OF 548 OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREA ACT (ACT 57 OF 2003) (N EM TAM Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd, ( MV), is the holder of a valid Mining Right in respect of coal which was granted under the signature of the Minister for Minetal ResbUrces on April 14°i, 201.5 over the properties/farms which included 61oernhof 92 HT, Goedgevonden 95 HT, Kromhoek 93 HI, Portion 1 of farin NauWgevonden 110 HT, Paardekop 109 HT, tlitzicht 108 HT, Portion 2 and the remaining extent of the farm van der Waltspoort 81 HT, Virginia 91 HT, Waalhoek 87 HT, Prittien 1 and the remaining extent of the farm Yzermyn 96 HI, and Zoetfontein 94 HT, located in the Magisterial District of Pixleyka Seme total Municipality, tattering ah area of 8360 hectares, BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION AAV is seeking to develop an underground coal mine, called the proposed Yzermyn Underground Ceal Mine ("YUCM") for which a Mining Right was granted by the Minister of the Mineral Resources on 14 April 2015. A. prospecting right was initially granted by the Department of Mineral Resources on August 17th, 2006 and renewed on November 24'", 2011. Subsequently after completing the prospecting activities and, having found the coal resources to he economically and environmentally feasible, a Mining Rights application (MRA) was submitted to the Departrrient of Mineral ResOurces on 191' March ma. The opkettee was accepted by the Department on 25 April 2013. After the :acceptance of the Mining Right Application of MV try the PMR on 25 April 2013, the Honourable MEC MDEDET on May 101' 2013, in terms of section 33(1) of 1NEM:PAA, through the Mpumalaaga Tourism and Parks Agency, pOlislied in Gpvernmerit Gazette Notice 157, a Notice of Intention to Declare the Mabola Protected Environment and the extension to the Kwamandlangampisi Protected Environment ("Notice of Intention to Declare"), as part of the Walckerstroom BladiverSity Site ("WBS!'). This Notice of intention to Declare was :then amended by Government Gazette Notice 275 of 9 August 2013.Five of the 12. Farms in the MRA were affected by the then proposed Mabola Protected Environment. As mentioned, the proposed Mabola Protected Environment included properties which were part of the MRA and which fell within the focus area of AAV's Yzermyn Underground Coal Mine where 15 to 20 years of the Life of Mine ROM) is proposed. These properties are: 'National Environmental Manatqmen o * tectecl Areas Act 57 of 2003 ("NEMPAA"I [Type text] [Type text] 1. Portion 1 of the Farm Kromhoek 93 NT (204.31 Ha); 2. Remainder of the Farm Kromhoek 93 HT (980.43 Ha); 3. The Farm Griedgevanden 9.5 HT (739.45 Ha); 4. Portion 1 of the Farm Yzermyn 96 HT (19183 Ha); and 5. Remainder of the Farm Yzermyn 96 HT (826,16 He). AAV objected to the Notice of Intent to Declare a Protected Environment and was invited to an Appeal Panel formed specifically to hear the Objections to the intention to declare the Protected Enviromnent on November 28th 2018. A presentation was made by AAV during the hearing and the Panel was requested to remove the 5 farms falling within the Mabola Protected Environment sp that the beg use of the national assets in the area can be promoted. In considering the representations and objections by MV, the Honourable MEC In a response on December 24th, 2013, decided to proceed with the declaration of Mabola Protected Environment with the eatluSion of one farm, Portion 1 of the Farm Yzermyn 96 NT, measuring 193.83 hectares in its entirety, for purposes of all relevant above-ground infrastructure of the mine, subject to the Mining Right and all other required authorisations, being granted. AAV in response to the abovementiOned, limited exclusion, sent another representation to the Honourable MEC on. January 15th, 2014 to exclude the remaining FOUR farms from the Mabola Protected Environment, nem* 1. Portion 1 of the Farm Kromhoek 93 HT (204,31 Ha); 2, Remainder of the Farm Krornhoek 93 HT (980,43 Ha); 3. The Farm Goedge.vonden 95 HT (739.45 Ha); and 4. Remainder of the Farm Yzermyn 96 NT (826,18 Na). Notwithstanding AAV's request, the Mabola Protected Environment was gazetted on January 2r , 2014 in GoVernment Gazette No, 2251 - Notice 20 of 201.4: Further, the lionotirable MEC did respond to AAV's request of January 156'2014, in a letter dated January 31,1 2014. In her response the HOnOurable MEC informed MV that she is unable to consider the request for the exclusion of the remaining FOUR farms on the grounds that at the time of the Declaration, AAV's mineral rights on the relevant properties were Prospecting Rights, and also that should AAV obtain all the betegs*y regulatory approvals, it is still possible to mine within the Protected Environment with the written permission of the Honourable Minister for Environment and subject to strict conditions. The Relevant Provisionsof the NENI:PAA Section 48 Of the National EnVitonnient Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (NEM:PAA) ettnpowers the MiniSter responsible for national environmental management to impose restrictions relating to prospecting and mining activities. in protected areas, Notwithstanding the other relevant provisions of NEM:PAA, the following are highlighted: [Type text) [Type text) "48 0.,) Despite other tegislation„ no person indy conduct commercial prospectina mining, exploration, production or related activities- (b) In a protected environment without the written permission of the Minister rind Cabinet member responsible for minerals and energy affairs" "48 (3)The Minister; lifter consultation with the Cabinet member responsible for mineral and energy affairs, may in relation to the activities contemplated. in subsection (2), as well rrs in relation to Mining activities conducted in areas contemn/uteri in that subsection which were declared as such after the commencement of this section, prescribe conditions wider which those activities mayeontiritie in Order to reduce or eliiningte the impala pf those activities on the environment Or for the environmental protection of the area concerned". "48 (4) When applying this section, the Minister mutt take into account the interests of local communities and the environmental principleS -referred -to h section 2 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998/" MOTIVATION BY ATHA- AFRICA: hi the 10P of Dr Pixie y ka Isaka Seine Municipality 20122016, it states: "There has been evidence that the municipalities jurisdiction is underlain by coal, which could be o solution to the growing poverty and as such should it be explored." in the IDPof Or Pixley ka isaka Same Municipality 2013-2024: wor Pixley k.a iSaka Settle is home to some of the country's richest wetlands, it also has huge unique environthent that is not only sensitive but a unique Biodiversity. The challenge is maintaining a balance between the economic needs and environmental protection and conservation. The municipality's lakeS, and streams forth tributaries that feed water to Vaal. River syStem that sustain and supply the country's economic, huh with water (te, Gauteng),ll At Will: be discuSsed below, ARV in its assessment came to the conclusion that the objectives of the Mabola Protected Environment is to: 1. Enable the owners of the land to take collective action to conserve biodiversity tin their land and seek legal recognition therefor; 2. Protect the area if the area is sensitive to development. To protect the area if the area is sensitive to develonment due to its biological diversity, natural Characteristics, scenic and landscape valve) and the provision of environmental goods and services; 3. Ensure that the use of natural resources in theerea is sustainable; and 4. Protect a specific ecosystem; and the same are not in conflict with the co-existence of the Yzermyn Project oh the entire Mining Area. In the ensuing paragraphs it will he clearly motivated why AAV's submisSion that the activities cm the Four Farms included in the Mahola Protected Area, will not negatively impact On the environmental pittectiOn pOrpOses sought to he achieved by the Mahola Declaration. Honourable Minister, AAV wishes to point out that the Honourable. MEC's decision to exclude Portion 1 of the Farm Yzermyn 96 HT was based on the then Honourable Tyl EC's acknowledgment of the premises that there will he mining activity extending underground Moo the area Where the surface infrastructureit contained (Portion 1 Of the Farm Yzermyn 9-6 FIT) and therefore needs tO excluded from the declaration [type text) Ltype text] Evaluating the National Interest: in each development project the National interest must be evaluated on a case by case baSis. In order to evaluate the opporttlnities and the costs associated with the project, a summary of the 2National Assets are made for your consideration: National Asset Impact. Relevance of Impact to YZERMYN Mineral Resource: Coal The mining of coal will create Job 104 million total in situ tons of proven opportunities and much needed coal feskrirce in Yzermyn underground economic, stimulation, This. is coal Mine project would create approx considered a strategic ;mineral 550 Direct Job opportunities. and is critically important for the DevelopMent ibtome spent in South progress of South Africa, as it Africa exceeds R 1 billion. Taxes are paid provides the fuel for to the government and growth development in the form .of opportunities are provided to the region. electricity as well as being' the The SLP provides for skills development largest foreign exchange earner programme , training end, LoCel through exports. Eciandmic Datielopment Projects SMME Creation The creation of a neW mine Improye lifestyles in the area as brings with it a multipliCation disposable Income will become more factor of up to 10 job available, This specific mining opportunities for every job environment is a complex system directly created by the mine. requiring a multitude of skills and the opportunity for the creation of contractors to support those skills around the mine. See Appendix A. Effective Use of already It is More sustainable to Make use Data from the surveyor general in the Transformed of areas that were previously form of historical aerial photos Indicate Areas transformed rather than the disturbancks that took place in the disturbing pristine environments, area under consideration. Of the total surface area of 22.40 Ha, 'where the infraStructute IS to he located; Maximum of 3,0 Ha of seep wetlands has not yet been previously transformed, See Appendix B National Assets - Referte the assets that are held bythe nation as a whole and administered by government through several departments, examples of these assets include: Mineral Resources managed by OMR, Diodiversity managed by DEDET, Heritage managed-by SAHRA, Air managed by the Local Authority and Water, managed by DWA. [Type text] [Type text] National Asset impact Relevance of impact to YZERIViliN Water The water quality in the region is At this site the: development is relatively clean and mining taking place with ari impact on the local activity might impact oh the area only. The scientific evidence water quantity and quality- indicates no risk on the quality during the negatively if the appropriate 15 year life of mine with limited risk post mitigation measures are hot closure that can effectively be mitigated, implemented:. As far as quality is concerned, 6' fountains will be impacted On for the period of 15 years that the water is actively pun:Med. See Appendix C BiodiversIty The impact on biodiversity due to The biodiversity in the area is focussed an underground mine is limited to on ecosystems cOnsiating: Of surface folrastructure and serne Wakkerstroorn Montane Grassland and Repletion of water. The Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland which threatened terrestrial ecosystem has less than 1% formally protected, but status this area is "Vulnerable", has more than 50% natural habitat still available. The specialist studies conducted found none of the sensitive snacios of mammals, butterflies, amphibians, reptiles or plants likely to be associated with these ecosystems. It is likely that these ecosystems do not support the biodiversity that is typical of the area as these ecosystems are no longer in their pristine condition, The total surface infrastructure area is 22.40 Ha; Of which a MaxiMum of am Ha of seep wetlands has not yet been previously transformed. See Appendix 6. Fcological Function The ecological services that this A maximum of 3.0 Ha are likely to he area provide to the nation newly transformed, There might. be include, Phosphate,: Nitrate and limited impact associated with water Toxicant assimilation, Erosion quantity and quality during 15 years of control, Carbon storage, tpm. TO ualiningse impact, Mitigation Biodiversity maintenance and measures have been proposed and the Water supply. regular monitoring of water rurality and quantity will be implemented. See Appendix E. [Type text1 National Assn Relevance of Impact o YZERMYN Wetlands The surface infrastructure deveiopment is There are several wetlands in placed such that it will have the least the: area that contribute to the impact on the wetlands, The total "water factories" needed in the rest of the country. The impact propOsed area of surface infrastructure on the wetlands is related to the development is 2.2.40 Ha, out of which surface disturbance and water the hill slope seep wetlands constitute - impacts. 