The world financial crisis that hit the world in 2007 has now become a systemic global economic crisis that affects socially, economically and politically, all the countries and regions differently depending on their level of development and grade of insertion in the world economy.
Over the last decade Africa has gone through major breakthroughs in terms of economic growth, poverty reduction and access to basic social services, but in spite of that, 36.2% of the its population lives on less than one dollar per day. The current economic crisis has evidenced that this progress to date could be washed away and that much needs to be done to achieve the Millennium Development Goals in the region.
In their response to the economic crisis, African governments, along with international organizations, will have to address the challenges resulting from the current economic crisis in conjunction with finding solutions to other critical issues Africa has been severely hit by, e.g. poverty, food security, global warming, human rights and peace-building, whose management will be crucial in strengthening democratic values, good governance and human development.
In line with this, Members of the Club of Madrid, Members of the Africa Progress Panel and other prominent experts and decision-makers, gathered on November 3, 2009 in Accra, Ghana to discuss the political impact of the crisis from an African perspective and to formulate practical recommendations to the political institutions and policy-makers in charge of responding to the political challenges arising from the crisis, at a global, regional and national level. This report offers a summary of the key points and recommendations that were raised at the meeting as input to the Club of Madrid’s annual conference on the topic in November, 2009 in Madrid.
Source: Club de Madrid
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Monday, July 30, 2012
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Establishing the Magaliesberg Biosphere Area
Finland supports the Magaliesberg Biosphere Area which aims at sustainably balanced relationship between people and the environment. The initiative took a step forward in early June when the North West Department of Economic Development, Environment, Conservation and Tourism organised a launching ceremony.
For over a decade Finland has been part of a co-operation scheme between Finnish and South African environmental administrations. The latest, still on-going, mutual effort has been the Support to Magaliesberg Biosphere Initiative. The Initiative has been supported through an Institutional Cooperation Instrument (ICI) project financed by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland.
The cooperation is based on exchange of experiences and knowledge between the experts of the Finnish Environment Institute, the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment for Central Finland and the Gauteng and North West Province administrations in South Africa. The project has aimed at creating a new biosphere reserve in the Magaliesberg mountain area situated in the two provinces. There are already six existing biospheres in South Africa and two in Finland. The establishment process of Lake Päijänne-Vesijärvi biosphere in Finland has also benefited from the ICI-project.
Biosphere reserves are areas internationally recognised within the framework of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme of the UNESCO. It is an innovative and sustainable approach to managing land and water resources across landscapes made up of one or more bioregions. Biospheres aim at improving livelihoods, enhancing social, economic and cultural conditions, and contributing towards environmental sustainability through means of consolidated land-use guidance and environmentally sound demonstration projects.
Varied Land-Use Forms in the Unique Mountain Area
The Magaliesberg mountain area is situated about 100 km to the north-west of the City of Johannesburg. It has a rich history and biodiversity that forms an important part of the natural and cultural heritage of South Africa. The habitat variety supports more than 130 tree species, 90 mammal species, 80 reptile and amphibian species, and over 450 bird species. The Magaliesberg Mountain along with the Cradle of the Humankind, an area where evidence of the beginning of human race has been traced at, will form the protected core area of the Biosphere.
Many human activities are increasing in the region. Increasing pressures from urbanisation, industrialisation, mining and resulting pollution are major threats to the fragile nature of Magaliesberg.
The zoning of the biosphere defines the allowed and prioritised human activities within the biosphere. A buffer zone usually surrounds the protected core area. In the case of Magaliesberg, voluntary conservancies form the buffer where environmental education, recreation and ecotourism are main activities. The transition zones are areas in which human activities may affect the core and buffer zones and are therefore collaboratively and carefully managed by the various stakeholders to ensure development that is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable.
Constructive Cooperation
The Magaliesberg Biosphere Initiative took a significant step forward in the beginning of June 2012 when the North West Department of Economic Development, Environment, Conservation and Tourism organised a launching ceremony during which the province and affected stakeholders formally endorsed the Magaliesberg Biosphere Reserve.
The Premier of the North West Province, Ms. Thandi Modise called on young people to be actively involved in the preservation and conservation of the environment. She urged people to pay attention to the damage being done to the earth and to the impact this would have on future generations.
Premier Modise acknowledged the role of their international funders and partners: "This project could not have been successful without the partnership that we forged with the Finnish Environment Institute and Central Finland Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment", she said.
The Chairman of the Magaliesberg Biosphere Initiative Group, Mr. Vincent Carruthers, also expressed appreciation to the Finnish delegation and the funding which made it possible to complete the research and preparations for the UNESCO biosphere application.
The Magaliesberg Biosphere Initiative has nearly reached its main target. The documents for the UNESCO application are being finalised and will be submitted by the national Department for Environmental Affairs to the UNESCO in September. South Africa is expected to celebrate the registration of the Magaliesberg Biosphere in early 2013.
Source: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
For over a decade Finland has been part of a co-operation scheme between Finnish and South African environmental administrations. The latest, still on-going, mutual effort has been the Support to Magaliesberg Biosphere Initiative. The Initiative has been supported through an Institutional Cooperation Instrument (ICI) project financed by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland.
The cooperation is based on exchange of experiences and knowledge between the experts of the Finnish Environment Institute, the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment for Central Finland and the Gauteng and North West Province administrations in South Africa. The project has aimed at creating a new biosphere reserve in the Magaliesberg mountain area situated in the two provinces. There are already six existing biospheres in South Africa and two in Finland. The establishment process of Lake Päijänne-Vesijärvi biosphere in Finland has also benefited from the ICI-project.
Biosphere reserves are areas internationally recognised within the framework of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme of the UNESCO. It is an innovative and sustainable approach to managing land and water resources across landscapes made up of one or more bioregions. Biospheres aim at improving livelihoods, enhancing social, economic and cultural conditions, and contributing towards environmental sustainability through means of consolidated land-use guidance and environmentally sound demonstration projects.
Varied Land-Use Forms in the Unique Mountain Area
The Magaliesberg mountain area is situated about 100 km to the north-west of the City of Johannesburg. It has a rich history and biodiversity that forms an important part of the natural and cultural heritage of South Africa. The habitat variety supports more than 130 tree species, 90 mammal species, 80 reptile and amphibian species, and over 450 bird species. The Magaliesberg Mountain along with the Cradle of the Humankind, an area where evidence of the beginning of human race has been traced at, will form the protected core area of the Biosphere.
Many human activities are increasing in the region. Increasing pressures from urbanisation, industrialisation, mining and resulting pollution are major threats to the fragile nature of Magaliesberg.
The zoning of the biosphere defines the allowed and prioritised human activities within the biosphere. A buffer zone usually surrounds the protected core area. In the case of Magaliesberg, voluntary conservancies form the buffer where environmental education, recreation and ecotourism are main activities. The transition zones are areas in which human activities may affect the core and buffer zones and are therefore collaboratively and carefully managed by the various stakeholders to ensure development that is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable.
Constructive Cooperation
The Magaliesberg Biosphere Initiative took a significant step forward in the beginning of June 2012 when the North West Department of Economic Development, Environment, Conservation and Tourism organised a launching ceremony during which the province and affected stakeholders formally endorsed the Magaliesberg Biosphere Reserve.
The Premier of the North West Province, Ms. Thandi Modise called on young people to be actively involved in the preservation and conservation of the environment. She urged people to pay attention to the damage being done to the earth and to the impact this would have on future generations.
Premier Modise acknowledged the role of their international funders and partners: "This project could not have been successful without the partnership that we forged with the Finnish Environment Institute and Central Finland Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment", she said.
The Chairman of the Magaliesberg Biosphere Initiative Group, Mr. Vincent Carruthers, also expressed appreciation to the Finnish delegation and the funding which made it possible to complete the research and preparations for the UNESCO biosphere application.
The Magaliesberg Biosphere Initiative has nearly reached its main target. The documents for the UNESCO application are being finalised and will be submitted by the national Department for Environmental Affairs to the UNESCO in September. South Africa is expected to celebrate the registration of the Magaliesberg Biosphere in early 2013.
Source: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
Monday, March 19, 2012
More arrests as poachers target SA’s rhinos
DESPITE a loss of 135 rhinos in South Africa to poachers this year, the Department of Environmental Affairs said on Monday it was "encouraged" by the increasing number of arrests and convictions in connection with the black-market trade in rhino horn.
The growth rate of South Africa’s rhino population is still positive, in spite of a 34% increase in poaching from the 333 animals lost in 2010 to 448 killed last year. But there is concern among some that the country — home to about 90% of the world’s rhino population — could suffer a species decline by mid-year. So far this year, 89 people had been arrested in connection with the illegal trade in rhino horn, while 232 were arrested last year and 165 in 2010, said Albi Modise, spokesman for the department. The Kruger National Park continued to bear the brunt of rhino poaching and had lost 75 rhino this year, Mr Modise said. Last week, a fifth park official stationed at the Pretoriuskop section of the park was arrested in connection with the crime, he said. Last month, 4 park officials stationed at the rest camp appeared before a White River magistrate in connection with rhino poaching in that area of the park, where at least 11 rhinos have been killed since the beginning of the year.
South African National Parks (SANParks) and the police were "working flat-out to determine if links exist between the fifth park official arrested and other internal suspects in relation to the two rhino killed in Pretoriuskop last month", Mr Modise said. Last week, a suspected poacher was shot dead in the park and two other suspects were arrested, he said. SANParks has lost 78 rhino this year, while 17 have been killed outside its properties in Limpopo. 3 have been killed in Mpumalanga, 3 in the Eastern Cape, 18 in KwaZulu-Natal and 1 in the Western Cape. 20 people have been arrested in connection with rhino poaching in the Kruger National Park this year (82 last year), 10 in Gauteng, 29 in Mpumalanga, 3 in Limpopo, 15 in North West, 6 in the Free State, 5 in KwaZulu-Natal and 1 in the Northern Cape.
Karen Trendler, a veterinary nurse and rhino rehabilitation expert, told Reuters, the news agency, on Monday there were predictions that the species could be extinct by 2015. "The problem has been exacerbated by the fact some people working in wildlife conservation and animal welfare have been implicated in the lucrative poaching industry," Ms Trendler said. "There are some incredibly good guys in the business who are doing amazing things and who would give their lives for those rhino ... But unfortunately we do have an element of corruption," she said. "There have already been prosecutions and arrests where government officials are complicit."
The booming market for rhino horn and increasingly sophisticated poaching methods helped explain the devastating death rate, Ms Trendler said. In February, the Phalaborwa Regional Court sentenced 3 rhino poachers to 25 years’ imprisonment on various counts. Several non-governmental organisations said these were some of the toughest, if not the toughest, sentences handed down thus far for rhino poaching in South Africa.