12.10 Ha (out of this 12.10 HA already disturber) wetland area is 9.1.0. Ha,). Within 22,40 Ha, the proposed surface infrastructure units have been placed in order to utilise the non wetland areas to the maximum possible -extent and .a MaXimurn Of 3.0 ha.of seep wetland area is being transformed due to surface infrastructure. The most significant feature in terms of the freshwater priority area is the habitat for fish. As this is the origin of the system, it is unlikely thatit Will have a significant impact oh the fish population. See appendix F, S. He i No significant archaeological or Contribution to the scientific knowledge, paleontOlogital discoveries were found. 9 Air qualit The impacts on air quality Mitigation measures must be not found to be significant implemented according to recommendations provided in tire ESIA and ESMP reports to limit any potential impacts. 10. Potentitll Development Any future development in the Although. there are no regulations area will require environmental declared under NEMPAA, at least 12 of impact assessments for clearing the listed activities in listing notice 3 vegetation in an area as small as under GN 544, is triggered for various 300 square meters. deVelopment opportunities.. including tourism .activities, This means that if any of these developments wants to be initiated by any party in future, an FAA is needed., .Speappendik (Type text] (Type text] [Type text] Consideration of the Reasons for Declaration of the Mabola Protected Environment; Firstly, the purpose for declaring the Mabola Protected Environment as outlined in the Amended (ay 275 of August 9th 201, issued by the Mnumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency in terms section 33(1) or NEMPAA3 is quoted beloWl (1) To enable the owners of the land to take collective action to conservebiodiversity on their land and seek legal recognition therefor; (2.) To protect the area if the area is sensitive to development due to its biological diversity, natural characteristics, scenic and landscape value and the provision of environmental goods and services; (3) To ensure that the use of natural resources in the area is sustainable; (4) To protect a specific ecosystem In terms of bibdiversity censerVatiOn a$ thentiOned point (1), the: FOUR farms included in the viabola Protected Environment mostly consist Of already transformed areas,. Refer to the figures in Appendix 0, which dearly .show that large areas] are already disturbed and not pristine, conserving it through legislation and the declaration of the Protected Environment, will not necessarilycontribute to the conservation targets set. The development of the area is in the national interest, as the benefits of a development in this area far outweigh the conservation of already transformed areas. Point (2) is effectively addressed withetit risking the provision of environmental goods and services, through the implementation of the suitable mitigation measures and continuous monitoring systems. The spedoliSt studies relevant to the area, clearly concludes that the natural resources can be sustainably used as is the requirement of point (3), provided the mitigation measures are effectively implemented The specific ecosystems of these FOUR, farmsis classed as vulnerable, because less than 1% of these systerns.ardermally protected, brat similarly more 50% are Still in their natural state. It will be to the benefit of the environment to protect areas that are pristine, and more critically important. In the broader National, Economic and Social interest of South Africa the benefit to permit mining under the powers conferred to the Honourable Minister under 48(1)(b) of NEM:PAA, far outweigh the Potential detriment to the erivironnienti Conclusion: Honourable Minister', AAV has so far invested as Foreign Direct Investment (FIJI) approximately US Dollars 50 million in YUCM project. It is estimated that another 100 million US Dollars would be brolightin as FDI. to develop and start the mine should all regulatory approvals be obtained] BeSides,in light of the abovementioneci motivation we sinter* believe that given the objectives of the WBS and the Mabola Protected Environment, and given the activities contemplated on the relevant Farm's and the exclusion of one farm (Portion 1 of the Farm Yzermyn 96 HT), it would 3the National Environmental Management! Protected Areas Act 57 of MO [Type text] [Type text] certainly be reasonable to permit Mining. We sincerely believe that it is possible to maintain a balance between the economic needs on a local, provincial and national level, as well the environmental protection and conservation of a valuable blodiversIty area. Therefore the most sensible exertise of powers for the purposes of the coexistence of the Mahola Protected Environment and the Yzermyn Project would be the logical, natural and rational corollary to concur with the Minister of Mineral ResOurces decision to grant the Mining Rights and to give permission under. the NEM:PAA to mine within the Ma bola protected Environment We trust that you will find our motivation a reasonable and sensible one. We are more than willing to further engage with you and officials in the Department to discuss the motivation in More detail shoUld you rentiire more'clarification, ATTACHMENTS: APPENDIX A - [Type text.) APPENDIX A YZERMYN — First 10 years of the Project YZERMYN PROJECT - SPENDING IN SOUTH AFRICA- FIRST 10 YEARS :12.94 BILLION RANDS . Salary & Wages . Mining Services Logistics SLP 5 Royalty !Tag Ongoing Capex Figure 1: Financial Spending in south Africa • Yzermyn first 10 years of project 3AS Appendix B Evidence of previously transformed areas: Figure 2: 1986 Aerial photograph from the Surveyor General. Figure 3: Kromhoek Portion 193 14T —Satellite 2014 2 Appindbe B Hgtire 4: Krornhoek Ptn 1 93 HT — Disturbed Area — Zoomed-2014 Figure 5! RE, of kromhaek HT-Satellite 204 3 Appendix B 3Aq Figure 8: RE of Kromhoek 93 HT — Disturbed AreaS — Zoomed — 2014 Figure 7: Ggedgewinden 95 HT Satellite 2014 &IS Appendix Figure 8: Goedgeveriden 95 HT— Disturbed Areas — Zoomed - 2014 Figure 9: RE of Yzermyn 96 HT—Satellite 2014 DistUrbed I Figure 10: RE of Yzermyn 96 HT Disturbed Area —Zoomed — 2014 .5 32/ Appendix B retire I.1: Effective use of already disturbed areas Note that only 47.265 I-la will be disturbed by surface infrastructure. Only 8.4 Ha of seep wetlands has riot yet been previously transformed. 6 he- t SA Appendix C Groundwater: According to the Groundwater Resource Assessment Project Phase II, the catchment receives a mean annual precipitation (MAP) of 922mm, with approximately 6% of MAP or around 55 mm contributing to shallow recharge, of which 17 mm (or 1.8% of MAP) contribute to aquifer recharge. The location of the springs (blue dots In Figure 4) Is closely related to the geology, with the vast majority of springs occurring as free draining contact springs associated with contact to low permeability dolerite sills at higher altitudes in the project area. The contact with dolerite sills act as barrier to vertical groundwater flow, with subsequent ponding and lateral outflow of groundwater. A few contact springs in the south of the project area appear to be related to the contact between the Volksrust (Ecca Group) and Normandien Formation (Beaufort Group) (Figure 5), suggesting a lower permeability of the Volksrust Formation The rocks of the Normandien Formation appear also more resistant to weathering (or competent) as they form steeper hill slopes and ridges, whereas a marked decrease in hill slope is evident for the Volksrtist Formation. Figure 12: 6 fountains on the affected area Figure 13: Orange lines indicting the water shed around the site The data confirm the prevalence of two distinct water levels respectively aquifer systems with different hydraulic properties on site, a shallow weathered and a deeper fractured aquifer. Groundwater dependant eco-systems and yields of (water supply) springs located within the significant zone of dewatering of the shallow aquifer, limited to the site boundaries, could be negatively impacted and some may dry up during the life of mine. Springs located Within the cone of dewatering of the deeper fractured aquifer, also limited to the site boundaries, are on the other hand unlikely to be Impacted upon due to the limited hydraulic connection of the shallow and deep aquifer systems. Assuming re-use or other environmentally acceptable disposal ptactites of the groundwater entering the underground mine voids, It is expected that the mine Inflows are a "sink of groundwater" during life of mine and do therefore not change the groundwater quality. ski Appendix C Due to the limited hydraulic connectivity between the shallow weathered and deeper fractured Karoo aquifers, the cone of clewatering is expectedly far more pronounced in the actually mined, deeper fractured aquifer. The cone of dewatenng in the shallow aquifer will preferentially expand along structural discontinuitieS like faults, which provide groundwater pathways between the two aquifer systems. Due to its generally lower permeability, the cone of dewatering in the fractured aquifer is steeper, whereas the higher permeability of the weathered aquifer results in a wider, but shallower cone. The simulated extent of the (steady-state) zone of Impact (2m cut-off) of the underground workings on the shallow weathered aquifer extends predominantly upstream of the mine and is limited to around 2 km SW and 3 km towards the SE (Figure 7). Significant imparts with drawdowns above 5ro are likely to be limited to on area immediately SE above the underground mine workings and associated with the low permeability dolerite sill contact (the low permeability and groundwater flow within the dolerite exaggerates the drawdown). Z.? 2-00 - s as 3441 • 400 403 • 00 no - too eoo • too is 7.00 - isto WIN too • ono r etire 14: Shallow weathered aquifer The simulated extent of the (steady-state) zone of impact (5m cut-off) of the underground workings on the deeper fractured aquifer extends predominantly above and around 2,2 km downstream or N of the mine (Figure 8). The deeper fractured aquifer is considered to be less sensitive to a drawdown of the water table and significant impacts with drawdowns above 20m are likely to be limited to an area immediately above the underground mine workings. 4.00 • 1000 i0.00 sin oex • 3000 Ma 3300 - 40.1:0 io au • 0000 ••• row Figure 15: Deep fractured aquifer 8 Appendix n Oiodiversity: kosystem Status The purpose of defining vegetation types in terms of their ecosystem status is to identify ecosystems at risk. The ecosystem status categories are similar to those used by the IUCN for species: Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), and Vulnerable (VU). The proposed YUCM falls within the Wakkerstroom/Luneburg Grassland (MP11) Ecosystem identified in terms of section 52(1)(a) of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004). Refer to Figure 1.6. !iarTremm u.n.“...sn14.161.101)1.1 MILA ants . lAWAAAIMAAAMA —'KIN 1 Figure 16: Wakkerstroom/Luneburg Grassland (MP11) Ecosystem, considered endangered. In terms of NEMBAA' the threatened terrestrial ecosystems for South Africa (2011), means any development that involves the loss of natural habitat in a listed critically endangered or endangered ecosystern is likely to require at least a basic assessment in terms of the EIA regulatio; is. This means that surface disturbance of the Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland, will require and EIA as a minimum. According to NEMBAA the threatened terrestrial ecosystems for South Africa (2011): Wakkerstroom/Luneburg Grassland (MP11), Ecosystem threat Status: Endangered (VU); Biome: Grassland/('ores[; Listed under criterion: F: Priority areas for meeting explicit biodiversIty targets as defined by a_systernatic biodiversittplan. The systematic biodiversity plan however indicates this area as Vulnerable. ' National Environmental Management: Biodhsersity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004), National List of ecosystems that are threatened and in need of protection 9 Sal Appendix 0 Original area of ecosystem: 255 000 ha Remaining natural area of ecosystem (%): 90% Proportion of ecosystem protected: 2% of original area Known of species of special concern: 38 threatened or endemic plant and animal species including those listed below Geographical location: Between Luneburg, Volksrust and Sheermmor. Escarpment and mountainiands comprised of grassland and forest patches utilised as critical habitat for a variety of threatened birds, mammals and plants species. Ecosystem delineated by landscape, topography and underlying landtypes. Description: Key biodiversity features include three mammal sits including Rough-haired Golden Mole, Cape Molerat and Oribi; three butterfly species including AloeIdes merces, Aloeides titel and Mogan(' aloedeus; 10 gird_ species including Blue Crane, Blue Korhaan, Botha's Lark, Grey Crowned Crane, Rudd's Lark, Southern Bald Ibis, Southern Ground Hornbill, Striped Flufftall and Wattle Crane• one amphibian, Bufo gorlepensis nubicolus; one reptile, Cordylits giganteus; twenty plant species for example Aloe tnodesta, Visa maculomarrontha, Gladiolus appendiculatus, Nerine grocilis, Nerine olatypetala, Protect subvestIta and .Scilla nutalensis; and time vegetation types including Low Escarpment MisIthelt Forest, Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland, and Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland. The ecosystem includes important sub-catchments, pans and wetlands; it is an escarpment corridor; and is important for grassland and forest processes. Notes: Approximately 2% of the ecosystem is protected in the Paardeplaats Nature Reserve, Wakkerstroom Wetland Nature Reserve and Phongola Bulh Nature Reserve, Reference: Goodman, P.S. 2007. KwaZulu-Natal Terrestrial Conservation Plan (C-Pian), Version 4. BiodiversIty Conservation Planning Division; Ezemvelo lahl Wildlife. Mpumalanga Tourism arid Parks Agency & Department Of Agriculture and Land Administration. 