Source: Business Day
The growth rate of South Africa’s rhino population is still positive, in spite of a 34% increase in poaching from the 333 animals lost in 2010 to 448 killed last year. But there is concern among some that the country — home to about 90% of the world’s rhino population — could suffer a species decline by mid-year. So far this year, 89 people had been arrested in connection with the illegal trade in rhino horn, while 232 were arrested last year and 165 in 2010, said Albi Modise, spokesman for the department. The Kruger National Park continued to bear the brunt of rhino poaching and had lost 75 rhino this year, Mr Modise said. Last week, a fifth park official stationed at the Pretoriuskop section of the park was arrested in connection with the crime, he said. Last month, 4 park officials stationed at the rest camp appeared before a White River magistrate in connection with rhino poaching in that area of the park, where at least 11 rhinos have been killed since the beginning of the year.
South African National Parks (SANParks) and the police were "working flat-out to determine if links exist between the fifth park official arrested and other internal suspects in relation to the two rhino killed in Pretoriuskop last month", Mr Modise said. Last week, a suspected poacher was shot dead in the park and two other suspects were arrested, he said. SANParks has lost 78 rhino this year, while 17 have been killed outside its properties in Limpopo. 3 have been killed in Mpumalanga, 3 in the Eastern Cape, 18 in KwaZulu-Natal and 1 in the Western Cape. 20 people have been arrested in connection with rhino poaching in the Kruger National Park this year (82 last year), 10 in Gauteng, 29 in Mpumalanga, 3 in Limpopo, 15 in North West, 6 in the Free State, 5 in KwaZulu-Natal and 1 in the Northern Cape.
Karen Trendler, a veterinary nurse and rhino rehabilitation expert, told Reuters, the news agency, on Monday there were predictions that the species could be extinct by 2015. "The problem has been exacerbated by the fact some people working in wildlife conservation and animal welfare have been implicated in the lucrative poaching industry," Ms Trendler said. "There are some incredibly good guys in the business who are doing amazing things and who would give their lives for those rhino ... But unfortunately we do have an element of corruption," she said. "There have already been prosecutions and arrests where government officials are complicit."
The booming market for rhino horn and increasingly sophisticated poaching methods helped explain the devastating death rate, Ms Trendler said. In February, the Phalaborwa Regional Court sentenced 3 rhino poachers to 25 years’ imprisonment on various counts. Several non-governmental organisations said these were some of the toughest, if not the toughest, sentences handed down thus far for rhino poaching in South Africa.
Source: Business Day
Friday, February 17, 2012
Water poisoned with cyanide in KwaZulu-Natal
The raw water supply for the northern KwaZulu-Natal town of Dundee and surrounding areas has been poisoned with cyanide, uThukela Water said on Friday. The 'spill' was discovered on Thursday morning when cows died after drinking from a stream near a site outside Newcastle, spokesman Dumisani Thabethe said. Residents appeared to have escaped harm so far. “There is no one who has been reported to have been affected by the spillage,” he said. “Our concern is people getting water directly from the river. “We are told that about 11 cows have died, but by late evening it was 50, but I am not too sure about the accuracy of the figures.
As a precaution, uThukela Water broadcast a warning on the Newcastle community radio station. The spill might have come from a site where synthetic rubber was being manufactured, but this was still being investigated, Thabethe said. The Ngagane river was flushed with water from the Ntshingwayo dam in an attempt to dilute the chemical content. Water was being released from the dam at 16,000 litres per second.
Thabethe said HTH, chlorine used in domestic swimming pools, was poured into the river before it was flushed. “They were hoping to stimulate a chemical reaction between the HTH and the cyanide.”
SourceL The Sowetan
As a precaution, uThukela Water broadcast a warning on the Newcastle community radio station. The spill might have come from a site where synthetic rubber was being manufactured, but this was still being investigated, Thabethe said. The Ngagane river was flushed with water from the Ntshingwayo dam in an attempt to dilute the chemical content. Water was being released from the dam at 16,000 litres per second.
Thabethe said HTH, chlorine used in domestic swimming pools, was poured into the river before it was flushed. “They were hoping to stimulate a chemical reaction between the HTH and the cyanide.”
SourceL The Sowetan
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Durban and the search for climate justice
The COP17/CMP7 summit in Durban which concluded on 11 December reached decisions that can move us towards a legally binding agreement to halt and reverse the path we are currently taking towards catastrophic climate change, but the hopes for a substantial deal on emissions reductions have not been realised. The international community must find an accord with the ambition to limit the global temperature rise to a maximum of 2°C or 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, which remains the only possible solution to the dangers faced by the world.
In establishing the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, the conference rightly concluded that any future agreement on climate change must be legally binding, referred to officially as "an agreed outcome with legal force". It is now more vital than ever that negotiations continue without delay and in a spirit of compromise and understanding in order to make these goals a reality, as the cost of postponing such an agreement grows with every passing year.
With Durban, the framework is also now in place for the operation of the Green Climate Fund with the approval of its Governing Instrument, although long-term sources of financing for the Fund have yet to be finalised. The decision launching the Fund addresses the need to balance the allocation of resources between adaptation and mitigation activities, which is in line with the Socialist International’s call in Johannesburg at the end of October this year.
A positive step is also the commitment that a mechanism for technology transfer will be fully operational by 2012 to "promote and enhance the research, development, and deployment and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries".
We congratulate the South African hosts for showing the leadership and perseverance to obtain these and other agreements, but we are under no illusions that there is much hard work ahead of us all.
It must be acknowledged at the same time that some of the commitments we were hoping to see in Durban on deepening and formalising pledged cuts in emissions, as outlined in the declaration of the Socialist International made in Johannesburg, have not been achieved. Equally, much progress needs to be made on policies for the protection of forests, developing renewable technologies and establishing systems for measurement, reporting and verification, and the decisions reached lack the necessary urgency to effectively address the case of the Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
The international community must persevere within the framework of the UNFCCC to come together in a common search for solutions to the greatest threat that currently faces the planet. Multilateralism continues to be the only way forward, with the vast majority of the nations on the planet wishing to see political will match the scientific requirements and no longer willing to accept ‘pledge and review’, with the direct involvement of political leaders in the process crucial to deliver the responses needed.
The Socialist International will continue to place the issue of climate change at the heart of its agenda, starting with the forthcoming Council meeting to take place in San José, Costa Rica in January 2012 and continuing with the work and activities of its Commission for a Sustainable World Society as we head towards Rio+20, COP18 and beyond.
Source: Socialist International
In establishing the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, the conference rightly concluded that any future agreement on climate change must be legally binding, referred to officially as "an agreed outcome with legal force". It is now more vital than ever that negotiations continue without delay and in a spirit of compromise and understanding in order to make these goals a reality, as the cost of postponing such an agreement grows with every passing year.
With Durban, the framework is also now in place for the operation of the Green Climate Fund with the approval of its Governing Instrument, although long-term sources of financing for the Fund have yet to be finalised. The decision launching the Fund addresses the need to balance the allocation of resources between adaptation and mitigation activities, which is in line with the Socialist International’s call in Johannesburg at the end of October this year.
A positive step is also the commitment that a mechanism for technology transfer will be fully operational by 2012 to "promote and enhance the research, development, and deployment and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries".
We congratulate the South African hosts for showing the leadership and perseverance to obtain these and other agreements, but we are under no illusions that there is much hard work ahead of us all.
It must be acknowledged at the same time that some of the commitments we were hoping to see in Durban on deepening and formalising pledged cuts in emissions, as outlined in the declaration of the Socialist International made in Johannesburg, have not been achieved. Equally, much progress needs to be made on policies for the protection of forests, developing renewable technologies and establishing systems for measurement, reporting and verification, and the decisions reached lack the necessary urgency to effectively address the case of the Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
The international community must persevere within the framework of the UNFCCC to come together in a common search for solutions to the greatest threat that currently faces the planet. Multilateralism continues to be the only way forward, with the vast majority of the nations on the planet wishing to see political will match the scientific requirements and no longer willing to accept ‘pledge and review’, with the direct involvement of political leaders in the process crucial to deliver the responses needed.
The Socialist International will continue to place the issue of climate change at the heart of its agenda, starting with the forthcoming Council meeting to take place in San José, Costa Rica in January 2012 and continuing with the work and activities of its Commission for a Sustainable World Society as we head towards Rio+20, COP18 and beyond.
Source: Socialist International
Thursday, October 13, 2011
South Africa: Environment Included in Consumer Protection Act
The Consumer Protection Act (CPA), which came into effect on 1 April 2011 includes the regulation of goods and services with actual or potential environmental and/or health impacts. The obligation to provide information in respect of potential or actual environmental or health impacts of goods or services is covered by CPA regulation. "The CPA requires that the information which is accurate and not misleading or deceptive must be disclosed in plain language on product labels and in descriptions of goods (trade descriptions) and in the course of marketing goods and services, where appropriate," says Helen Dagut, a senior associate at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr business law firm.
The CPA also imposes the obligation to provide customers with safe, good quality goods. "Suppliers are required to alert consumers to potential risks associated with goods or services, which may include environmental or health risks. Where not labelled in terms of the requirements of other legislation, hazardous or "unsafe" goods (defined to include those which potentially present hazards or may be unsafe to persons or property) are required to meet specified packing standards. Suppliers or installers of hazardous or unsafe goods such as batteries or aerosols which have a risk of explosion, must supply information in respect of the hazards to the consumer," explains Dagut.
The CPA regulations also include the obligation on suppliers to not knowingly take advantage of the fact that a consumer is unable to protect his or her own interests because of, among other things, ignorance of the true facts relating to a product. "If a supplier behaves in this way it is considered "unconscionable" as that term is defined in the CPA. Relying on this provision, a group of South African consumers has laid a complaint with the Consumer Commissioner in respect of the treatment of pigs and chickens in factory farms, about which, they allege, the South African public is given insufficient information."
Dagut says that obligations are also imposed in respect of the recovery and safe disposal of goods (for example electronic goods) which cannot be disposed of along with other wastes, which are likely to include those with the potential to harm the environment, for the example through leaching of toxic substances. "Specifically, suppliers must accept their return (including of their parts/remnants) from the consumer, without charging the consumer, irrespective of whether the supplier supplied the particular returned object to that particular consumer. Producers, importers and distributors of such goods must accept their return from the suppliers.
These provisions are consistent with those requiring extended producer responsibility under the National Environmental Management: Waste Act," she explains. The producer, importer, distributor or retailer of goods is liable for harm, including damage to property, caused by the supply of unsafe goods, hazards in any goods or inadequate instructions or warnings provided to the consumer in respect of hazards arising from the goods, irrespective of whether the harm resulted from any negligence on the producer, importer, distributor or retailer. Claims for damages under this section prescribe after three years in specified circumstances. "The promulgation of the CPA therefore results in an additional layer of obligations in respect of goods or services with potential or actual hazards or risks to consumers and/or the environment being imposed, which are required to be complied with in addition to other obligations for environmental protection prescribed under environmental laws.