2007. Mpumalanga Riodiverslty Conservation Handbook. (According to the references listed this ecosystem was considered either Vulnerable or Least threatened.) . . • • • •.. Selentlfic Soeclolist studies conducted: ' • Note that •Sliegalist, studies eandUCted,. none- of the :;abOernititienrici , -, mammal, - 'butterfly, artiphiblen,' reptile or plant species were identified. 'On theSite, ...Where .the surface infraStrtieture.deVeleprnent,iS:'Olattned to take plecei•-,It ll')ikely that these. etoSYStetinsc• 40;:ot .•duPpoit hiodhiersitV that Wa ethiSidered typical :of area, as thole ecosystems are no longer.Mtheir•PristitiecOndition. There .are areas to. the north, and the 'soith of the.prOpOSeitilte;fallink outside the OrOn&ed Mining ;:gightsaren,,that:-Will. be ..nOre,10eaf for Environmental prototiOn, . which doe iheliide critically endangered species and will contribute to Meeting 'the. LyodIversity targets for MrMinafinglind SaUth'Africti:as a ...... 10 Appendix D Vegetation types: According to Mucina & Rutherford (2006) there are three main vegetation types within the boundaries of the AYCP leas.e area, which include Gm 1A Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland and Gm 15 Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland (Figure 10). SAND i Ran NM MN WI WOW, Vann it 1.1,11104 AMA ^ - ' R.• 111,1 06 Mai felt i . !ME WOW ___ I , rITIMP` TT." 1.44 .2 V•1•1•0464.11 10, Figure 17: Vegetation types Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland is the most widespread vegetation type within the AYCP lease and undermining areas. It occurs on flat to undulating terrain where predominant short, montane grassland is Interspersed by short forest and l.eucosidea thickets on steep, mainly east-facing slopes and drainage areas. Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland is classified as Least Threatened by Mucina & Rutherford (2006), although only 1% of this vegetation type is statute* protected and invasion by Black Wattle (Acacia mearnsll) Is problematic in riverine areas. Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland is found in the eastern regions of the surface Infra-structure and undermining areas, and also in the north-western region of the AYCP lease area. This vegetation occurs on slightly steeper mountain slopes and valleys, and features taller, closed grassland rich in forbs and dominated by Tristadwa leucothrlx, Themeda triandra, and Hyparrhenla him. Evergreen woody vegetation is characteristic on rocky .outcrops; Paulpietersburg. Moist Grassland is listed as Vulnerable by Mucina & Rutherfort(2006) because one third of this vegetation type has been transfornied by cultivation and afforestation, and remaining areas are highly threatened by livestock over-grazing, alien plant invasion and altered fire regimes. 11 333 Appendix E Ecological services: Howl Flood attenuation otter afar 1.4acrlart stiornflaw , Stream flow regulation and TO icor 4ogalium Monism NO 3 Sal:melt 11:00a1.101',, Amoral Sediment trapping 2 . ahospIrat Phosphate assimilation Cultivated foods • Nitrate assimilation Cultural aloe Nitrate manitalton Toxicant assimilation raorestablo f, Ratan Erosion control 111001011. otsinoloOon / • • Carbon storage tiosion Calltral tiorlivtrato Lathan Storage Maintenance Biodiversity maintenance Water Figure 18: Ecological services supply Harvestable resources Cultural value Cultivated foods Tourism and recreation Education and research 12 Appendix F Wetlands: Importance according to the National Freshwater Lcosystem Priority Areas (2011) database. The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) (2011) database was consulted to define the ecology of the wetland or river systems within the study area that may be of ecological Importance. Aspects applicable to study area and surroundings are discussed below: The Water Management area (WMA) for the study area is the Usutu to Mhlathuze WMA. Each WMA is divided into several sub-Water Management Areas (subWMA), where catchment or watershed is defined as a topographically defined area which is drained by a stream or river network. The subWMA indicated for the study area is the Upper Usutu subWMA. The Assegaai River is the major drainage feature into which the wetland systems within the study area drain, and is Indicated by Kieynhans (1999) as Class C (moderately modified); however the NFEPA dataset indicates this river resource to be a Class B (largely natural), The Class B status of the system indicates that the system is more intact than Initially defined by Kleynhns (1999). However with the NFEPA database being more recent the NFEPA classification can be considered more appropriate; The sUbWMA is considered a Fish FEPA (Figure 19) iknd is thus important in terms of transiocation, sanctuary and relocation zones for fish identified as threatened species, although it is deemed to have less Importance in terms of fish sanctuaries, rehabilitationand corridors. FlgUre 19: NFEPA The NFEPA database identifies six wetlands within the north-eastern portion of the study area in the vicinity of the second pha e of the proposed mining project, but does. not identity Wetlands within the remaining portion of the study area which was the focus of this investigation. Aspects applicable to the wetlands identified by NFEPA within the vicinity of the second phase are discussed below: According to the NFEPA database the wetlands identified within the north-east portion of the study area are considered to be in PES Category NB condition (natural or good) as presented, in Figure 20. " " CD MIMS, 1.1 au. MM. Figure 20: Nn t7:1 sxe WON Appendix F The INIFEPA database classified 6 wetlands within the study area as a WETFEPA (Figure 21). Wetland FEPAs currently in an A or B ecological condition should be managed to maintain theif good Those currently in a condition lower than A or B should be rehabilitated to the hest attainable ecological condition. As can be seen the WETFEPA falls outside the potential area of disturbance, 1 Legend C:1 BTUFIYMKA WETFEPA Pin a moIre Figure 21 14 APPIENDIXG The following listed activities will be triggered in future should anyone want to initiate such developments and therefore the der:Ian:Monis not only curbing the YUCM project. .1, The construction of reservoirs for bulk water supply with a capacity of mere h 250 cubic metros 2. The. construction Of mast or towers of any material or type used for telecommunication broadcasting or radici tranSmiSSion purposes where the mast: (a) is to be placed on site not previously used for this purpose, and (b) iuil.l exceed 15 Metres in height, but excluding attachments to existing, buildings and masts on rooftops 3. The construction of a road wider than 4 metres with a reserve less than 13,5 metres 4: The construction of resorts, lodges or other tourism accommodation facilities that sleep less than 15 people 5. The, construction of resorts, lodges, or other owls accommodation facilities that sleep is people or More 6. The conversion of existing structures to resorts, lodges or tourism won ()dation facilities that sleep 15 people or more 7. The construction of facilities. or infraStructure for the storage, or storage and handling. of a dangerous good, where such a storage occurs-in containers with a combined capacity of 30 but not exceeding. 80 cubic. metres 8, The. construction of tracks or routes for the testing, recreational use or outdoor racing of motor powered vehicles excluding conversion of existing tracks or routes for the testing, recreational use.or outdoor racing of motor powered vehicles 9. The clearance of an area 300 square meters or mere of vegetation where 75% or more of the vegetation cover constitutes indigenous vegetation 10.The clearance of 'an area 1 hectare or inore Of Vegetation where 75% or more Of the wagetatiOn cover constitutes indigenous vegetation, except 'where such removal of vegetation is required 'Or; (1) 'the undertaking of a process or activity included ih the list of waste management activities published in terrns-of section 19 of the National Environmental Mhnagement Waste Act, 2008 (Act No.59 of 2008) in which case the activity is regarded to be excluded from this list; (2) The undertaking of a linear activity falling below the thresholds mentioned in listing Notice 1 in terms of GN NO.544 of 20:10 11,The clearance of en area of S hectares Or more olvegetation where 75% or more Of the vegetative -cover constitutes indigenous vegetation, except Where such removal of vegetatiOn is required for:. (1) purpOse of agriculture or afferestatiOn inside areas identified in spatial inStialments adopted by the competent authority for :agriculture orpurpose; (2) the undertaking of a process or activity included in the list of waste thanageMent -activities published in terms of section 19 Of the 'National Environmental Management Waste Act, 2008 (Act No, 59 of 2008) in which case the activity is regarded to he excluded from this list; (3) the undertaking of a: linear act ivity falling below the thresholds in Notice.544 of 2010 12.The construction of ;• (i) jetties exceeding 10 square. meters in size; (ii) slipways . -exceeding 10 square metres in size; or (iv) infrastructure covering 10 square metres or 15 APPENDIX G more where such construction occurs within a watercourseor within 32. metres of a watercourse, 13:the expanston of a resort, lodge, hotel and tourism or hospitality facilities where the developthent MOtprint will be expanded 14-.The widening of a road by more than 4 metres, or the lengthening of a road by more than 1 kilometre 15.The expansion of tracks-or routes for the testing, recreational use or outdoor acing of motor powered vehicles, where the development footprint will be expanded leiThe expansion of facilities or infrastructure for the storage, or storage and handling of a dangerous good, where such storage facilities will be expanded by 3() cubic metres Or nibre but lestithan 80 cubit metres 17,The expansion of (a)jetties where the jetty will be expanded by 10 square Metres in size or mote;(b) slipways Where the slipway will be eXpatided by 10 square Metres hi more;(c) buildings where the buildings will be expanded by 10 square metres or more iri size; or infrastructure will be expanded by 10 square metres Or more where such construction occurs within a watercourse or within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse, excluding where such construction will occur behind the development setback line 13. Phased activities for all activities listed in this Schedule and as it applies to a specific geographical area, which commenced on pr after the effective date of this Schedules where any phase of the activity may be below a threshold butwhere as combine:firm of the-phases; including eXpansions or extensions, will exceed a specified threshold, 16 Centre for Environmental Rights Advancing Environmental Rights in South Africa URGENT TIN The Honourable Ms BEE Molewa Minister of Environmental Affairs Environment House 2 473 Steve Biko Road, Arcadia, Pretoria By email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Ms Nosipho Ncgaba Director-General Department of Environmental Affairs Environment House 473 Steve Biko Road, Arcadia, Pretoria By email: [email protected] The Honourable Mr Mosebenzi Joseph Zwane Minister of Mineral Resources 70 Meintje Street Trevenna Campus Sunnyside By email: [email protected] NEAS Ref: DEA/EIA0001965/2013 DEA Ref: 14/12/16/3/3/3/85 2 Minerals Minister Ref: MP30/5/1/2/ /10069MR Our ref: CER/CH/SP 2 December 2016 Dear Sir and Mesdames REQUEST TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS IN RE: APPLICATION TO PERMIT COMMERCIAL MINING INSIDE THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT BY ATHA-AFRICA VENTURES (PTY) LTD IN TERMS OF SECTION 48(1)(b) OF NEMPAA 1. We address you on behalf of our clients, EarthLife Africa Johannesburg; BirdLife South Africa; the Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network of South Africa; the Endangered Wildlife Trust; the Federation for a Sustainable Environment; the Bench Marks Foundation; the Association for Water and Rural Development (AWARD) and groundWork ("our clients"). r im 2i11) Floor, Springtime Studios, 1 Scott Road, Observatory, 7925 Cape Town, South Africa Tel 021 447 11347, Fax 086 730 9098 Email [email protected]. www.cer.org.za Centre ler Fen ranniental Flights MPG is 8 nereprolit company rile registration number 26091020736100. I4P0 Hof 075-863. PBC the. 930032226 and a Lap ialinic repel yed with the Lea Society el the Cape of Good Hone I Directors: Joanna Amy Eastwood, Mohamed Salle in Fakir Melisoalsourie (Executive). Tracy-Lynn Hamby, Stephen Mark Law (Chairl Kareen Manama Me fan I Attorneys: Aadila Aejoe Tracey Laurel Davies. Melissa Fourie, Catherine Hot afield, Robyn Elizabeth Heap. Sylvia 1(amenla. Mature Lothaho Papa Nicole Leper Susanna Plaren Powell. Christine Kai Redden, Pdarthan Theart I Office Manager': Li-Fen Dillon I Candidate Attorneys. Thobelca Amanda Gunsede, Nathan Peter-Jelin Philander I •- 2. Our clients comprise both registered non-profit conservation organisations and communities affected by mining in South Africa. Their objectives include environmental conservation but also advancing the rights of those who are most vulnerable to the effects of environmental degradation. Many of them have the express objective of protecting not only the environment, but the people who depend on it for their livelihoods, 3, The purpose of this letter is to request that our clients be given an opportunity to make representations: 3.1 to the Minister of Environmental Affairs ("the Environment Minister") pertaining to a request by Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd ("Atha") for written permission in terms of section 48(1)(b) of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 ("the NEMPAA") to conduct coal mining in the Mabola Protected Environment; and 3,2 to the Minister of Mineral Resources ("the Minerals Minister") once our clients have received any similar request directed by Atha to him. 4. The Mabola Protected Environment was declared by the MEC for the Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism, Mpumalanga ("the MEC") in terms of section 28(1)(a)(i) and (b) of the NEMPAA on 22 January 2014 (Notice No. 20 in Mpumalanga Gazette No. 2252 dated 22 January 2014)). 