Consumers may enforce their rights, and have begun to do so, where producers and suppliers are failing to do so," Dagut adds.
Source: All Africa
The CPA also imposes the obligation to provide customers with safe, good quality goods. "Suppliers are required to alert consumers to potential risks associated with goods or services, which may include environmental or health risks. Where not labelled in terms of the requirements of other legislation, hazardous or "unsafe" goods (defined to include those which potentially present hazards or may be unsafe to persons or property) are required to meet specified packing standards. Suppliers or installers of hazardous or unsafe goods such as batteries or aerosols which have a risk of explosion, must supply information in respect of the hazards to the consumer," explains Dagut.
The CPA regulations also include the obligation on suppliers to not knowingly take advantage of the fact that a consumer is unable to protect his or her own interests because of, among other things, ignorance of the true facts relating to a product. "If a supplier behaves in this way it is considered "unconscionable" as that term is defined in the CPA. Relying on this provision, a group of South African consumers has laid a complaint with the Consumer Commissioner in respect of the treatment of pigs and chickens in factory farms, about which, they allege, the South African public is given insufficient information."
Dagut says that obligations are also imposed in respect of the recovery and safe disposal of goods (for example electronic goods) which cannot be disposed of along with other wastes, which are likely to include those with the potential to harm the environment, for the example through leaching of toxic substances. "Specifically, suppliers must accept their return (including of their parts/remnants) from the consumer, without charging the consumer, irrespective of whether the supplier supplied the particular returned object to that particular consumer. Producers, importers and distributors of such goods must accept their return from the suppliers.
These provisions are consistent with those requiring extended producer responsibility under the National Environmental Management: Waste Act," she explains. The producer, importer, distributor or retailer of goods is liable for harm, including damage to property, caused by the supply of unsafe goods, hazards in any goods or inadequate instructions or warnings provided to the consumer in respect of hazards arising from the goods, irrespective of whether the harm resulted from any negligence on the producer, importer, distributor or retailer. Claims for damages under this section prescribe after three years in specified circumstances. "The promulgation of the CPA therefore results in an additional layer of obligations in respect of goods or services with potential or actual hazards or risks to consumers and/or the environment being imposed, which are required to be complied with in addition to other obligations for environmental protection prescribed under environmental laws.
Consumers may enforce their rights, and have begun to do so, where producers and suppliers are failing to do so," Dagut adds.
Source: All Africa
Monday, March 7, 2011
Nigeria: 400 More Children Killed by Lead Poisoning
Lead poisoning linked with illegal gold mining has killed a further 400 children in northern Nigeria since November, the National Emergency Management Agency said Monday. The latest figures suggest that the death toll from the crisis in the northern state of Zamfara is rising after the United Nations said lead poisoning in the region had killed at least 400 children between March and October last year.
Source: New York Times
Source: New York Times
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Environmental probe for dodgy mining rights
A special environmental government task team is to investigate mining in sensitive areas. This follows a swarm of controversial green lights given by the mining department for mining and prospecting rights in sensitive areas in the past couple of years.
The task team is the result of the long-anticipated meeting last week between Environmental Mminister Buyelwa Sonjica and Mining Minister Susan Shabangu. The two had met to discuss Sonjica’s concern over the controversial Vele colliery next to World Heritage Site Mapungubwe. "The minister is still deeply concerned about what is going at the mine," Sonjica’s spokesperson Sputnik Ratau said. But he said the minister believed the task team was a step in the right direction to resolve the environmental concerns. He described the meeting with Shabangu as fruitful.
Shabangu’s department issued mining rights to Coal of Africa at the beginning of this year, but Sonjica came out strongly against the Vele mine. She requested a formal meeting with Shabangu on the matter in February, but last week’s meeting was the first to result in significant reported progress between the two departments.
Last week the Mail & Guardian reported that the Green Scorpions had swooped down on Coal of Africa’s Vele mine in May. Two weeks ago the department of environmental affairs issued an order against the mine for environmental transgressions. Coal of Africa must now make representations to the environmental department on why it should not be prosecuted.
The M&G understands that the department is now conducting regular surveys to determine what exactly Vele had done. This week officials from both departments flew over the mining area as part of the ongoing investigation. "We need to determine whether the work Vele had done is within the scopes of permission it had been granted, and just how far they had gone beyond the legal framework," Ratau said.
Coal of Africa has maintained that all the work it has done so far, including the clearing of bush and building of new structures, falls in within the mining rights order it obtained. Last week Coal of Africa’s CEO Riaan van der Merwe insisted that the mine had acted within the law at all times.
Vele will not be the only mine investigated by the task team, though it is understood that much of its focus will be on Mapungubwe. "The task team is to look at the bigger picture, the ultimate impact of mining on sensitive areas," Ratau said. "And of course Vele will be one of the new focus areas, as it has been a contentious issue." The task team, which will have high-ranking officials from both the mining and environmental department on board, is also aimed at relieving tensions between the two departments and improving dialogue on environmental issues.
Other sensitive spots that have been in the news for mining activities include areas near Dullstroom, Chrissiesmeer and Wakkerstroom in Mpumalanga, Verlorenvlei near Piketberg in the Western Cape, as well as the Winelands. In many of these areas only strong environmental activism served as a warning to the impacts of mining on the local environment. But environmental activists say their job is getting more difficult with the avalanche of mining licenses the mining department has been awarding.
The two ministers will now draft a definition of what they see as sensitive areas, and the locations of these areas. On Thursday, Gareth Morgan, the DA’s spokesperson on water and environmental affairs, welcomed the task team but called for the two departments to extend this project by establishing a mining advisory forum with a specific focus on the effects of mining on the environment. "The discussion on what is a sensitive area should not be contained only in government," he said. "It should be thrown open to stakeholders from civil society, including farming and environmental organisations," Morgan said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
The task team is the result of the long-anticipated meeting last week between Environmental Mminister Buyelwa Sonjica and Mining Minister Susan Shabangu. The two had met to discuss Sonjica’s concern over the controversial Vele colliery next to World Heritage Site Mapungubwe. "The minister is still deeply concerned about what is going at the mine," Sonjica’s spokesperson Sputnik Ratau said. But he said the minister believed the task team was a step in the right direction to resolve the environmental concerns. He described the meeting with Shabangu as fruitful.
Shabangu’s department issued mining rights to Coal of Africa at the beginning of this year, but Sonjica came out strongly against the Vele mine. She requested a formal meeting with Shabangu on the matter in February, but last week’s meeting was the first to result in significant reported progress between the two departments.
Last week the Mail & Guardian reported that the Green Scorpions had swooped down on Coal of Africa’s Vele mine in May. Two weeks ago the department of environmental affairs issued an order against the mine for environmental transgressions. Coal of Africa must now make representations to the environmental department on why it should not be prosecuted.
The M&G understands that the department is now conducting regular surveys to determine what exactly Vele had done. This week officials from both departments flew over the mining area as part of the ongoing investigation. "We need to determine whether the work Vele had done is within the scopes of permission it had been granted, and just how far they had gone beyond the legal framework," Ratau said.
Coal of Africa has maintained that all the work it has done so far, including the clearing of bush and building of new structures, falls in within the mining rights order it obtained. Last week Coal of Africa’s CEO Riaan van der Merwe insisted that the mine had acted within the law at all times.
Vele will not be the only mine investigated by the task team, though it is understood that much of its focus will be on Mapungubwe. "The task team is to look at the bigger picture, the ultimate impact of mining on sensitive areas," Ratau said. "And of course Vele will be one of the new focus areas, as it has been a contentious issue." The task team, which will have high-ranking officials from both the mining and environmental department on board, is also aimed at relieving tensions between the two departments and improving dialogue on environmental issues.
Other sensitive spots that have been in the news for mining activities include areas near Dullstroom, Chrissiesmeer and Wakkerstroom in Mpumalanga, Verlorenvlei near Piketberg in the Western Cape, as well as the Winelands. In many of these areas only strong environmental activism served as a warning to the impacts of mining on the local environment. But environmental activists say their job is getting more difficult with the avalanche of mining licenses the mining department has been awarding.
The two ministers will now draft a definition of what they see as sensitive areas, and the locations of these areas. On Thursday, Gareth Morgan, the DA’s spokesperson on water and environmental affairs, welcomed the task team but called for the two departments to extend this project by establishing a mining advisory forum with a specific focus on the effects of mining on the environment. "The discussion on what is a sensitive area should not be contained only in government," he said. "It should be thrown open to stakeholders from civil society, including farming and environmental organisations," Morgan said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Friday, June 25, 2010
Scorpions sting colliery
Senior sources in the Department of Environmental Affairs have revealed that the department cracked down on controversial coal mining near the world heritage site of Mapungubwe last week, ordering the mining company, Coal of Africa, to stop all "illegal" building activities immediately. But Coal of Africa denied receiving an order, saying that the company instead "received regular visits from a number of government departments", including environmental affairs and mineral resources. "Characterising such a visit by the Department of Environmental Affairs as a raid is unjustified," said Riaan van der Merwe, Coal of Africa's chief operating officer. But environmental department spokesperson Roopah Singh confirmed on Thursday a "pre-compliance notice" was issued on June 18. She said Coal of Africa now has to make representations to the department about the mine's transgressions.
The development has again highlighted tensions between environmental affairs and the mineral resources department over mining in this sensitive area of Limpopo. The mining department issued mining rights to Coal of Africa at the beginning of this year. The Mail & Guardian understands that the directive, relating to building at the Vele mine that the department has not approved, followed a raid by the environmental police unit, the Green Scorpions, at the mine earlier this month.
The unit moved in to check whether Coal of Africa had built roads and other structures without the necessary environmental impact assessments. Sources in the department said that the Green Scorpions found several instances where Coal of Africa had ignored departmental regulations. They were also concerned about the clearing of bush on colliery property. In a statement on Thursday Van der Merwe said the company had the necessary authorisation for bush clearing in the area covered by the mining rights. In addition, the necessary permits had been obtained from the national departments of agriculture and forestry and the Limpopo environmental affairs department. He also said that, although the company had not received permission from environmental affairs to build access roads, it was using the existing main road.
The Australian-owned company received a permit earlier this year for its Vele Colliery project next to the Mapungubwe National Park, where the world-famous 800-year-old gold rhino statuette was unearthed in 1933. Though it has not yet started mining, it is constructing the infrastructure required to begin operations later this year.
In May the M&G reported that Coal of Africa had been clearing bush that contained baobab trees. The colliery is 7km from the park's boundaries. The coal-processing plant would be 27km from the world heritage site, Mapungubwe Hill.