5. In terms of section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA "no person may conduct ...mining or related activities ...in a protected environment without the written permission of the Minister [responsible for national environmental management] and Cabinet member responsible for minerals and energy affairs". 6. We understand that on 3 May 2016 Atha submitted a request for permission in terms of section 48(1)(b) of the NEMPAA to the Environment Minister ("Atha's NEMPAA request"). We do not know whether or not a similar request has been directed to the Minerals Minister. 7. Our clients first obtained sight of Atha's NEMPAA request on 28 November 2016 after the following attempts had been made to obtain access to any representations which had been made by Atha in terms of the NEMPAA: 7.1 On 24 February 2015 we inquired with the Department of Environmental Affairs ("the DEA") whether permission had been sought by Atha in terms of section 48(1)(b) of NEMPAA in respect of its proposed Yzermyn coal mine. The Department required us to submit a request for access to this information under the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 ("PAIA"), which we duly did on 16 April 2015. In a letter dated 10 June 2015 we were advised by the Department that no such records existed at that time. 7.2 On 24 June 2016, 1 July 2016, and 8 July 2016 respectively, we contacted various officials at the DEA in an effort to ascertain whether Atha had sought the requisite permission, but without any success. 7.3 On 2 September 2016 we sent a letter to the Environment Minister in which we asserted that our clients' appeal against an environmental authorisation which had been granted to Atha in respect of the proposed Yzermyn coal mine on 7 June 2016 by the Chief Director: Environmental Affairs ("the EA"), would be relevant to any decision in terms of section 48(1)(b) of the NEMPAA. We couriered the appeal dated 19 August 2016 ("the EA appeal") to the Environment Minister's offices on .5 September 2016. We have not received any response to e S A that letter. (We emphasise in this regard that the EA appeal ;includes an answering statement by our clients in terms of regulation 63(2)(b) of the Environmental Impact Asses sment Regulations, 2010 which was copied to the Environmental Minster on 18 November 2016) 7.4 On 19 October 2016 an article was published by Oxpeckers Centre for Investigative Journalism in which it was reported that Atha had in fact submitted a motivation to the Department in May 2016 and was awaiting notification of a final decision 6 (http://oxpeckers.org/201 /10/3269/). We understood, correctly as it turned out, that such motivation was what we had been trying to obtain without any success, namely a request for permission in terms of section 48(1)(b) of the NEMPAA. 7.5 We accordingly submitted a further PAIA request for access to this information on 20 October 2016. 7.6 Pursuant to that request, on 29 November 2016, we finally received a copy of Atha's NEMPAA request. 8. Atha's NEMPAA request contains a detailed motivation and several appendices. The motivation and appendices include, among other things: 8.1 Factual and scientific information, some of which is not contained in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report upon which the EA is based ("the EIAR") (for example the aerial photographs attached as Appendix B which purport to show historical disturbances on the properties in question); and 8.2 Extracts of a groundwater assessment by Delta H dated August 2014 which does form part of the EIAR, but which is the subject of a detailed review by GCS (Pty) Ltd dated 18 November 2016 ("the GCS November 2016 review"). We commissioned the GCS November 201 6 review on behalf of our clients for purposes of preparing an appeal against the grant of a water use licence by the acting Director-General of the Department of Water and Sanitation ("DWS") on 7 July 2016, to which we return below. 9. Our clients hereby respectfully request a reasonable opportunity to comment on these and other aspects of Atha's NEMPAA request. We respectfully submit that our clients are entitled to be afforded such opportunity in terms of section 33 of the Constitution and sections 3 and/or 4 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000. 10. We submit further that affording our clients such opportunity would not cause inconvenience to Atha in view of the fact that there are several authorisations which are required before the project may commence which are still outstanding or which are the subject of appeals which have the effect of suspending them. The status of the various authorisations is outlined below. ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION 11. As noted in paragraph 7.3 above, on 7 June 2016 the Chief Director: Environmental Affairs, Mpumalanga granted Atha an EA in respect of several activities listed in the 2010 Listing Notices promulgated under the National Environmental Management Act, 107 of 1998 ("NEMA"). On 19 August 2016, our clients lodged an appeal against the EA ("the EA appeal"). On 3 October 2016, Atha submitted a responding statement. On 18 November 2016, our clients submitted an answering statement in terms of regulation 63(2)(b) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010. 11 The outcome of the appeal is awaited. 13. In terms of section 43(7) of NEMA, the environmental authorisation is suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. The EA reflects the provisions of NEMA erroneously in this respect (clause 3.28). ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME 14. On 28 June 2016 the Department of Mineral Resources ("the DMR") approved Atha's Environmental Management Programme in terms of section 39(4) of the MPRDA. On 13 October 2016 our clients lodged an appeal against the approval of the Environmental Management Programme. Our clients' appeal does not suspend the approval of the Environmental Management Programme. 15. However, as far as it was possible for us to ascertain in the preparation of our clients' appeal of the EMPR approved by the DMR, that approved EMPR is based on outdated information that has not yet been revised to be consistent with the EIAR upon which the EA is based. An amended EMPR would therefore still have to be approved before any mining could begin. WATER USE LICENCE 16. On 7 July 2016 the DWS granted Atha's application for a water use licence ("the WUL"). Our clients received notice that the WUL had been granted on 29 August 2016. On 6 September 2016 our clients requested the DWS to furnish them with written reasons for the decision, which the DWS did on 17 November 2016. Our clients have instructed us to lodge an appeal against the grant of the water use licence which we are in the process of compiling ("the WUL appeal"). The WUL appeal will be lodged on or before 15 December 2016 in accordance with section 148(3)(c) of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 ("the Water Act"). 17. The WUL appeal will include a 39-page specialist review by GCS (Pty) Ltd of Atha's Water Use Licence application and the Water Use Licence itself which was commissioned by us on our clients' behalf and which was finalised on 21 October 2016 (first referred to in paragraph 8.2 above). 18. Our clients' grounds of appeal will include that the WUL was granted in the face of material gaps in information as identified by GCS; that certain crucial impacts were not properly assessed; and that the WUL does not contain mitigation measures aimed at addressing such impacts. 19. The effect of the WUL appeal will be to suspend the water use licence pending the outcome of the appeal unless the Minister of Water and Sanitation directs otherwise (section 148(2)(b) of the Water Act). OUTSTANDING AUTHORISATIONS Planning approval 20. The area over which Atha's mining right extends is currently zoned for agriculture. To our knowledge, and that of our clients and other interested and affected parties, Atha has not applied for all the relevant planning approvals to commence activity on the site, including but not limited to, the rezoning approvals it requires. 21. Certainly, no opportunity has been given for Interested and Affected persons such as our clients and all the other role-players that participated in the establishment of the Mabola Protected Environment to make representations in respect of any such application(s). Mining Works Programme 22. On 19 November 2014 in its letter to the DMR requesting it to remove certain environmental conditions imposed on the grant of the right, Atha undertook to the DMR to provide an amended Mining Works Programme, removing a previously proposed residue stockpile from the plan. To our and our clients' knowledge, no amended Mining Works Programme has been submitted to, or approved by the DMR. EA conditions 23. The EA contains at least two further conditions that Atha has not yet fulfilled. Clause 3.56 prescribes that a "Plant Rescue and Protection" plan must be complied and submitted (presumably to the MEC) for approval prior to commencement of any construction activities. To our and our clients' knowledge, no such plan has yet been approved (or submitted). 24. Clause 3.57 of the EA prescribes that a permit must be obtained from the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency for the removal or destruction of indigenous protected and endangered plant and animal species. To our and our clients' knowledge, no such permit has yet been approved (or applied for). 25. We would add that insofar as Atha may be concerned that the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 requires that it commence mining operations within one year from the date on which a mining right becomes effective, section 25(2)(b) specifically authorises the Minerals Minister to extend that period. PENDING REVIEW OF THE MINING RIGHT 26. On 19 September 2014 the Director-General: Department of Mineral Resources granted Atha a mining right in terms of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 ("the MPRDA") subject to stringent conditions for the protection of the environment, including wetlands ("the DG's decision"). On 14 April 2015 the then Minerals Minister purported to amend or withdraw the DG's decision ("the Mineral Minister's decision"). In doing so, the Minerals Minister failed to apply section 23(1)(d) of the MPRDA (which he was legally obliged to do) in terms of which a mining right can only be granted if the mining will not result in unacceptable pollution, ecological degradation or damage to the environment. 27. We pause here to point out that the Minerals Minister had no regard whatsoever to the provisions of NEMPAA when he took his decision in terms of the MPRDA. He did not purport when he granted the mining right, also to grant written permission in terms of the NEMPAA. That is not surprising since a decision in terms of section 48(1)(b) of the NEMPAA is a separate and different decision to one in terms of the MPRDA. Any decision in terms of the NEMPAA would have required a careful consideration of the purposes for which the MEC declared the Mabola Protected Environment and of the legislative purpose of the NEMPAA. 28. On 10 September 2015 our clients launched an application in the Pretoria High Court for the judicial review of both the DG's and the Mineral Minister's decisions ("the review application"). The Rule 53 record of the Mineral Minister's decision was filed on 25 November 2016. Our clients are prosecuting the review as quickly as they are able. 29. While the review application does not suspend Atha's mining right, we respectfully submit that Atha's right to start mining is clearly contested and will remain so for some time. CONCLUSION 30. We submit that a decision in terms of section 49(1)(a) of the NEMPAA is one which will affect the rights of the public and that the provisions of section 4 of PAJA are applicable. 30. Whatever public participation procedure the request that they be Environment Minister decides to adopt, ou'r clients' afforded at least until 15 Our clients may well February 2017 to deal withAtha's NEMPAA request. require specialist input in the EIAR. relation to the information not Previously included in 31. Our clients also require an opportunity to make representations to the Minerals Minister inasmuch as section 48(1)(b) of the NEMPAA requires that he too provide Atha with written permission to mine in the Mabola Protected Environment. 