Buyelwa Sonjica, the minister of environmental affairs, has openly declared her opposition to the mine and her department has refused to approve the environmental impact assessments for roads and fuel storage sites associated with the mine. The company has signed a letter of intent to supply up to 5-million tonnes of coal annually from Vele and its sister project, Makhado, to steel giant ArcelorMittal. Opponents of the mining claim that the coal will be used to drive a coal-fired power station, Mulilo, that is planned for the region.
The department of mining did not respond to questions.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Also see the Save Mapungubwe website
The development has again highlighted tensions between environmental affairs and the mineral resources department over mining in this sensitive area of Limpopo. The mining department issued mining rights to Coal of Africa at the beginning of this year. The Mail & Guardian understands that the directive, relating to building at the Vele mine that the department has not approved, followed a raid by the environmental police unit, the Green Scorpions, at the mine earlier this month.
The unit moved in to check whether Coal of Africa had built roads and other structures without the necessary environmental impact assessments. Sources in the department said that the Green Scorpions found several instances where Coal of Africa had ignored departmental regulations. They were also concerned about the clearing of bush on colliery property. In a statement on Thursday Van der Merwe said the company had the necessary authorisation for bush clearing in the area covered by the mining rights. In addition, the necessary permits had been obtained from the national departments of agriculture and forestry and the Limpopo environmental affairs department. He also said that, although the company had not received permission from environmental affairs to build access roads, it was using the existing main road.
The Australian-owned company received a permit earlier this year for its Vele Colliery project next to the Mapungubwe National Park, where the world-famous 800-year-old gold rhino statuette was unearthed in 1933. Though it has not yet started mining, it is constructing the infrastructure required to begin operations later this year.
In May the M&G reported that Coal of Africa had been clearing bush that contained baobab trees. The colliery is 7km from the park's boundaries. The coal-processing plant would be 27km from the world heritage site, Mapungubwe Hill.
Buyelwa Sonjica, the minister of environmental affairs, has openly declared her opposition to the mine and her department has refused to approve the environmental impact assessments for roads and fuel storage sites associated with the mine. The company has signed a letter of intent to supply up to 5-million tonnes of coal annually from Vele and its sister project, Makhado, to steel giant ArcelorMittal. Opponents of the mining claim that the coal will be used to drive a coal-fired power station, Mulilo, that is planned for the region.
The department of mining did not respond to questions.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Also see the Save Mapungubwe website
Friday, June 11, 2010
Aurora mine’s toxic water crisis
The East Rand was an hour away from an environmental disaster this week, when acid mine water started to flood the Grootvlei mine owned by the embattled empowerment company, Aurora Empowerment Systems. Workers angered by months of working without pay had downed tools, bringing the 10 pump stations at the mine to a standstill for the first time in 75 years. The toxic water would have led to the contamination of the East Rand’s groundwater resources within three years and potentially caused sinkholes near Nigel and Springs. Underground water must be pumped out continually for mining to continue. When it flows over the mined rocks, it becomes toxic.
General maintenance has not been conducted at the mine since March, when most Grootvlei workers went on strike over non-payment of wages and the mine’s insurance for their workers had also lapsed.
On Monday 100 remaining workers Grootvlei mine’s care and maintenance unit went on strike. The unit is responsible for pumping acid water out of Shaft 3 to prevent the flooding of the East Basin on the East Rand. On Wednesday water began flooding the underground pump station room. With an hour to go until the station became inaccessible to workers, management pleaded with workers to return to work, offering them 25% of their May wages. “We decided to go back again, because it was the ethical thing to do,” said one employee. A small band of workers ventured down Shaft 3 again to restart pumping. The mine is incredibly unsafe and basically a time bomb,” said Gideon du Plessis, Solidarity deputy general secretary. “The workers are on a suicide mission. They are true heroes for risking their lives.”
Michael Hulley, Aurora non-executive director, has promised in a letter that the worker’s full May salaries will be paid by June 21 and that third party insurance will be reinstated on June 16. Du Plessis said the workers would quit on June 21 if the latest promises were broken. Khulubuse Zuma, President Jacob Zuma’s nephew, Hulley, Zuma’s lawyer, and Zondwa Mandela, Nelson Mandela’s grandson, feature on the Aurora board, giving the company heavy political clout.
Aurora has a management agreement with the liquidators to operate its East Rand and Orkney assets, after its bid to buy the liquidated Pamodzi mines was accepted. But the cashstrapped company had been running into trouble amid allegations of asset stripping, mismanagement and questionable financial transfers. Aurora’s first investor withdrew, while a second investor will release funds only once it lists on the JSE. It is expected to do so only in August. This week a Chinese consortium put in a new bid of $51-million for the Pamodzi assets, but sources close to the deal are worried that there may soon be no mine to operate.
Environmental reports on the East Rand’s East Basin have warned of acid water bubbling into the street of Nigel and Springs within three years and destroying the East Rand’s groundwater resources. The Vaal River barrage could also be at risk. The Grootvlei pumps are the last operating in mostly abandoned mines on the East Rand and carry responsibility for all the East Basin’s acid mine water. Marius Keet, deputy director of water quality management at the department of water affairs, said his department was extremely concerned about the situation at Grootvlei and would have to intervene if pumping ceased again. “Although it’s the mine’s responsibility to ensure that the pumps are all operational, the department will not allow the mine to flood the pumps as this will result in the flooding of the basin and subsequently the decanting of acid mine drainage,” he said. “Apart from the negative impact on the environment, sinkhole formation is not excluded.” He said Aurora would be held accountable for any future environmental disaster if pumping stopped. It already faces criminal charges for pumping acid water into the Blesbokspruit.
But Enver Motala, the Pamodzi liquidator, played down the pump station fiasco. “We had heard about the threats that the pump stations would be switched off, but Aurora assured us that pumping was continuing,” he said. “As far as we’re concerned, the situation is under control.” Thulani Ngubane, Aurora director and spokesperson, did not respond to questions.
Source: Mail & Guardian
General maintenance has not been conducted at the mine since March, when most Grootvlei workers went on strike over non-payment of wages and the mine’s insurance for their workers had also lapsed.
On Monday 100 remaining workers Grootvlei mine’s care and maintenance unit went on strike. The unit is responsible for pumping acid water out of Shaft 3 to prevent the flooding of the East Basin on the East Rand. On Wednesday water began flooding the underground pump station room. With an hour to go until the station became inaccessible to workers, management pleaded with workers to return to work, offering them 25% of their May wages. “We decided to go back again, because it was the ethical thing to do,” said one employee. A small band of workers ventured down Shaft 3 again to restart pumping. The mine is incredibly unsafe and basically a time bomb,” said Gideon du Plessis, Solidarity deputy general secretary. “The workers are on a suicide mission. They are true heroes for risking their lives.”
Michael Hulley, Aurora non-executive director, has promised in a letter that the worker’s full May salaries will be paid by June 21 and that third party insurance will be reinstated on June 16. Du Plessis said the workers would quit on June 21 if the latest promises were broken. Khulubuse Zuma, President Jacob Zuma’s nephew, Hulley, Zuma’s lawyer, and Zondwa Mandela, Nelson Mandela’s grandson, feature on the Aurora board, giving the company heavy political clout.
Aurora has a management agreement with the liquidators to operate its East Rand and Orkney assets, after its bid to buy the liquidated Pamodzi mines was accepted. But the cashstrapped company had been running into trouble amid allegations of asset stripping, mismanagement and questionable financial transfers. Aurora’s first investor withdrew, while a second investor will release funds only once it lists on the JSE. It is expected to do so only in August. This week a Chinese consortium put in a new bid of $51-million for the Pamodzi assets, but sources close to the deal are worried that there may soon be no mine to operate.
Environmental reports on the East Rand’s East Basin have warned of acid water bubbling into the street of Nigel and Springs within three years and destroying the East Rand’s groundwater resources. The Vaal River barrage could also be at risk. The Grootvlei pumps are the last operating in mostly abandoned mines on the East Rand and carry responsibility for all the East Basin’s acid mine water. Marius Keet, deputy director of water quality management at the department of water affairs, said his department was extremely concerned about the situation at Grootvlei and would have to intervene if pumping ceased again. “Although it’s the mine’s responsibility to ensure that the pumps are all operational, the department will not allow the mine to flood the pumps as this will result in the flooding of the basin and subsequently the decanting of acid mine drainage,” he said. “Apart from the negative impact on the environment, sinkhole formation is not excluded.” He said Aurora would be held accountable for any future environmental disaster if pumping stopped. It already faces criminal charges for pumping acid water into the Blesbokspruit.
But Enver Motala, the Pamodzi liquidator, played down the pump station fiasco. “We had heard about the threats that the pump stations would be switched off, but Aurora assured us that pumping was continuing,” he said. “As far as we’re concerned, the situation is under control.” Thulani Ngubane, Aurora director and spokesperson, did not respond to questions.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thursday, April 1, 2010
South Africa is becoming a high-carbon zone to attract foreign investment
With its proposed Medupi power station, South Africa is an industrialised global climate player and major polluter. With its sky-high poverty levels and average life expectancy of just 51 years, South Africa is not a country we generally associate with extravagant binge-flying lifestyles, turbo-consumerism, and shopping trips to New York. How bizarre then that per capita carbon emissions in South Africa are now higher than in many European countries. While most South Africans are unlikely to ever own a plasma screen TV or Hummer, their carbon footprints still appear to be only slightly less than your average Japanese, and their national carbon emissions are now greater than those of France.
The situation becomes more comprehensible when you look at South Africa's industrial base, with 60% of South Africa's electricity being guzzled by heavy industry, and most of that comes from dirty coal. Now this key global climate player wants another coal station that would pollute as much as the two dirtiest plants in Britain put together, and cause a further surge in its national emissions – and they want you to pay for it. Far from benefiting ordinary South Africans, they will also be forced into subsidising this artificially low-cost electricity, for the benefit of multinational mining companies. It's no wonder that African civil society movements are leading the opposition to this development.
South Africa's situation is a case study in one of the major political currents that poisoned last year's UN climate talks. At Copenhagen, major emerging economies hid behind their poor to justify why they shouldn't need to take on legally-binding climate targets. Infuriating western governments, they used a rigid interpretation of the wonky principle known in UN-speak as "common but differentiated responsibility" (CBDR) to argue for more "pollution rights", since they have less historical responsibility for causing the carbon problem and less ability to pay to solve it. Never mind the new carbon-constrained realities on the whole world, these powerful developing countries claimed the right to pollute indefinitely, because (just like their industrialised counterparts), they saw short-term strategic interest in securing the largest possible area of global atmospheric territory. In short, a concept developed to promote equity has turned into an excuse to allow ever increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
Just as Switzerland offers the super-rich the ability to avoid high taxes, and Uzbekistan-presented high-street clothes chains in Europe with cheap child labour in their cotton fields, South Africa and other major emerging economies like China are beginning to exploit the CBDR principle to establish themselves as global havens for the most environmentally destructive industries on Earth. South Africa is effectively setting up shop as a high-carbon economic zone to encourage in foreign companies by freeing them of carbon regulation.