32. In view of the fact that our clients have not been provided with any application which Atha may have directed to the Minerals Minister for the requisite written permission, we hereby formally request that a copy of any such application or related correspondence be provided to us by close of business on 9 December 2016. Yours faithfully CE NT RE FO R EN VIR ONMENTAL RIGHTS per: Attorney Programme Head: Mining Direct email: [email protected] CC Mr Ishaam Abader Deputy Director-General: Legal, Authorisations, Compliance & Enforcement Department of Environmental Affairs Email: [email protected] Mr Sabelo Malaza Chief Director: Integrated Environmental Authorisations Department of Environmental Affairs Email: [email protected] Ms Fiona Grimett Assistant Director Department of Environmental Affairs National and Public Sector Email: [email protected] The Directors Atha Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd Email: [email protected] 6 a 0 1 FORM A REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO RECORD OF PUBLIC BODY (Section 18 (1) of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (Act No. 2 of 2000) [Regulation 2] FOR DEPARTMENTAL USE Reference number: ______ Request received by: ______ (state rank, name and surname of information officer/deputy information officer) on ______(date) at ______(place). Request fee (if any): R Deposit fee (if any): R Access fee: R SIGNATURE OF INFORMATION OFFICER/DEPUTY INFORMATION OFFICER A. Particulars of public body The Information Officer/Deputy Information Officer: Ms Nosipho Ngcaba Department of Environmental Affairs Private Bag X447 Pretoria South Africa 0001 Telephone: +27123103911 Fax: +27123224832 Email: nnocabaenvironment.ciov.za; psabekaAenvironment.qov.za; nnovemberAenvironment.qov.za B. Particulars of person requesting access to the record o The particulars of the person who requests access to the record must be recorded below. o Furnish an address and/or fax number in the Republic to which information must be sent o Proof of the capacity in which the request is made, if applicable, must be attached. Organisation name: Centre for Environmental Rights Registration number: 2009/020736/08 Postal address: 2nd Floor, Springtime Studios, 1 Scott Road, Observatory, 7925 Fax number: 0867309098 Telephone number: +27214471647 E-Mail Address: creddelk5cer.orq.za Capacity in which request is made, when made on behalf of another person: Attorney C. Particulars of person on whose behalf request is made This section must be completed ONLY if a request for information is made on behalf of another person. Organisation name: The Federation for a Sustainable Environment NPO number: 062986 — NPO D. Particulars of record Provide full particulars of the record to which access is requested, including the reference number if that is known to you, to enable the record to be located. If the provided space is inadequate please continue on a separate folio and attach it to this form. The requester must sign all the additional folios. 0 Description of record or relevant part of the record: 1 la Copies of the following records are requested: Copies of the following records are requested in respect of the proposed Yzermyn underground coal mine in Wakkerstroom, Mpumalanga Province: Any correspondence between Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (Atha) and the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) and/or the Minister of Environmental Affairs (Minister) regarding her consent/permission to mine commercially in the Mabola Protected Environment, as contemplated in section 48(1)(b) of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 (NEMPAA), since Atha's motivation for such consent/permission was submitted during or about May 2016; Any internal memoranda concerning Atha's request for such consent/permission; 3. Any decision in respect of such request for consent/permission; 4. If such decision has been taken, then the reasons for that decision. Reference number, if available: NEAS reference: DEA/EIA/0001965/2013; DEA reference: 14/12/16/3/3/3/85; Authorisation register number of Atha's environmental authorisation from the Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs: 17/2/3/GS-131. E. Fees A request for access to a record, other than a record containing personal information about yourself will be processed only after a request fee has been paid. You will be notified of the amount required to be paid as the request fee. The fee payable for access to a record depends on the form in which access is required and the reasonable time required to search for and prepare a record. If you qualify for exemption of the payment of any fee, please state the reason for exemption. Reason for exemption from payment of fees: N/A F. Form of access to record If you are prevented by a disability to read, view or listen to the record in the form of access provided for in 1 to 4 hereunder, state your disability and indicate in which form the record is required. Disability: Form in which record is required: Mark the appropriate box with an "X". NOTES: ® Your indication as to the required form of access depends on the form in which the record is available. ® Access in the form requested may be refused in certain circumstances. In such a case you will be informed if access will be granted in another form. (c) The fee payable for access to the record, if any, will be determined partly by the form in which access is requested. 1. If the record is in printed form: X Copy of Inspection of record record* 2. If record consists of visual images: (this includes photographs, slides, video recordings, computer-generated images,sketches, etc). view the images copy of the images* transcription of the images* X 3. If record consists of recorded words or information which can be reproduced in sound: Listen to the X transcription of soundtrack* soundtrack (audio (written or printed document) cassette) 4. If record is held on computer or in an electronic or machine ? readable form: Printed copy X Printed copy derived from X copy in computer readable of record* the record* form*(stiffy or compact disc) YES N * If you requested a copy or transcription of a record (above), do you O wish the copy or transcription to be posted to you? X A postal fee is payable. Note that if the record is not available in the language you prefer, access may be granted in the language in which the record is available. In which language would you prefer the record? ENGLISH (:\ _ G. Notice of decision regarding request for access You will be notified in writing whether your request has been approved/denied. If you wish to be informed thereof in another manner, please specify the manner and provide the necessary particulars to enable compliance with your request. How would you prefer to be informed of the decision regarding your request for access to the record? In writing to: creddeWcer.orq.za. Signed at CAPE TOWN this 7th day of December 2016. SIGNATURE OF REQUESTER / PERSON ON WHOSE BEHALF REQUEST IS MADE Ms Christine Reddell (Attorney) Centre for Environmental Rights qr as es ww em ai .54,1 water & sanitation Department: Water and Sanitation REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Private Bag X 313, Pretoria 0001 / Sedibeng Building, 185 Francis Baard Street, Pretoria Tel: 012 336 7500 Fax: 012 323 4470 or 012 326 2715 Enquiries: Mapula Khuduga Telephone: 012 336 7835 Email: [email protected] Your Ref: AVV Appeal Our Ref: 1/11/1/2016/17MK 2'd Floor, Springtime Studios 1 Scott Road, Observatory CAPE TOWN 7925 By Email: [email protected] Dear Ms Powell APPEAL IN TERMS OF SECTION 148(1) OF THE NATIONAL WATER ACT, 1998 (ACT NO. 36 OF 1998) IN RESPECT OF THE WATER USE LICENCE ISSUED TO ATHA AFRICA VENTURES FOR ITS PROPOSED YZERMYN UNDERGROUND COAL MINE We refer to your appeal in respect of the water use licence granted to Atha Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (Atha Africa) which was received by the Department in December 2016. Subsequent to your appeal referred to above the Department received a petition from Atha Africa in which they are requesting the Minister to uplift the suspension of the licence, pending the appeal, in terms of section 148(2) of the Act. Having noted the motivation to uplift the suspension (Annexure A), the Department is considering its decision on the petition. You are, therefore, advised to submit written representations, within 30 days of this letter, as to why the Department should not uplift the suspension pending the appeal. Yours faithfully, MR PUSELETSO LOSELO CHIEF DIRECTOR: LEGAL SERVICES DATE: 31/01/2017 1 MINISTER ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Private Bag X447, Pretoria, 0001, Environment House, 473 Steve Biko Road, Tel: (012)399 8743 Fax: (012) 359 3638 Private Bag X9052, Cape Town, 8000, Tel: (021) 469 4300, Fax: (021) 465 3362 Ref: EDMS 154588 Mr Praveer Tripathi Senior Vice President: Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd PO Box 1569 SANDTON 2144 Fax: 011 784 7467 Email: [email protected] Dear Mr Tripathi APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO MINE WITHIN A PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 48 OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS ACT, 2003: YZERMYN UNDERGROUND COAL MINE WITHIN THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT, MPUMALANGA PROVINCE With reference to the above application, please be advised that the Ministers of Environmental Affairs and Mineral Resources have decided to grant Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd permission to mine within the Mabola Protected Environment in terms of Section 48 of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (NEMPAA), 2003 (Act no. 57 of 2003). The permission and reasons for the decision are attached herewith. Yours sincerely , „Ls MRSBEE •L W ,MP ~BENZI JOSEPH ZWANE, MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS MP MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES DATE: `ID \ 6\01\ ta), DATE: aoltAkk\ak CC MEC: Mr Vusumuzi Shongwe Mpumalanga Provincial Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs Tel: 013 766 6067/8 Fax: 013 766 8295 PERMISSION TO MINE WITHIN.THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 48 OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS ACT, 2003 YZERMYN UNDERGROUND COAL MINE WITHIN THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT, MPUMALANGA PROVINCE Reference number: EDMS No: 154588 Last amended: First issue Holder of permission: Atha—Africa Ventures (PTY) LTD, Company Reg No: 2004/020746/07 Location of activity: MPUMALANGA PROVINCE: Within the Pixley ka Seme Local Municipality This permission does not negate the holder of the permission from responsibility to comply with any other statutory requirements that may be applicable to the undertaking of the activity. Effective date: This permission comes into effect on the date upon which the last authorised minister signs said permission. Department of Environmental Affairs and Department of Mineral Resources Reference Number. EDMS No: 154588 Decision The Ministers of Environmental Affairs (DEA) and Mineral Resources (DMR) are satisfied, on the basis of information available to them and subject to compliance with the conditions of this permission, that the applicant should be permitted to mine within a Protected Environment in terms of Section 48(1)(b) of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act no. 57 of 2003) (NEMPAA). Non-compliance with a condition of this permission may result in the permission being suspended or withdrawn. These permission is not transferable should the company change hands. Details regarding the basis on which the two Ministers reached this decision are set out in Annexure 1. Scope of Permission Granted By virtue of the powers conferred on them by the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (NEMPAA), 2003 (Act no. 57 of 2003) the Ministers hereby grant permission to — ATHA-AFRICA VENTURES (PTY) LTD (hereafter referred to as the holder of the permission) with the following contact details — Mr Praveer Tripathi Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd: Company Reg No: 2004/020746/07 Senior Vice President: Atha—Africa Ventures (PTY) LTD P 0 Box 1569 SANDTON 2144 Tel: 011 784 1885 Fax: 011 784 7467 2 Department of Environmental Affairs and Department of Mineral Resources Reference Number. EDMS No: 154588 Cell: 072 804 8250 E-mail: Praveeriripathi @athagroup.in To undertake underground coal mining within the Mabola Protected Environment in terms of Section 48(1)(b) of the NEMPAA. Property Location Portion 1 of the Farm Kromhoek 93 HT The remainder of the Farm Kromhoek•93 HT; The Farm Goedgevonden 95 HT; The remainder of the Farm Yzemiyn 96 HT. Conditions of this Permission 1. This permission to mine within the Mabola Protected Environment is subject to the conditions contained hereunder, and are binding on the holder of this permission. 2. The holder of this permission is responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions contained in this permission. This includes any person acting on the holder's behalf, including but not limited to, an agent, servant, contractor, sub-contractor, employee, consultant or person rendering a service to the holder of this permission. 3. Mining to be undertaken in terms of this permission may only be carried out at the property as described above. 4. Any changes to, or deviations from the scope of this permission must be approved, in writing, by Ministers of Environmental Affairs and Mineral Resources, before such changes or deviations may be effected. 5. Mining activities must commence as stipulated in the Mining right issued by the DMR. Monitoring Department of Environmental Affairs and Department of Mineral Resources Reference Number. EDMS No: 154588 6. The holder of the permission must appoint an experienced independent Environmental Control Officer (ECO) that will have the responsibility to ensure that the conditions referred to in this permission are implemented. 6.1. The ECO must be appointed before commencement of any mining activities and for the duration of this project. Once appointed, the name and contact details of the ECO must be submitted to the National Department of Environmental Affairs and DMR. Recording and reporting 7. The holder of this permission must, for the period during which this permission remains valid, ensure that project compliance with the conditions of this permission are audited. 8. Quarterly compliance reports demonstrating the compliance status on the conditions or requirements of this permission and the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) approved by the Mpumalanga provincial environmental department must be provided to the National Department of Environmental Affairs. 9. The compliance reports must indicate the date of the audit, the name of the auditor and the outcome of the audit in terms of compliance with the conditions of this permission as well as the requirements of the EMPr approved by the Mpumalanga Provincial Environmental Department. 10. Records relating to monitoring and auditing must be kept on site and made available for inspection to any relevant and competent authority in respect of the implementation of the permission. Notification to authorities 11. A written notification of commencement must be given to the National Department of Environmental Affairs prior to the commencement of the activity. Operation of the activity 12. A written notification of operation must be given to the National Department of Environmental Affairs and DMR prior to the commencement of the activity operational phase. Specific conditions 4 Department of Environmental Affairs and Department of Mineral Resources Reference Number. EDMS No: 154588 13. A "Plant Rescue and Protection" plan with specific focus on conservation important species from areas to be transformed must be compiled by an ecological specialist who is familiar with the site, and be submitted to National Department of Environmental Affairs, together with the Maintenance Management Plan for approval prior to the commencement of any construction activities. 14. No activities will be allowed to encroach into a water resource without a water use authorisation being in place from the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) 15, No storm water generated as a result of the development will be channelled directly into any wetland or watercourse. All surface runoff generated during both construction and operation phases must be managed (and cleaned where applicable) prior to entering any natural drainage system or wetland so as not to impact on the natural hydrology and morphology of the watercourse. 16. Storm water management must be designed to promote infiltration and slow the release of runoff into wetlands and watercourses, 17. Any point of overland / surface discharge of water must be located at least 32m away from any watercourse, wetland and riparian zone, overland / surface discharge, unless authorised. 18, All mechanisms for dissipating water energy must be implemented with approval from Department of Water and Sanitation. 19. The increase in downstream peak flows as a result of the development must be mitigated by retaining storm water until after peak flows. 20. Flows leaving the site must be suitably attenuated, specifically for storm events with a return frequency of up to 1:5 year return frequency. The instantaneous discharge volume and peaks may not exceed 20% of the pre-development conditions measured at a point where the current flows leave the property. 21. The rate of storm water runoff must be reduced by using mechanisms such as the construction of berms, grassed swales and armour flex lined channels and the construction of energy breakers at storm water outlet structures. 22. Scouring, erosion or sedimentation of all watercourses and wetlands as a result of the development must be managed according to the approved Environmental Management Programme, and the integrity of watercourses should not be detrimentally affected. 23. An alien plant control program must be implemented from the inception of the site clearing phase in accordance with the relevant legislation. 24. A groundwater monitoring system must be designed and implemented according to the requirements of DWS. 25. The applicant must mitigate and manage acid mine drainage where applicable according to the requirements of DWS. 5 Department of Environmental Affairs and Department of Mineral Resources Reference Number. EDMS No: 154588 26. Stringent and appropriate dust suppression measures must be applied to manage dust emanating from the construction activities on site to ensure dust is kept within the legal limits. 27. The clearing of vegetation must be undertaken in accordance with the EMPr approved in terms of the environmental authorisation issued by the Mpumalanga provincial environmental department. 28. Storage of construction materials or any hazardous substances should be in accordance with the relevant legal requirements. 29. Should any material of cultural or archaeological significance be encountered during construction, construction/operations In the vicinity of the findings shall be stopped immediately and the relevant heritage resources authority must be informed accordingly. 30. All social issues inclusive of affected homesteads and relocations must be addressed in accordance with the approved social and labour plan as informed by the social impact assessment report and regulated by Department of Mineral Resources. 31. An environmental management committee (EMC) must be established for the construction and operational phase of the project. The EMC shall consist of, inter alia, representatives from the following organisations or their successors in title Department of Mineral Resources, Department of Water and Sanitation, Department of Environmental Affairs, Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency, Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs, Mabola Protected Environment Management Authority and Dr.Pixley ka Seme Local Municipality. The Members of the EMC must be approved by the DEA: Branch: Biodiversity and Conservation its successors in title in writing prior to commencement of the mining activities. The purpose, outcomes, role and function of the EMC must be submitted to the Mpumalanga provincial environmental department and DEA: Branch: Biodiversity and Conservation its successors in title for approval prior to commencement of mining activities. 32. A suitable qualified wetland specialist must be appointed to carry out a comprehensive baseline audit of the wetlands in the area. The audit report must be submitted to the DEA: Branch: Biodiversity and Conservation its successors in title and must also be tabled at the EMC inception meeting. 33. The wetland specialist must carry out quarterly audits of the wetlands and the report must be submitted to the DEA: Branch: Biodiversity and Conservation its successors in title and also be tabled for discussion at the EMC meetings. 34. Should the integrity (PES score) of any category A and B wetlands be reduced by more than 20% from baseline, a biodiversity offset agreement must be negotiated with the Mpumalanga provincial environmental department and DEA: Branch: Biodiversity and Conservation (its successors in title) within the timeframe stipulated by these authorities. 6 Department of Environmental Affairs and Department of Mineral Resources Reference Number. EDMS No: 154588 35. Quarterly compliance reports on the demonstrating compliance status on the conditions or requirements of the Environmental Management Plan and Environmental Authorisation must be provided to both department of Environmental Affairs and Mineral Resources. There is no internal appeal to the Ministers' decision therefore any aggrieved party may approach a relevant court to review the permission in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (Act No.3 of 2000). Date of permission: DRBEE 0 ,MP BENZI JOSEPH ZWANE, MINISTER •F ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS MI ISTER OFMP MINERAL RESOURCES DATE: *ao‘k., " aA DATE: d,o(cA o s\r c) Date of Permission: 7 k. Department of Environmental Affairs and Department of Mineral Resources Reference Number, EDMS No: 154588 Annexure 1: Reasons for Decision 1. Information considered in making the decision In arriving at this decision I have taken into consideration the following: Decision by the MEC regarding the declaration of Mabola as a Protected Environment, and its associated processes; Draft Mabola Protected Environment Management Plan; Mining right and approved Environmental Management Programme; Environmental Authorisation, Environmental Impact Report dated January 2014 and its associated specialist studies; Water Use Licence; Mining and Biodiversity Guidelines; and NEMA Section 2 Principles. 2. Findings The following findings were made, after consideration of the information and factors listed above: a) The Yzermyn Underground Mine has received other required authorisations from relevant organs of state which have jurisdiction in respect of the activity, including the Water Use Licence, the Mining Right and approved Environmental Management Plan, and the Environmental Authorisation. These decisions include measures to minimise impacts on environmental resources. b) The mining activity will not compromise the management objectives of the Mabola Protected Environment as it stipulated in the draft Mabola Protect Environment Management Plan. c) The Mining and Biodiversity Guidelines, 2013, signed by both Ministers (DEA and DMR) support the development of the country's resources in a manner that will minimise the impact of mining on the country's biodiversity and ecosystem services. d) Potential impacts have been clearly highlighted and the proposed mitigation of impacts identified and assessed in the EIR dated January 2014 adequately curtails the identified impacts. Department of Environmental Affairs and Department of Mineral Resources Reference Number. EDMS No: 154588 e) This permission further includes specific conditions to ensure that the mineral resources are developed in an orderly and ecologically sustainable manner while promoting justifiable social and economic development thus giving effect to the provisions of Section 24 of the constitution and NEMA Section 2 Principles. In view of the above, the Department of Environmental Affairs and the Department of Mineral Resources are satisfied that, subject to compliance with the conditions contained in the permission, the permitted mining activity will not conflict with the principles of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 and that any potentially detrimental environmental impacts resulting from the mining activity can be mitigated to acceptable levels. Permission to mine in the Mabola Protected Environment in terms of Section 48 of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (NEMPAA), 2003 (Act no. 57 of 2003) is accordingly granted. 