After Copenhagen, the attitude of the most powerful industrialising countries caused much spluttering on the part of western ministers. Ed Miliband was enraged at what he saw as an unfair apportioning of the blame to the industrialised world after the managed collapse of the negotiations, and wrote: "The vast majority of countries, developed and developing, believe that we will only construct a lasting accord that protects the planet if all countries' commitments or actions are legally binding. But some leading developing countries currently refuse to countenance this."
That's why it's so odd that western governments, including our own, now seem determined to egg them on by making a $3.7bn (£2.4bn) World Bank loan to the South African state-owned power company Eskom to help build one of the most polluting power stations in the world. With one hand the government complains about major emerging economies not doing enough to embrace low-carbon development, while at the same time, it directs money that's meant for aid, into dirty coal developments that power the international mining industry.
In fairness, Miliband's comments were clearly directed at China. There was a time last year when climate progressives in the South African government seemed to be his most effective allies in the south. By establishing a reasonable 2020 climate target the South African government positioned themselves in Copenhagen as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds. But in retrospect, with an aspiration to get up to 95% of their electricity from coal by 2025, despite vast untapped clean energy potential, last year's rhetoric looks like a very thin green veneer. Well, either that or the South African government's principled stand has since been quashed by Big Carbon lobbying.
Recognising that a tonne of CO2 from a South African coal plant is just as damaging as a tonne from anywhere else, the White House has signalled they won't offer their support to subsidise the Eksom mega-coal plant in South Africa when it comes up for a vote at the World Bank next week. Yet as the single biggest donor to the Bank, it will be the UK which is likely to get the final say. This offers a key test of whether the climate progressives in our own government can win out.
Source: The Guardian
The situation becomes more comprehensible when you look at South Africa's industrial base, with 60% of South Africa's electricity being guzzled by heavy industry, and most of that comes from dirty coal. Now this key global climate player wants another coal station that would pollute as much as the two dirtiest plants in Britain put together, and cause a further surge in its national emissions – and they want you to pay for it. Far from benefiting ordinary South Africans, they will also be forced into subsidising this artificially low-cost electricity, for the benefit of multinational mining companies. It's no wonder that African civil society movements are leading the opposition to this development.
South Africa's situation is a case study in one of the major political currents that poisoned last year's UN climate talks. At Copenhagen, major emerging economies hid behind their poor to justify why they shouldn't need to take on legally-binding climate targets. Infuriating western governments, they used a rigid interpretation of the wonky principle known in UN-speak as "common but differentiated responsibility" (CBDR) to argue for more "pollution rights", since they have less historical responsibility for causing the carbon problem and less ability to pay to solve it. Never mind the new carbon-constrained realities on the whole world, these powerful developing countries claimed the right to pollute indefinitely, because (just like their industrialised counterparts), they saw short-term strategic interest in securing the largest possible area of global atmospheric territory. In short, a concept developed to promote equity has turned into an excuse to allow ever increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
Just as Switzerland offers the super-rich the ability to avoid high taxes, and Uzbekistan-presented high-street clothes chains in Europe with cheap child labour in their cotton fields, South Africa and other major emerging economies like China are beginning to exploit the CBDR principle to establish themselves as global havens for the most environmentally destructive industries on Earth. South Africa is effectively setting up shop as a high-carbon economic zone to encourage in foreign companies by freeing them of carbon regulation.
After Copenhagen, the attitude of the most powerful industrialising countries caused much spluttering on the part of western ministers. Ed Miliband was enraged at what he saw as an unfair apportioning of the blame to the industrialised world after the managed collapse of the negotiations, and wrote: "The vast majority of countries, developed and developing, believe that we will only construct a lasting accord that protects the planet if all countries' commitments or actions are legally binding. But some leading developing countries currently refuse to countenance this."
That's why it's so odd that western governments, including our own, now seem determined to egg them on by making a $3.7bn (£2.4bn) World Bank loan to the South African state-owned power company Eskom to help build one of the most polluting power stations in the world. With one hand the government complains about major emerging economies not doing enough to embrace low-carbon development, while at the same time, it directs money that's meant for aid, into dirty coal developments that power the international mining industry.
In fairness, Miliband's comments were clearly directed at China. There was a time last year when climate progressives in the South African government seemed to be his most effective allies in the south. By establishing a reasonable 2020 climate target the South African government positioned themselves in Copenhagen as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds. But in retrospect, with an aspiration to get up to 95% of their electricity from coal by 2025, despite vast untapped clean energy potential, last year's rhetoric looks like a very thin green veneer. Well, either that or the South African government's principled stand has since been quashed by Big Carbon lobbying.
Recognising that a tonne of CO2 from a South African coal plant is just as damaging as a tonne from anywhere else, the White House has signalled they won't offer their support to subsidise the Eksom mega-coal plant in South Africa when it comes up for a vote at the World Bank next week. Yet as the single biggest donor to the Bank, it will be the UK which is likely to get the final say. This offers a key test of whether the climate progressives in our own government can win out.
Source: The Guardian
South Africa is becoming a high-carbon zone to attract foreign investment
With its proposed Medupi power station, South Africa is an industrialised global climate player and major polluter. With its sky-high poverty levels and average life expectancy of just 51 years, South Africa is not a country we generally associate with extravagant binge-flying lifestyles, turbo-consumerism, and shopping trips to New York. How bizarre then that per capita carbon emissions in South Africa are now higher than in many European countries. While most South Africans are unlikely to ever own a plasma screen TV or Hummer, their carbon footprints still appear to be only slightly less than your average Japanese, and their national carbon emissions are now greater than those of France.
The situation becomes more comprehensible when you look at South Africa's industrial base, with 60% of South Africa's electricity being guzzled by heavy industry, and most of that comes from dirty coal. Now this key global climate player wants another coal station that would pollute as much as the two dirtiest plants in Britain put together, and cause a further surge in its national emissions – and they want you to pay for it. Far from benefiting ordinary South Africans, they will also be forced into subsidising this artificially low-cost electricity, for the benefit of multinational mining companies. It's no wonder that African civil society movements are leading the opposition to this development.
South Africa's situation is a case study in one of the major political currents that poisoned last year's UN climate talks. At Copenhagen, major emerging economies hid behind their poor to justify why they shouldn't need to take on legally-binding climate targets. Infuriating western governments, they used a rigid interpretation of the wonky principle known in UN-speak as "common but differentiated responsibility" (CBDR) to argue for more "pollution rights", since they have less historical responsibility for causing the carbon problem and less ability to pay to solve it. Never mind the new carbon-constrained realities on the whole world, these powerful developing countries claimed the right to pollute indefinitely, because (just like their industrialised counterparts), they saw short-term strategic interest in securing the largest possible area of global atmospheric territory. In short, a concept developed to promote equity has turned into an excuse to allow ever increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
Just as Switzerland offers the super-rich the ability to avoid high taxes, and Uzbekistan-presented high-street clothes chains in Europe with cheap child labour in their cotton fields, South Africa and other major emerging economies like China are beginning to exploit the CBDR principle to establish themselves as global havens for the most environmentally destructive industries on Earth. South Africa is effectively setting up shop as a high-carbon economic zone to encourage in foreign companies by freeing them of carbon regulation.
After Copenhagen, the attitude of the most powerful industrialising countries caused much spluttering on the part of western ministers. Ed Miliband was enraged at what he saw as an unfair apportioning of the blame to the industrialised world after the managed collapse of the negotiations, and wrote: "The vast majority of countries, developed and developing, believe that we will only construct a lasting accord that protects the planet if all countries' commitments or actions are legally binding. But some leading developing countries currently refuse to countenance this."
That's why it's so odd that western governments, including our own, now seem determined to egg them on by making a $3.7bn (£2.4bn) World Bank loan to the South African state-owned power company Eskom to help build one of the most polluting power stations in the world. With one hand the government complains about major emerging economies not doing enough to embrace low-carbon development, while at the same time, it directs money that's meant for aid, into dirty coal developments that power the international mining industry.
In fairness, Miliband's comments were clearly directed at China. There was a time last year when climate progressives in the South African government seemed to be his most effective allies in the south. By establishing a reasonable 2020 climate target the South African government positioned themselves in Copenhagen as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds. But in retrospect, with an aspiration to get up to 95% of their electricity from coal by 2025, despite vast untapped clean energy potential, last year's rhetoric looks like a very thin green veneer. Well, either that or the South African government's principled stand has since been quashed by Big Carbon lobbying.
Recognising that a tonne of CO2 from a South African coal plant is just as damaging as a tonne from anywhere else, the White House has signalled they won't offer their support to subsidise the Eksom mega-coal plant in South Africa when it comes up for a vote at the World Bank next week. Yet as the single biggest donor to the Bank, it will be the UK which is likely to get the final say. This offers a key test of whether the climate progressives in our own government can win out.
Source: The Guardian
The situation becomes more comprehensible when you look at South Africa's industrial base, with 60% of South Africa's electricity being guzzled by heavy industry, and most of that comes from dirty coal. Now this key global climate player wants another coal station that would pollute as much as the two dirtiest plants in Britain put together, and cause a further surge in its national emissions – and they want you to pay for it. Far from benefiting ordinary South Africans, they will also be forced into subsidising this artificially low-cost electricity, for the benefit of multinational mining companies. It's no wonder that African civil society movements are leading the opposition to this development.
South Africa's situation is a case study in one of the major political currents that poisoned last year's UN climate talks. At Copenhagen, major emerging economies hid behind their poor to justify why they shouldn't need to take on legally-binding climate targets. Infuriating western governments, they used a rigid interpretation of the wonky principle known in UN-speak as "common but differentiated responsibility" (CBDR) to argue for more "pollution rights", since they have less historical responsibility for causing the carbon problem and less ability to pay to solve it. Never mind the new carbon-constrained realities on the whole world, these powerful developing countries claimed the right to pollute indefinitely, because (just like their industrialised counterparts), they saw short-term strategic interest in securing the largest possible area of global atmospheric territory. In short, a concept developed to promote equity has turned into an excuse to allow ever increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
Just as Switzerland offers the super-rich the ability to avoid high taxes, and Uzbekistan-presented high-street clothes chains in Europe with cheap child labour in their cotton fields, South Africa and other major emerging economies like China are beginning to exploit the CBDR principle to establish themselves as global havens for the most environmentally destructive industries on Earth. South Africa is effectively setting up shop as a high-carbon economic zone to encourage in foreign companies by freeing them of carbon regulation.