9 environmental affairs TTN Department: Environmental Moire REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Private Bag X 447• PRETORIA • 0001. Parlours Building - 316 Pren Street PRETORIA Tel (+ 27 12)310 3911 • Fax (4, 2712) 322 2682 NEAS Reference: DEA/IA/0001965/2013 DEA Reference: 14/12/16/313/3185 EnquIrles: Fiona Grimett Telephone: 012-395-1793 Fax: 012-320-7539 E-mall: [email protected] Ms Charlaine Baarljies EcoPartners PO Box 73513 FAIRLAND 2030 Fax No: 086 539 6127 PER FACSIMILE / MAIL Dear Ms Baartjies REJECTION OF THE ENIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED YZERMYN UNDERGROUND COAL MINE NEAR WAKKERSTROOM, MPUMALANGA PROVINCE The Final Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) received on 09 January 2014, this Department's letter dated 26 March 2014, and the correspondence and ainended application form for environmental authorisation received on 27 March 2014 refer. The EIAR is hereby rejected by the Department in terms of regulation 34(2)(b) of the EIA Regulations, 2010. The EIAR must be amended to address the follciwing issues. Layout Alternatives a) The ERR concludes that the preferred surface layout design not be considered for development, given the sensitivities pertaining to the site- It further 'recommends that an alternative layout design be considered and that this layout be reassessed to determine whether both environmental and socioeconomic aspects can be, accommodated. The Department agrees with this recommendation. Please confirm whether an alternative layout can be proposed, which will allow the proposed mine to coexist within this sensitive area, given the Department's concerns with regards to biodiversity, outlined in point b) below. b) Amend the EIAR to include the new layout plan and update the specialist studies to Include for the assessment of the new alternative layout. c) Please also include an updated layout map, showing the exact locations and footprints of the development and associated infrastructure and no-go/sensitive areas. Please also include in the report an indication of the amount of vegetation required to be cleared for the development (as per the new layout). Biodiversity Concerns The Department has identified a number of biodiversity concerns, which need to be taken into consithration and/or addressed in the EIAR: d) The study area contains at least one ecosyStem (Wakkerstroom/Luneburg Grasslands) listed in lams of the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004 (NEMBA). It could also contain Paulpietersburg Moist Grassland, Eastern. Temperate Freshwater Wetlands and Eastern* Fighveld Grassland, listed as Vulnerable:This was not identified in the biodiversity study, and is an omissbn that needs to be rectified. The biodiversity study only looked at MOcina and Rutherford classifications, not the NEMBA-listed ecosystems. e) The site is largely classified as Irreplaceable in the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan. Please be advised that unless ground-tmthing has been undertaken to prove that the development does not impact on the reason for the classification, this niay constitute a fatal flaw. U The area has a high occurrence of wetlands of very. high ecological importance. This could be an indication that groundwater is very close to the surface and that impact on either may be transferred to the ether. In the National Freshwater Priority Areas maps, this area is classified as an NFEPAPriority Area, which means that it is critical for the sustained supply of potable water for dowse-earn communities. Dewatering of this area at the rates proposed in the study will lead to the lowering of the water table, which is likely to have a very high negative impact on biodiversity, food production and water provisioning to areas downstream. 9) The mine cannot operate without dewatering activities. In the light of the above, this application cannot be considered without the identification of the downstream water areas, the water users dependenton the water, and a quantification of the dewatering effect on the economic activities downstream, irtluding increase in droughts and floods. This inforaiation needs to be included in the amended EIAR. h) The EIAR states that there may be potential for Acid Mine Drainage resulting from the Alfred Seam. It recommends that additional ground and surface water studies be undertaken in order to adequately quantify the anticipated impacts from the proposed mine. The Department supports the recommendation for additional studies In the amended EIAR; Investigating the potential impact of AMD, I) This application falls within the Grassland Important Bird Area (IBA). This IBA has been recognised by BirdLife South Africa and BirdLife International as both a national (SA 125) and global (ZA 016) MA that is critical for the conservation of IUCN Red Data List (i.e. threatened) bird species, grassland endemic bird species and cOngregatory waterbeds. The list of Red Data bird species On the EIAR) that potentially occur in the project area fails to include the regionally Critically Endangered and southern African endemic Rudd's Lark (Heteromiraftuddl), Approximately 85% of the global population of. Rudd's Lark is confined to the grasslands within a 50 km radius around Wakkerstroom, k) The study area is surrounded by protected areas to the south and east of the site, and some of Ike land parcels in the application are part of a declared Protected Environment. As such, please be advised that a mining license cannot be issued without the express permission of the Minister of Environmental Affairs. 2 Additional Requirements a) The specialist studies do not appear to include an assessment of the alternative layout options and access routes identified in the EIAR. Page 273 of the ERR further states that some of the associated infrastructure (e.g. laydown I construction areas, access roads and pipelines) required for the proposed mine were not assessed, as the final layout plan was not available at the time of completing certain of the specialist studies, Please ensure that all associated infrastructure required for the mine is assessed in the report and specialist studies. This includes the portion of the road that will need to be re-aligned for the new location of the discard dump. Also include an assessment of the shorter alternative access road proposed in the EIAR. b) Please ensure that all listed activities, in terms of GN R. 544, 545 and 546, are discussed in the EIR, including the pipelines required for the transportation of water and dangerous goods, reservoirs, and any culverts/ bridges required for the access roads (provide a description of these activities), c) Page 218 of the EIAR states that a geology/geotechnical specialist study was not required. This Department however requires that a geotechnical study / specialist opinion be included in the BAR, in order to address the issue of mine stability and the potential for subsidence (as requested in the acceptance of FSR letter dated 9 October 2013). d) Please address the issue of whether the generators alone are sufficient to supply power for the Life of Mine (LOM), or Whether the viability of the mine is dependent on the future approval of an alternative power source. Please note that the Department doeS not support incremental decision making, should the viability of the mine depend upon the future approval of additional power lines or power stations. e) The significance of the potential cumulative impacts has not been indicated in the report (Section 10.3 of the EIAR). Please provide an indication of cumulative impact significance. f) The contact details (telephone, fax and email) of the commenting authorities must be included in the stakeholder database; as per Regulation 55(1) of ON R. 543. Please also include these details in the cover letter of the amended ERR.. 9) Ensure that the environmental management programme (EMPr) includes the details and expertise of the person who prepared the report, a description of the aspects of the activity covered by the E1tFr (i.e. project description) including a layout map with no-go areas clearly identified, and an indication of the time periods within which the measures contemplated in the EMPr must be implemented, as per Regulation 33 of GN R. 543. h) Declarations of independence forms for the specialists and an indication of the expertise of specialists must also be included in the report, as per Regulation 32(3)(a) and (b) of GN R. 543 (forms available from the Department). I) The Department recommends further consultation with the South African Heritage Resource Agency (SAHRA), considering that the heritage impact study submitted to SAHRA was a pre-feasibility study and the layout of the mine was yet to be finalised at the time of consultation, j) The applicant is hereby reminded to comply with the requirements of regulation 67 of GN R, 513, with regard to the time period allowed for complying with the requirements of the regulations, and GN R. 543(56) with regard to the allowance of a comment period for interested and affected parties (I&APs) on all reports submitted to the competent authority for decision-making. The amended EIAR must be made available to l&APs for comment, Both the Department of Water Affairs and the Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fishery must be consulted for further inputs. 3 The Department will further consider the application upon on receipt of the amended EIAR You are hereby reminded of Section 24F of the National Environmental Management Act, Act No 107 d 1998, as amended, that no activity may commence prior to an environmental authorisation being granted by the Department. Yours faithfully s n i c ) . --i r Abader Deputy Director-General: Legal, Authorisations, Compliance & Enforcement Department of Environmental Affairs Letter signed by: Ms Milicent Solomons Designaffon:ilrector: Integrated Environmental Authorisations Date: iLirt - pa CC: Mr Morgam Munsamy Atha Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd Fax: 011 784 7467 Ms NellIslwe Mlangeni MDEDECI Fax: 013 766 4614 Mrs J du Hassle DMR Fax: 013 690 3288 (Th 4 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND. SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME Yzermyn underground Coal Mine: DMR Ref. No. MP30/5/1/2/2/10069MR Submitted — March 2014 a r A Master Rate for each component in the DMR Guidelines and weighting factor can be applied depending on the risk class of the activity and the sensitivity of the area. The financial rates were determined in 2005 so it therefore to calculate an escalation in the rates according to an appropriate CPIX. Weighting Factor 1 is used in areas of difficult terrain with steep gradients, undulating and rugged ground. Weighting Factor 2 is related to the proximity of the mine to urban centres as in remote areas the costs of transport, machinery, goods and personnel increases substantially. 17.2 Closure Methods 17.2.1 Generally Accepted Closure Method The applicable project components are discussed below together with closure related comments and any items that influence applicable financial rates and Weighting Factors. Component 1: Processing Plant Costs for dismantling of processing plant and related structures. Plant includes tunnel feeders to vibrating screens to crushers. Crushed coal is washed using cyclones and discard is fed to a silo. Overland conveyors and power lines are included as part of the processing plant closure costs. Component 2(A): Steel Buildings and Structures and Component 2 (B): Demolition of Reinforced Concrete Buildings and Structures Cost for demolition of steel buildings and structures are based on the assumption that all structures to be demolished include foundations to a depth of 1m below ground level. The rubble is to be buried on-site. Silos will be imploded and buried on-site. Cleared areas will be shaped and topsoil with 300 mm of topsoil cover and re-vegetated or as stated in the relevant ESMP document. Costs include allowance for monitoring and maintenance. ' 1 r Component 3 Rehabilitation of Access Road Approximately 600 m2 of internal access roads will be rehabilitated Component 4 Rehabilitation of Railway Lines Not applicable. There will be no railway links for the mine Component 5 Demolition of Housing and Administration Buildings It is proposed to use portable structures on concrete plinths for offices, workshops and change houses. The building structures will be re-usable and demolition will be limited to the concrete foundation slab. 1 1 Component 6 Opencast Rehabilitation Rehabilitation of excavation works around the mine adit are estimated approximately 0.83 Ha Component 7 Sealing of Shafts, Adits and Inclines 532 The sealing of vertical and incline shafts are primarily a safety consideration. Inert rubble arising from the demolition of surface infrastructure should be deposited into the shafts and a 1 m thick mass concrete cap be used to cap the rubble backfill. Allowance should be made for methane venting of the underground workings using strategically placed venting boreholes. An allowance has made for sealing shafts based on 42 m2 of vertical shaft area. Component 8 (A) Rehabilitation of overburden and spoils Relatively low volumes of overburden soil and rock will be generated from the adit excavation. The excavated will be used as part of the bulk earth fill material for the construction of the pollution control dams and the dam for coal washing residues. Component 8 (B) Rehabilitation of processing waste deposits and evaporation ponds (basic, salt- producing waste) See below. Component 8 (C) Rehabilitation of processing waste deposits and evaporation ponds (acidic, metal-rich waste) Acidic metal enriched residue deposits are typical of coal mining activities. Accepted closure methods are aimed at the following: Limiting seepage of contaminants from the processing waste deposits, and preventing seepage from entering local surface water and groundwater resources. The standard master rates allows for slope modification, armouring and evaporative covers, lined pollution control dams and lined cut off trenches. Slope modification to achieve stabilisation of residue deposits is based on an outer slope gradient of 1:3 (18 °). Benching at regular intervals should ensure that bench height does not exceed 35 m in order to curb stormwater flow velocities and reduce the risk of erosion to cover material. Benches should be at least 5 m wide, sloping inwards at a slope of 1:10. The lateral slope of benches should be based on the following stability criteria: x 1:2 year flow events should not result in bench flow velocities of less than 0.3 m/s. Flow velocities of less than 0.3 m/s tends cause sediment build-up on benches which can result in eventual overtopping and slope damage. x 1:50 year flow events should not result in bench flow velocities exceeding 1 m/s. Flow velocities in excess of 1 m/s could cause bench scouring and hence damage to stormwater chutes. Generally accepted closure methods allow for a dedicated cover to be provided on the modified outer slopes of the residue deposit. The cover should provide stability to the slope and limit the ingress of air and water into the residue material reducing leaching and the potential to generate contaminated seepage from the footprint of the residue deposit. The cover material prevents contamination of the surface run-off from the deposit and allows for suitable re-vegetation to take place improving the aesthetics of the deposit. Operational pollution control dams will be lined to prevent migration of contaminated water impounded in the dams to surface water and shallow groundwater. The life of mine is estimated to be 17 years and therefore it is unlikely that the liner systems will degrade over this time period and therefore residual impacts of seepage into surrounding water resources should be negligible. The Master Rate used in the cost provision assumes a liner design based on a 1.5 mm thick HDPE liner on a selected granular bedding layer of 250 mm with a geotextile separation layer. The Master rate allows for concrete stromwater chutes at 200 m spacing along the perimeter of the rehabilitated residue deposit with benching and energy dissipation measures upslope of bench crossings and discharge points Component 9 Rehabilitation of subsided areas The geological review of the stability of the hanging wall rocks and rock overburden indicates that significant ground subsidence is considered unlikely that therefore the financial provision is not applicable for this component. 