After Copenhagen, the attitude of the most powerful industrialising countries caused much spluttering on the part of western ministers. Ed Miliband was enraged at what he saw as an unfair apportioning of the blame to the industrialised world after the managed collapse of the negotiations, and wrote: "The vast majority of countries, developed and developing, believe that we will only construct a lasting accord that protects the planet if all countries' commitments or actions are legally binding. But some leading developing countries currently refuse to countenance this."
That's why it's so odd that western governments, including our own, now seem determined to egg them on by making a $3.7bn (£2.4bn) World Bank loan to the South African state-owned power company Eskom to help build one of the most polluting power stations in the world. With one hand the government complains about major emerging economies not doing enough to embrace low-carbon development, while at the same time, it directs money that's meant for aid, into dirty coal developments that power the international mining industry.
In fairness, Miliband's comments were clearly directed at China. There was a time last year when climate progressives in the South African government seemed to be his most effective allies in the south. By establishing a reasonable 2020 climate target the South African government positioned themselves in Copenhagen as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds. But in retrospect, with an aspiration to get up to 95% of their electricity from coal by 2025, despite vast untapped clean energy potential, last year's rhetoric looks like a very thin green veneer. Well, either that or the South African government's principled stand has since been quashed by Big Carbon lobbying.
Recognising that a tonne of CO2 from a South African coal plant is just as damaging as a tonne from anywhere else, the White House has signalled they won't offer their support to subsidise the Eksom mega-coal plant in South Africa when it comes up for a vote at the World Bank next week. Yet as the single biggest donor to the Bank, it will be the UK which is likely to get the final say. This offers a key test of whether the climate progressives in our own government can win out.
Source: The Guardian
Monday, March 8, 2010
South Africa: Losing Battle in Green Crimes
ENVIRONMENTAL management inspectors say they are battling to prevent a large number of environmental crimes, many committed by well-organised syndicates serving markets in the Far East. The deputy director-general for legal research and development at the Department of Environmental Affairs, Ziyaad Hassan, said environmental offences "are seldom committed out of need". "It's a battle we don't seem to be winning and it is a huge concern for us," he said. Disposal of medical waste, illegal dumping, rhino and abalone poaching, and water pollution are top priorities for the inspectors.
Rhino poaching is "as big a problem as it's been in the last 20 years". Powdered rhino horn is more expensive than heroin. Rhinos have been taken out of parks and horns stolen from museums. Hassan said environmental offenders were usually middle-class, well-educated people who took a calculated business decision not to comply with environmental legislation.
Environmental Affairs Minister Buyelwa Sonjica said eight white rhino were poached in January from the Kruger National Park, despite hi-tech equipment and extra rangers being deployed. South African National Parks CEO David Mabunda said in January that 93 rhino had been killed over the past three years throughout SA, with 48 arrests having been made. "South Africans must realise that we are not dealing with your ordinary petty criminals here. These poachers are members of well-resourced syndicates and are also involved in chilling crimes like human trafficking, arms smuggling, prostitution and drug trafficking," he said.
Like rhino poachers, abalone syndicates are also linked to other crimes and are driven by markets in eastern Asia.
Source: All Africa
Rhino poaching is "as big a problem as it's been in the last 20 years". Powdered rhino horn is more expensive than heroin. Rhinos have been taken out of parks and horns stolen from museums. Hassan said environmental offenders were usually middle-class, well-educated people who took a calculated business decision not to comply with environmental legislation.
Environmental Affairs Minister Buyelwa Sonjica said eight white rhino were poached in January from the Kruger National Park, despite hi-tech equipment and extra rangers being deployed. South African National Parks CEO David Mabunda said in January that 93 rhino had been killed over the past three years throughout SA, with 48 arrests having been made. "South Africans must realise that we are not dealing with your ordinary petty criminals here. These poachers are members of well-resourced syndicates and are also involved in chilling crimes like human trafficking, arms smuggling, prostitution and drug trafficking," he said.
Like rhino poachers, abalone syndicates are also linked to other crimes and are driven by markets in eastern Asia.
Source: All Africa
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Human activity is driving Earth's 'sixth great extinction event'
Population growth, pollution and invasive species are having a disastrous effect on species in the Southern hemisphere, a major review by conservationists warns.
Earth is experiencing its "sixth great extinction event" with disease and human activity taking a devastating toll on vulnerable species, according to a major review by conservationists.
Much of the southern hemisphere is suffering particularly badly, with Australia, New Zealand and neighbouring Pacific islands destined to become the extinction hotspots of the world, the report warns.
Earth is experiencing its "sixth great extinction event" with disease and human activity taking a devastating toll on vulnerable species, according to a major review by conservationists.
Much of the southern hemisphere is suffering particularly badly, with Australia, New Zealand and neighbouring Pacific islands destined to become the extinction hotspots of the world, the report warns.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
SA plans three nuclear power stations
South Africa is considering the construction of three nuclear power stations on its coastline despite objections from environmentalists.
The country currently has Africa's sole nuclear plant, Koeberg, near Cape Town, which began generating electricity in 1984. It is surrounded by a private game reserve and has been targeted by environmental protesters.
Source: Mail & Guardian
The country currently has Africa's sole nuclear plant, Koeberg, near Cape Town, which began generating electricity in 1984. It is surrounded by a private game reserve and has been targeted by environmental protesters.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Waste company at centre of toxic storm
Residents of Clayville in Olifantsfontein near Kempton Park are locked in a fierce battle with a nearby hazardous waste-disposal company they say is poisoning them. And they maintain that it has links with the African National Congress (ANC).
The company in question is Thermopower Process Technology, Africa's largest hazardous waste disposer and a client of major companies such as Sasol, Monsanto, BASF, AngloGold Ashanti and Afrox Gas.
Thermopower is under investigation by the government's environmental police, the Green Scorpions. A neighbouring tile factory, Norcross, says it has had to shut down twice because its workers have become ill from emissions.
A Mail & Guardian investigation has revealed that Alan Norman, a former Absa executive described by some who have dealt with him as "the ANC's banker", has been central to the company's efforts to find an empowerment partner. Among those considered was Smuts Ngonyama, when he was head of the ANC Presidency under Thabo Mbeki.
Source: Mail & Guardian
The company in question is Thermopower Process Technology, Africa's largest hazardous waste disposer and a client of major companies such as Sasol, Monsanto, BASF, AngloGold Ashanti and Afrox Gas.
Thermopower is under investigation by the government's environmental police, the Green Scorpions. A neighbouring tile factory, Norcross, says it has had to shut down twice because its workers have become ill from emissions.
A Mail & Guardian investigation has revealed that Alan Norman, a former Absa executive described by some who have dealt with him as "the ANC's banker", has been central to the company's efforts to find an empowerment partner. Among those considered was Smuts Ngonyama, when he was head of the ANC Presidency under Thabo Mbeki.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Digging for mining licences
Coal-mining companies with black empowerment partners who have friends in high places are posing a growing threat to some of South Africa’s most sensitive environmental areas. The companies are seeking to cash in on South Africa’s coal resources, mainly in Mpumalanga, by supplying cheap coal to Eskom.
Coal-mining companies with black empowerment partners who have friends in high places are posing a growing threat to some of South Africa's most sensitive environmental areas. The companies are seeking to cash in on South Africa's coal resources, mainly in Mpumalanga, by supplying cheap coal to Eskom.
o The empowerment partners of Coal of Africa, which is prospecting near heritage and national park site Mapungubwe, include new Minister of Human Settlements Tokyo Sexwale's Mvelaphanda group.
o The sister of the former trade minister Mandisi Mpahlwa, (who is President Jacob Zuma's financial adviser) Mandlakazi Mandaka, is the BEE partner of Delta Mining Company, which has been handed a permit to prospect in Wakkerstroom. Concerns have been voiced about the impact of mining on the area's important wetlands.
o In Dullstroom ANC funding vehicle Chancellor House has applied for a prospecting licence amid allegations that it is riding roughshod over local stakeholders.
o In Belfast farmers have mounted a court challenge to Exxaro, Africa's largest black-controlled diversified mining company and the biggest supplier of coal to Eskom.
The applications have pitted environmental groups such as the Escarpment Environmental Protection Group and the Mpumalanga Lakes District Protection Group (LPDG) against mining groups and have turned farmers into green activists. The activists are pointing fingers at the department of minerals and energy for favouring companies with political connections. The department has denied looking at the ownership of companies in awarding permits, except to check their BEE credentials. Many government officials, former officials and their families have decided to seek their fortune in mining through BEE deals in the coal industry.
They include Science and Technology Minister Naledi Pandor's husband, Sharif Pandor; former director general of trade and industry Alistair Ruiters and former minister of minerals and energy Penuell Maduna. Brigette Radebe, the wife of Justice Minister Jeff Radebe and sister of mining billionaire Patrice Motsepe, is the driving force behind Mmakau Mining, which has entered a joint venture with Total Coal SA.
The department's mineral regulation deputy director general, Jacinto Rocha, said his department would not punish anyone for having political connections. "There is no prohibition on family members [of officials] of the department or elsewhere in government getting mineral rights," he said. The fact that former political leaders had received permits was a mere coincidence. We look at compliance when we issue licences," he said. "We don't look at who is there."
Environmentalists also question Zuma's decision to move Buyelwa Sonjica from minerals and energy to environment, seeing it as a sign that BEE coal-mining interests now trump environmental concerns. Rocha strongly denied this. He said activists sometimes became very "emotional" and did not consider all the facts. "We don't issue licences on emotion, we issue them on the basis of law," he said. "After having followed the process, it does not make a department official happy or sad. It is just a yes or a no, after the process was followed to the letter. "We all have children. No one in the department says 'to hell with the environment'," he said.
Rocha said the department received 622 prospecting applications last year, of which 62 were granted and 125 denied. The others are still being processed. He named an application by an unnamed mining house in amphibian haven Chrissiesmeer, also on the Mpumalanga escarpment, as an example of an application refused on environmental grounds. The applications show that many mining companies now have the Waterberg in their sights. The Waterberg coalfield, around Lephalale in Limpopo, has 50% of South Africa's remaining coal reserves and hosts South Africa's latest power station, Medupi.
The area is home to the Waterberg biosphere, Marakele National Park and many private reserves.
Only Exxaro's Grootgeluk colliery operates in the area. But Exxaro Resources chief executive Sipho Nkosi said the Waterberg has sufficient coal to feed eight power stations and the company could be mining there for the next 200 years. Several mining houses, including BEE company Sekoko Coal, are investigating the feasibility of an open-cast coal mine in the Lephalale area and several have applied to the government for prospecting licences. Companies seeking prospecting licences must submit environmental management plans, which involve consultation with the owners or lawful occupiers of the land in question. In many cases, however, landowners and interested parties dispute that there has been adequate consultation. The department must also submit applications to the water affairs and environmental affairs departments. In many sensitive cases these claim they did not see licence applications or, as in the case of Mapungubwe learned of them only at the last minute. The law provides that sister departments have 60 days in which to react to environmental management plans. "If there is no response, we take it that the department has nothing to say," said Rocha. "You can't blame us if someone in another department doesn't do their job."