533 Component 10 General Surface Rehabilitation The final surface rehabilitation of areas disturbed by mining and related activities will be aligned to the selected final land use. General surface rehabilitation measures will ensure the following: x Surface topography will emulate the visual appearance of the surrounding areas and be aligned to the general character of the landscape. x Landscaping will facilitate surface run-off and result in free-drainage areas. Where possible natural drainage lines will be reinstated. x Special attention will be given to remove heaps of excess material and to remove unnecessary remnants of surface structures and infrastructure. x General shaping of the land surface will be made suitable for re-vegetation. The Master Rate allows for shaping of the land surface to a depth of 500 mm. Component 11 River Diversions There are no drainage courses within the area impacted by mining activities. This component is therefore considered to be non-applicable to the financial provision. Componen t 12 Fencing An allowance has been made for 16 000 running metres of fencing. Component 13 Water Management The Master Rate developed by the DMR is considered to be over-conservative and too generic to be applied in the case of Yzermyn where the predictive modelling suggests that mine decant will not occur. An allowance has been made of monitoring of surface water and groundwater for a period of three years, with management measures estimated at R 120 000. This cost estimate will need to readjusted during the Life of Mine as real data on groundwater level and water quality is obtained and the predictive decant modelling can be properly calibrated. Component 14 Maintenance and Aftercare The Master Rate assumes a maintenance and aftercare period of 3 years after mine productive and includes the following: x Annual fertilising of rehabilitated re-vegetated areas x Monitoring of surface water and groundwater x Control of black wattle and other invasive alien plants x General landscaping maintenance, including rehabilitation of cracks and subsidence The area requiring maintenance and aftercare is assumed to be 30 ha. Component 15 Specialist Studies and Environmental Management Programme Specialist studies may be required to fully develop the Environmental Management Plan for closure. These studies could include additional monitoring boreholes for groundwater samples or various forms of field trials for re-vegetation and biodiversity initiatives. The requirements for further specialist studies should be evaluated during the Life of Mine and the Financial Provisions be updated to reflect any specific requirements as necessary. 534 17.3 Closure Cost Estimate The closure cost estimate has been compiled from information supplied from Atha with quantities estimated by Mindset according to the DMR Guidelines. Master Rates are based on compound inflation adjusted rates for 2013. Weighting factor for terrain is not considered to be applicable and thus is taken by as x1. The mine location is part of a traditional coal mining area with nearest major town being Piet Retief. Location related costs are not considered applicable and therefore the Weighting Factor is taken as x1. Refer to Table 17-1 for a closure cost estimate. Table 17-1: Yzermyn Underground Coal Mine Closure Cost Estimate ComponentscriPtioP- Unit :Viaster Rate - (2013)ZAR --Weighting = :Factor y ,& Quantity', Velue ZAR _ 3 1 Dismantling of processing plant m 10.40 10,000 1 1,040,000 and related structures (Including overland conveyors and power lines) 2(A) Demolition of steel buildings m2 144.86 250 1 36,215 and structures 2(B) Demolition of reinforced m2 213.48 80 1 17,078 concrete buildings and structures 2 3 Rehabilitation of access roads m 25.92 10,485 1 271,771 (excluding municipal road) 4(A) Demolition and rehabilitation of m 251.60 1 electrified railway lines 4(B) Demolition and rehabilitation of m 137.23 1 non-electrified railway lines 5 Demolition administration m2 289.72 365 1 105,748 facilities 6 Opencast rehabilitation ha 147,451 12 0.83 1 122,384 including final voids and ramps 3 7 Sealing of shafts, adits and m 77.77 42 1 3,266 inclines 8(A) Rehabilitation of overburden ha 101,248.75 4 1 404,995 and spoils 8(B) Rehabilitation of processing ha 126,103.49 1 1 126,103 waste deposits and evaporation ponds (basic, salt-producing waste) 8(C) Rehabilitation of processing ha 366,264.31 1 1 366,264 waste deposits and evaporation ponds (acidic, metal-rich waste) 9 Rehabilitation of subsided areas ha 84,780.58 10 General surface rehabilitation ha 80,206.09 10 1 802,061 11 River diversions ha 80,206.09 1 12 Fencing m 91.49 16,000 1 1,463,840 13 Water management ha 30,496.61 10 1 304,966 14 2 to 3 years of maintenance and ha 1,067.38 10 1 10,674 aftercare Sub-total (sum of items 1-15) 4,139,367 1 Preliminary and General +12% of sub-total 496,724 535 Component Master Rate Weighting -- (2013) ZAR 2 Contingency 10% 413,937 Total 5,050,027 +VAT (14%) 707,004 5,757,031 Total (incl VAT) The DMR requires 10 forecasts (one for each of the first 10 years of operation) and the progressive total in the tenth year (excluding concurrent rehabilitation). The Progressive total has been calculated in the MWP and is given as R 957,822.00 (as at 2013). All activities relating to the proposed project will occur on the area demarcated and as approved in the mine plan. On- going dust suppression measurers, best practice environmental management and monitoring will be conducted on site to ensure that the extent of the footprint area is not increased. 536 '51 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: In the matter between: First Applicant MINING AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Second Applicant COMMUNITY NETWORK OF SOUTH AFRICA Third Applicant GROUNDWORK Fourth Applicant EARTHLIFE AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Fifth Applicant BIRDLIFE SOUTH AFRICA Sixth Applicant ENDANGERED WILDLIFE TRUST FEDERATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT Seventh Applicant ASSOCIATION FOR WATER AND RURAL Eighth Applicant DEVELOPMENT BENCH MARKS FOUNDATION First Respondent and Second Respondent MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS Third Respondent MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES ATHA-AFRICA VENTURES (PTY) LTD Fourth Respondent THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION Fifth Respondent MEC FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, MPUMALANGA CONFIRMATORY AFFIDAVIT MARK ADRIAN BOTHA state under oath that: 1 I am an adult male independent environmental services professional specialising in conservation strategy and land protection and stewardship, especially in relation to mining, with place of business 43 Sea Cottage Drive, Noordhoek, Cape Town. 2 The facts set out in this affidavit fall within my personal knowledge and belief, except where the context indicates otherwise, and are true and correct. 3 I have read the founding affidavit deposed to by Thelma Thandekile Nkosi and confirm that its contents are true and correct insofar as they pertain to me. MARK ADRIAN BOTHA I hereby certify that the deponent knows and understands the contents of this affidavit and that it is to the best of the deponent's knowledge both true and correct. This affidavit was signed and sworn to before me atcTh----, VAL ("Ion this the ,a day of JULY 2017, and that the Regulations contained in Government Notice R.1258 of 21 July 1972, as amended by R1648 of 19 August 1977, and as further amended by R1428 of 11 July 1989, having been complied with. m ed Way ing awl Mai the ildrai Smith% milk anµ llud wins thy n:guituiln, ibs eAlIPwar9tY tint heidw ax. notth 301 ObjeClain tO taking the Oath. aild Ibil lighe =skim ti kate binding on Weber minimum. Si uhivh 511111( I MO' inoVEKNENT has adaossiedgod Oat lw/she knows end isidafgaretE sown thane iss, R 1258421 My 1972, Rs teoxVkirt,„, n 13F' Full names: ‘A-4 L 4,11, F wavitlaiocer of Wu _„,,GOMMISSIONER OF pdosion ,PLIONCH MANAGER en initax OATHS Address: S , DIAL ?• 4, c> • -a KokC V e. c-1 t (L1 I 1- Ma Ada= 1\*4 7` k1`c4c-F TAt PULL NAMO -V Capacity: itt 2 -7c/ \ • IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: In the matter between: MINING AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITY NETWORK OF SOUTH AFRICA First Applicant GROUNDWORK Second Applicant EARTHLIFE AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Third Applicant BIRDLIFE SOUTH AFRICA Fourth Applicant ENDANGERED WILDLIFE TRUST Fifth Applicant FEDERATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT Sixth Applicant ASSOCIATION FOR WATER AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Seventh Applicant BENCH MARKS FOUNDATION Eighth Applicant and MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS First Respondent MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES Second Respondent ATHA•AFRICA VENTURES (PTY) LTD Third Respondent THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION Fourth Respondent IVIEC FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, MPUMALANGA Fifth Respondent CONFIRMATORY AFFIDAVIT silt VANESSA STONE state under oath that: 1 I am an adult female employed as a Biodiversity Stewardship Coordinator with the World Wide Fund for Nature South Africa (WWF-SA) Grasslands Programme at 18 Smit Street, Piet Retief, Mpumalanga. The facts set out in this affidavit fall within my personal knowledge and belief, except where the context indicates otherwise, and are true and correct. 3 I have read the founding affidavit deposed to by Thelma Thandekile Nkosi and confirm that its contents are true and correct insofar as they pertain to me. I hereby certify that the deponent knows and understands the contents of this affidavit and that it is to the best of the deponent's knowledge both true and correct. This affidavit was signed and sworn to before me at t'ctolv.“‘ei sb-vo on this the ______day of JULY 2017, and that the Regulations contained in Government Notice R.1258 of 21 July 1972, as amended by R1648 of 19 August 1977, and as further amended by R1428 of 11 July 1989, having been complied with. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA In the matter between: nd Applicant MINING AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Third Applicant COMMUNITY NETWORK :OF SOUTH AFRICA Fourth Applicant GROUNDWORK Fifth Applicant EARTHLIFE AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Sixth Applicant BIRDLIFE SOUTH AFRICA Seventh Applicant ENDANGERED WILDLIFE TRUST Eighth Applicant FEDERATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT ASSOCIATION FOR WATER AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT First Respondent BENCH MARKS FOUNDATION and MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS Fourth Respondent MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES ATHA-AFRICA VENTURES (PTV) LTD Fifth Respondent THE MABOLA PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION MEC FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, MPUMALANGA CONFIRMATORY AFFIDAVIT STEPHANUS PETRUS MALAN state under oath that: I am an adult male Chairperson of the Mabola Protected Environment Landowners Association ("MPELA"), the fourth respondent, with address Farm Schoongezicht, Volksrust, Mpumalanga. I am duly authorised to depose to this affidavit. 2 The facts set out in this affidavit fall within my personal knowledge and belief, except where the context indicates otherwise, and are true and correct. 3 I have read the founding affidavit deposed to by Thelma Thandekile Nkosi and confirm that its contents are true and correct insofar as they pertain to MPELA. I hereby certify that the deponent knows and understands the contents of this affidavit and that it is to the best of the deponent's knowledge both true and correct. This affidavit was signed and sworn to before me at \iiLslut3T on this the )-a day of JULY 2017, and that the Regulations contained in Government Notice R.1258 of 21 July 1972, as amended by R1648 of 19 August 1977, and as further amended by R1428 of 11 July 1989, having been complied with. 1 -SOUTH AFRIO0 COMMuNIT:` u ,;EiNTRE tssrlefS1 2017 -07- 2 3 COMMISSIONER OF OATHS GEMEEI4SKAr ,1:71Naa:7411t.N 2 SOUTH AFRICAN GEFI