Coal of Africa (CoAL), the driver of a controversial proposed mining venture near world heritage site Mapungubwe, has powerful allies. Its BEE partner is the Mvelaphanda group, headed by Tokyo Sexwale before he was appointed to Cabinet. Mvelaphanda owns a stake in CoAL through African Global Capital (AGC), which owns a 26% stake. But the connections do not end there. Former intelligence director general Vusi Mavimbela is the executive director of Mvelaphanda responsible for business strategy and African expansion. This week Mavimbela was tipped to become the director general in President Jacob Zuma's office.
CoAL's mining application has sparked a public outcry, with South African National Parks and even the former minister of environmental affairs, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, speaking out against the proposed mining. But CoAL's chief operating officer, Riaan van der Merwe, said the park and the mine could coexist. "We know there is a lot of emotion around coal mining, particularly considering the scars left by mines in the Witbank area," he said. "But mining methods have changed drastically." He said CoAL took its environmental responsibilities seriously and intended managing the mine in line with the vision of the proposed Transfrontier Conservancy Area. Among the measures planned at the mine were the use of strobe lighting when reversing trucks, rather than a warning beep. High-noise activities such as blasting will also be restricted to between 8am and 4pm. He said the mine was far enough from Mapungubwe not to disturb the park. All baobab trees uprooted as part of mining operations would be lifted and replanted.
CoAL has 74% ownership of the project, with the remaining 26% held by several BEE groups, according to Van der Merwe. He would not disclose their identity.
Environmental groups regard the Delta Mining Corporation's (DMC) exploration for torbanite and coal in the Wakkerstroom region as the gravest threat this environmentally sensitive area has faced. The groups, including World Wildlife Fund South Africa, the Botanical Society and Birdlife South Africa, have objected to the granting of prospecting rights in more than 20 000ha of pristine grassland and wetland. They and local farmers have joined forces against Delta in two high court applications for the prospecting rights to be revoked.
Central to their case is the weak environmental management plan, which the Mail & Guardian has seen. The report turns a blind eye to the pristine state of the area and to its biodiversity, including rare birds such as wattled cranes and other red data species.
Investigative programme 50/50 revealed that the sister of former minister of trade and industry (Mandisi Mpahlwa, who is Jacob Zuma's financial adviser), Mandlakazi Madaka, is the BEE partner in DMC's venture in Wakkerstroom. "We are aware of reports of who our BEE partners are, though we are not aware of any concerns, certainly we have none," said Delta chairperson Bernard Swanepoel. He said Delta Mining was a private company whose shares were mainly held by its chief executive and founder, Heine van Niekerk. An investment company in which Swanepoel is a director, To The Point Growth Specialists, owns 30% and the rest is held by the management team, he said. Swanepoel denied allegations that the environmental management plan used to secure prospecting rights in Wakkerstroom was fatally flawed. "We outsourced two scoping studies to two separate independent competent persons," he said. "We are confident that the process we ran was thorough and professional. Although some areas were identified as sensitive, none were identified as irreplaceable and our exploration process will ensure that sensitive areas are left undisturbed," he said. Swanepoel said the DMC property is not adjacent to or in the wetlands. "Our property is about 20km away and about 200m lower than (or downstream of) the wetlands in the area," he said. "About two-thirds of our prospecting area is old or current mealie fields. Consequently our property and the land we plan to explore will allow for coal extraction that should in no way affect the wetlands."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Coal-mining companies with black empowerment partners who have friends in high places are posing a growing threat to some of South Africa's most sensitive environmental areas. The companies are seeking to cash in on South Africa's coal resources, mainly in Mpumalanga, by supplying cheap coal to Eskom.
o The empowerment partners of Coal of Africa, which is prospecting near heritage and national park site Mapungubwe, include new Minister of Human Settlements Tokyo Sexwale's Mvelaphanda group.
o The sister of the former trade minister Mandisi Mpahlwa, (who is President Jacob Zuma's financial adviser) Mandlakazi Mandaka, is the BEE partner of Delta Mining Company, which has been handed a permit to prospect in Wakkerstroom. Concerns have been voiced about the impact of mining on the area's important wetlands.
o In Dullstroom ANC funding vehicle Chancellor House has applied for a prospecting licence amid allegations that it is riding roughshod over local stakeholders.
o In Belfast farmers have mounted a court challenge to Exxaro, Africa's largest black-controlled diversified mining company and the biggest supplier of coal to Eskom.
The applications have pitted environmental groups such as the Escarpment Environmental Protection Group and the Mpumalanga Lakes District Protection Group (LPDG) against mining groups and have turned farmers into green activists. The activists are pointing fingers at the department of minerals and energy for favouring companies with political connections. The department has denied looking at the ownership of companies in awarding permits, except to check their BEE credentials. Many government officials, former officials and their families have decided to seek their fortune in mining through BEE deals in the coal industry.
They include Science and Technology Minister Naledi Pandor's husband, Sharif Pandor; former director general of trade and industry Alistair Ruiters and former minister of minerals and energy Penuell Maduna. Brigette Radebe, the wife of Justice Minister Jeff Radebe and sister of mining billionaire Patrice Motsepe, is the driving force behind Mmakau Mining, which has entered a joint venture with Total Coal SA.
The department's mineral regulation deputy director general, Jacinto Rocha, said his department would not punish anyone for having political connections. "There is no prohibition on family members [of officials] of the department or elsewhere in government getting mineral rights," he said. The fact that former political leaders had received permits was a mere coincidence. We look at compliance when we issue licences," he said. "We don't look at who is there."
Environmentalists also question Zuma's decision to move Buyelwa Sonjica from minerals and energy to environment, seeing it as a sign that BEE coal-mining interests now trump environmental concerns. Rocha strongly denied this. He said activists sometimes became very "emotional" and did not consider all the facts. "We don't issue licences on emotion, we issue them on the basis of law," he said. "After having followed the process, it does not make a department official happy or sad. It is just a yes or a no, after the process was followed to the letter. "We all have children. No one in the department says 'to hell with the environment'," he said.
Rocha said the department received 622 prospecting applications last year, of which 62 were granted and 125 denied. The others are still being processed. He named an application by an unnamed mining house in amphibian haven Chrissiesmeer, also on the Mpumalanga escarpment, as an example of an application refused on environmental grounds. The applications show that many mining companies now have the Waterberg in their sights. The Waterberg coalfield, around Lephalale in Limpopo, has 50% of South Africa's remaining coal reserves and hosts South Africa's latest power station, Medupi.
The area is home to the Waterberg biosphere, Marakele National Park and many private reserves.
Only Exxaro's Grootgeluk colliery operates in the area. But Exxaro Resources chief executive Sipho Nkosi said the Waterberg has sufficient coal to feed eight power stations and the company could be mining there for the next 200 years. Several mining houses, including BEE company Sekoko Coal, are investigating the feasibility of an open-cast coal mine in the Lephalale area and several have applied to the government for prospecting licences. Companies seeking prospecting licences must submit environmental management plans, which involve consultation with the owners or lawful occupiers of the land in question. In many cases, however, landowners and interested parties dispute that there has been adequate consultation. The department must also submit applications to the water affairs and environmental affairs departments. In many sensitive cases these claim they did not see licence applications or, as in the case of Mapungubwe learned of them only at the last minute. The law provides that sister departments have 60 days in which to react to environmental management plans. "If there is no response, we take it that the department has nothing to say," said Rocha. "You can't blame us if someone in another department doesn't do their job."
Coal of Africa (CoAL), the driver of a controversial proposed mining venture near world heritage site Mapungubwe, has powerful allies. Its BEE partner is the Mvelaphanda group, headed by Tokyo Sexwale before he was appointed to Cabinet. Mvelaphanda owns a stake in CoAL through African Global Capital (AGC), which owns a 26% stake. But the connections do not end there. Former intelligence director general Vusi Mavimbela is the executive director of Mvelaphanda responsible for business strategy and African expansion. This week Mavimbela was tipped to become the director general in President Jacob Zuma's office.
CoAL's mining application has sparked a public outcry, with South African National Parks and even the former minister of environmental affairs, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, speaking out against the proposed mining. But CoAL's chief operating officer, Riaan van der Merwe, said the park and the mine could coexist. "We know there is a lot of emotion around coal mining, particularly considering the scars left by mines in the Witbank area," he said. "But mining methods have changed drastically." He said CoAL took its environmental responsibilities seriously and intended managing the mine in line with the vision of the proposed Transfrontier Conservancy Area. Among the measures planned at the mine were the use of strobe lighting when reversing trucks, rather than a warning beep. High-noise activities such as blasting will also be restricted to between 8am and 4pm. He said the mine was far enough from Mapungubwe not to disturb the park. All baobab trees uprooted as part of mining operations would be lifted and replanted.
CoAL has 74% ownership of the project, with the remaining 26% held by several BEE groups, according to Van der Merwe. He would not disclose their identity.
Environmental groups regard the Delta Mining Corporation's (DMC) exploration for torbanite and coal in the Wakkerstroom region as the gravest threat this environmentally sensitive area has faced. The groups, including World Wildlife Fund South Africa, the Botanical Society and Birdlife South Africa, have objected to the granting of prospecting rights in more than 20 000ha of pristine grassland and wetland. They and local farmers have joined forces against Delta in two high court applications for the prospecting rights to be revoked.
Central to their case is the weak environmental management plan, which the Mail & Guardian has seen. The report turns a blind eye to the pristine state of the area and to its biodiversity, including rare birds such as wattled cranes and other red data species.
Investigative programme 50/50 revealed that the sister of former minister of trade and industry (Mandisi Mpahlwa, who is Jacob Zuma's financial adviser), Mandlakazi Madaka, is the BEE partner in DMC's venture in Wakkerstroom. "We are aware of reports of who our BEE partners are, though we are not aware of any concerns, certainly we have none," said Delta chairperson Bernard Swanepoel. He said Delta Mining was a private company whose shares were mainly held by its chief executive and founder, Heine van Niekerk. An investment company in which Swanepoel is a director, To The Point Growth Specialists, owns 30% and the rest is held by the management team, he said. Swanepoel denied allegations that the environmental management plan used to secure prospecting rights in Wakkerstroom was fatally flawed. "We outsourced two scoping studies to two separate independent competent persons," he said. "We are confident that the process we ran was thorough and professional. Although some areas were identified as sensitive, none were identified as irreplaceable and our exploration process will ensure that sensitive areas are left undisturbed," he said. Swanepoel said the DMC property is not adjacent to or in the wetlands. "Our property is about 20km away and about 200m lower than (or downstream of) the wetlands in the area," he said. "About two-thirds of our prospecting area is old or current mealie fields. Consequently our property and the land we plan to explore will allow for coal extraction that should in no way affect the wetlands."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
New Energy To Tackle Climate Change in South Africa?
The announcement by the new South African government to decouple the Ministries of Minerals and Energy represents a symbolic shift away from a troubled legacy.
Civil society has long called for splitting the incongruous pair into departments with their own clear and distinct mandates. However, jubilation must be tempered as we consider the ideological and practical implications of the decision for the Zuma-led government, which is emphasising the strengthening of institutions and has, through the ANC’s Polokwane declaration, put climate change as a key item in its agenda.
A challenging time lies ahead for the Ministry of Energy in creating a new department in a rapidly deteriorating physical environment. Tough choices must be made as the ramifications also go well beyond the Department to fundamentally reorganising power relations in our country as well as confronting the premise and trajectory of our current development model. But the rewards for creating benchmarks for sustainable, socially just future would be well worth the struggle.
Source: ISS
Civil society has long called for splitting the incongruous pair into departments with their own clear and distinct mandates. However, jubilation must be tempered as we consider the ideological and practical implications of the decision for the Zuma-led government, which is emphasising the strengthening of institutions and has, through the ANC’s Polokwane declaration, put climate change as a key item in its agenda.
A challenging time lies ahead for the Ministry of Energy in creating a new department in a rapidly deteriorating physical environment. Tough choices must be made as the ramifications also go well beyond the Department to fundamentally reorganising power relations in our country as well as confronting the premise and trajectory of our current development model. But the rewards for creating benchmarks for sustainable, socially just future would be well worth the struggle.
Source: ISS
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The next urban crisis: poverty and climate change
Global climate change and poverty are inextricably interconnected. The best way to break one is to bend the other.the dangers of global poverty and climate crises will be especially acute in cities because accelerating, unplanned urbanization around the world tends to concentrate low-income people in high risk areas, on ecologically fragile land, desperately vulnerable to the consequences of imminent and worsening climate disruption.
The reason is clear: more people live in cities than ever before. In 1950, the earth’s total population was 2.2 billion and New York was the only metropolis with a population greater than 10 million. In the years since, the planet’s population tripled, concentrating in cities, most of which are located in developing countries. Within a decade, more than 500 cities will have populations exceeding one million. By 2020, seven cities in developing countries will have more than 20 million inhabitants. These are not cities with picture-postcard skylines. UN-HABITAT projects that within three decades, one of every three human beings will live in near total squalor – packed tightly on low-lying land, lacking sanitation and clean water, increasingly susceptible to the wrath of a warming world. Cities historically have been engines of vitality – crossroads of commerce and culture. Now, they are at the epicenter of climate change’s impact.
According to the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the earth is likely to experience at least another century of warming. The only realistic solution for cities is stronger resilience: integrated urban planning, land use regulation, water management, infrastructure investment, and emergency preparedness. The private sector and national governments alike must support these adaptation efforts with wider access to insurance, healthcare, and the financial resources to encourage and expand effective programs.
Greater resilience is possible – and without bank-breaking expense. There's often resistance to adaptive solutions for fear of huge costs. The best ideas, however, are not necessarily the priciest, and many are already deployed in developing cities that have little flexibility in their budgets. Durban, South Africa, for example, incorporates ongoing climate risk assessment, adaptation, and mitigation into long-term city planning. To pilot innovative services and solutions, the Rockefeller Foundation recently launched the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network. This work emerged as one response to a consensus that communities in Southeast Asia’s urban areas find themselves in great peril. During the next three decades, 60 percent of the world’s population increase will occur in Asia’s cities and eight in 10 of the countries most vulnerable to climate change’s reach will be located on the continent. By mid-century, climate change could subject 132 million people in Asia to resurgent hunger and poverty – and a full billion could struggle to find fresh water.
The Rockefeller Foundation's intervention is also designed to test strategies that can be adopted in other urban regions. The Asian Cities Network – an alliance of governments and donors, scientists, academics, and planners, health care and emergency service providers – will chart new approaches for cities everywhere to prepare for and recover from the global climate crisis’ very local impacts. It will link circuitry to help diverse partners and policymakers learn from best-practices. And it will aggressively court governments and donors who can bring successful approaches to scale.
We can all agree that solving the global poverty and climate crises are not contradictory, but rather complementary – and increasingly urgent – opportunities. Yet, as a global community, we must redouble our commitments to equip those most vulnerable to the three-headed hydra of climate-risk, poverty, and urbanization, especially against the backdrop of continued economic contraction. Each successive day we do not act brings us all closer to catastrophe. City by city, we can and must prepare to cope with what’s coming.
[Climate Change Resilience]
Source: Worldbank
The reason is clear: more people live in cities than ever before. In 1950, the earth’s total population was 2.2 billion and New York was the only metropolis with a population greater than 10 million. In the years since, the planet’s population tripled, concentrating in cities, most of which are located in developing countries. Within a decade, more than 500 cities will have populations exceeding one million. By 2020, seven cities in developing countries will have more than 20 million inhabitants. These are not cities with picture-postcard skylines. UN-HABITAT projects that within three decades, one of every three human beings will live in near total squalor – packed tightly on low-lying land, lacking sanitation and clean water, increasingly susceptible to the wrath of a warming world. Cities historically have been engines of vitality – crossroads of commerce and culture. Now, they are at the epicenter of climate change’s impact.
According to the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the earth is likely to experience at least another century of warming. The only realistic solution for cities is stronger resilience: integrated urban planning, land use regulation, water management, infrastructure investment, and emergency preparedness. The private sector and national governments alike must support these adaptation efforts with wider access to insurance, healthcare, and the financial resources to encourage and expand effective programs.
Greater resilience is possible – and without bank-breaking expense. There's often resistance to adaptive solutions for fear of huge costs. The best ideas, however, are not necessarily the priciest, and many are already deployed in developing cities that have little flexibility in their budgets. Durban, South Africa, for example, incorporates ongoing climate risk assessment, adaptation, and mitigation into long-term city planning. To pilot innovative services and solutions, the Rockefeller Foundation recently launched the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network. This work emerged as one response to a consensus that communities in Southeast Asia’s urban areas find themselves in great peril. During the next three decades, 60 percent of the world’s population increase will occur in Asia’s cities and eight in 10 of the countries most vulnerable to climate change’s reach will be located on the continent. By mid-century, climate change could subject 132 million people in Asia to resurgent hunger and poverty – and a full billion could struggle to find fresh water.
The Rockefeller Foundation's intervention is also designed to test strategies that can be adopted in other urban regions. The Asian Cities Network – an alliance of governments and donors, scientists, academics, and planners, health care and emergency service providers – will chart new approaches for cities everywhere to prepare for and recover from the global climate crisis’ very local impacts. It will link circuitry to help diverse partners and policymakers learn from best-practices. And it will aggressively court governments and donors who can bring successful approaches to scale.
We can all agree that solving the global poverty and climate crises are not contradictory, but rather complementary – and increasingly urgent – opportunities. Yet, as a global community, we must redouble our commitments to equip those most vulnerable to the three-headed hydra of climate-risk, poverty, and urbanization, especially against the backdrop of continued economic contraction. Each successive day we do not act brings us all closer to catastrophe. City by city, we can and must prepare to cope with what’s coming.
[Climate Change Resilience]
Source: Worldbank
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Coal mine threat to world heritage site
Prized world heritage site Mapungubwe, where the famous gold rhino statuette was unearthed, could soon have the scar of an open-cast coal mine on its doorstep. The Vele Colliery project has sparked a row between the department of minerals and energy, which is driving it with single-minded determination, and the department of environmental affairs.
Mapungubwe is a protected site that forms part of the broader Limpopo Shashe transfrontier conservation area. Management of the park is also worried about the mine. Answering a DA question on Friday, Environment Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk told Parliament that, with the information available to him, he could not support the awarding of mining rights. The project would have "detrimental environmental considerations" and "could further impact negatively on the 'sense of place' and tourism potential" of Mapungubwe, the Mapungubwe National Park and Greater Limpopo Shashe conservation area.
Vele Colliery is an initiative of Australian-owned Coal of Africa, which has signed a letter of intent to supply up to five million tons of coal annually from Vele and its sister project Makhado to steel giant Arcelor Mittal. The company wants to start operations at the end of this year, but the minerals department must first give the go-ahead, including an environmental green light. So far only a scoping report, which outlines the potential impact of the mine to be investigated, has been released. A full environmental impact assessment has to be conducted still.
Planned legislation will shift the responsibility for the environmental assessment of mining projects from minerals and energy to the environmental affairs department. The law, however, is still in its infancy. Van Schalkwyk told Parliament that he had communicated his concerns about the mine to the Minerals and Energy Department. Apart from aesthetic and pollution considerations, he was worried about its possible impact on floodplains and wetlands. He said his department "became aware of the proposed Vele Colliery at a very late stage in the process, when the Peace Parks Foundation brought it to our attention".
DA environment spokesperson Gareth Morgan said the expected opening of the mine at the end of the year implied that the scoping report "is merely a cynical attempt to ensure procedural compliance". Morgan called on Minerals and Energy Minister Buyelwa Sonjica to reject applications by companies wanting to mine in, or adjacent to, sensitive environmental areas.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Mapungubwe is a protected site that forms part of the broader Limpopo Shashe transfrontier conservation area. Management of the park is also worried about the mine. Answering a DA question on Friday, Environment Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk told Parliament that, with the information available to him, he could not support the awarding of mining rights. The project would have "detrimental environmental considerations" and "could further impact negatively on the 'sense of place' and tourism potential" of Mapungubwe, the Mapungubwe National Park and Greater Limpopo Shashe conservation area.
Vele Colliery is an initiative of Australian-owned Coal of Africa, which has signed a letter of intent to supply up to five million tons of coal annually from Vele and its sister project Makhado to steel giant Arcelor Mittal. The company wants to start operations at the end of this year, but the minerals department must first give the go-ahead, including an environmental green light. So far only a scoping report, which outlines the potential impact of the mine to be investigated, has been released. A full environmental impact assessment has to be conducted still.
Planned legislation will shift the responsibility for the environmental assessment of mining projects from minerals and energy to the environmental affairs department. The law, however, is still in its infancy. Van Schalkwyk told Parliament that he had communicated his concerns about the mine to the Minerals and Energy Department. Apart from aesthetic and pollution considerations, he was worried about its possible impact on floodplains and wetlands. He said his department "became aware of the proposed Vele Colliery at a very late stage in the process, when the Peace Parks Foundation brought it to our attention".
DA environment spokesperson Gareth Morgan said the expected opening of the mine at the end of the year implied that the scoping report "is merely a cynical attempt to ensure procedural compliance". Morgan called on Minerals and Energy Minister Buyelwa Sonjica to reject applications by companies wanting to mine in, or adjacent to, sensitive environmental areas.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)