Right2Know campaign calls for amendments to Protection of Information Bill

Right2Know Campaign

Let the truth be told

Stop the Secrecy Bill!

A responsive and accountable democracy that can meet the basic needs of our people is built upon transparency and the free flow of information. The gains of South Africans’ struggle for freedom are threatened by the Protection of Information Bill (the Secrecy Bill) currently before Parliament. We accept the need to replace apartheid-era secrecy legislation. However, this Bill extends the veil of secrecy in a manner reminiscent of that same apartheid past. This Bill fundamentally undermines the struggle for whistleblower protection and access to information. It is one of a number of proposed measures which could have the combined effect of fundamentally undermining the right to access information and the freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution.

Our concerns:

The Bill will create a society of secrets

* Any state agency, government department, even a parastatal and your local municipality, can classify public information as secret.
* Anything and everything can potentially be classified as secret at official discretion if it is in the ‘national interest’. Even ordinary information relating to service delivery can become secret.
* Commercial information can be made secret, making it very difficult to hold business and government to account for inefficiency and corruption.
* Anyone involved in the ‘unauthorised’ handling and disclosure of classified information can be prosecuted; not just the state official who leaks information as is the case in other democracies.
* The disclosure even of some information which is not formally classified can land citizens in jail. This will lead to self-censorship and have a chilling effect on free speech.
* Whistleblowers and journalists could face more time in prison than officials who deliberately conceal public information that should be disclosed.
* A complete veil is drawn over the workings of the intelligence services. It will prevent public scrutiny of our spies should they abuse their power or breach human rights

Who will guard the guardians?

* Officials do not need to provide reason for making information secret
* There is no independent oversight mechanism to prevent information in the public interest from being made secret.
* The Minister of State Security, whose business is secrecy, becomes the arbiter of what information across all of government must remain secret or may be disclosed to the public.
* Even the leaking of secret information in the public interest is criminalised.
* Unusually severe penalties of up to 25 years in prison will silence whistleblowers, civil society and journalists doing their job.
* All these factors will limit public scrutiny of business and government, whether through Parliament or journalists. Accountability will be curtailed and service delivery to the people will be undermined.

Our demands:

The Constitution demands accountable, open and responsive government, realised among other things through freedom of expression and access to information. Our elected representatives are bound by these Constitutional values and any legislation they pass must comply. We demand that the Protection of Information Bill – the Secrecy Bill – must reflect the following:

* Limit secrecy to core state bodies in the security sector such as the police, defence and intelligence agencies.
* Limit secrecy to strictly defined national security matters and no more. Officials must give reasons for making information secret.
* Exclude commercial information from this Bill.
* Do not exempt the intelligence agencies from public scrutiny.
* Do not apply penalties for unauthorised disclosure to society at large, only those responsible for keeping secrets.
* An independent body appointed by Parliament, and not the Minister of Intelligence, should be the arbiter of decisions about what may be made secret.
* Do not criminalise the legitimate disclosure of secrets in the public interest.

Signatories:

South African Civil Society Organisations: ActionAid International, Afesis-Corplan, Anti Privatization Forum (APF), African Centre for Citizenship and Democracy, African Network Constitutional Lawyers, AfriForum, Alternative Information and Development Centre, AIDS Foundation of South Africa, Aksie Gleniqua Foundation, Alliance for Children’s Entitlement to Social Security, Amnesty International (Durban), Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression, Association for Progressive Communication, Biowatch South Africa, BirdLife South Africa, Black Sash, Boggomsbaai Belastingbetalersvereniging, Book Southern Africa, Cape Environmental Trust, Ceasefire Campaign, Centre for Civil Society Environmental Justice Project (UKZN), Centre for Constitutional Rights, Centre for Economic Governance and AIDS in Africa, Centre for Environmental Rights, Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention,Channel Managed PR, ChrioJIRAH Academy, CIVICUS, Clairwood Social Forum, Coalition Against Nuclear Energy, Cooperative and Policy Alternative Centre, Cullinan Residents Association, Democracy Development Programme, Desmond Tutu Peace Centre, DGR Writing and Research, Diakonia Council of Churches, Durban YMCA, Earthlife Africa (Johannesburg), Earthlife Africa (Cape Town), Earthlife Africa (eThekwini) EcoDoc Africa, ECOPEACE, Economists Allied for Arms Reduction, Engender, Ensure Viable Environment, Environmental Monitoring Group, Equal Education, Far South Peninsula Community Forum, Federation for a Sustainable Environment (FSE), Forum for African Investigative Reporters, Free Society Institute, Gay & Lesbian Network, Gayspeak.co.za, Glencairn Action Group, Global Campaign for Education, GM South Africa Foundation, Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance, Greater Lynfrae Civic Association, Greenpeace Africa, GroundWork, Gun Free South Africa, Habitat Council, Health-e News Service, Historical Society of Southern Africa, Hout Baai Farm McGregor, Highlands Herald , Human Rights Watch, Idasa, Imara Consulting, Impumelelo Innovations Award Trust, Indaloyethu Environmental Cooperative, Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa, Institute for Justice and Recociliation, Institute for Security Studies, Institute for Zero Waste In Africa, International Centre of Nonviolence, Durban University of Technology, International Fund For Animal Welfare, Inyathelo: The South African Institute for Advancement, KhoeSan Womens Circle, KZN Inter-religious council,  Khulumani Support Group, Lesbian and Gay Equality Project, Litnet, M&G Centre for Investigative Journalism (amaBhungane), Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA-SA), Media Monitoring Africa, Modjaji Books, National Welfare Forum, Open Democracy Advice Centre, Open Society Foundation- South Africa, Other-Wise media, Out of the Box, Overstrand Conservation Fund, Palestine Support Committee  (Durban), Paradise Beach Community Association, Parliamentary Monitoring Group, Pelindaba Working Group, Poetry International- South Africa, Politicsweb, Professional Journalists’ Association, Peoples Health Movement (PHM) South Africa, Public Service Accountability Monitor, Quindiem Consulting, Rainbow UCT, Rape Crisis, SA Council for English Education, SA Pen, Sannieshof Ratepayers Association, Save the Vaal Environment, Section27, Sector 5 Umbilo Policing Forum, Sedgefield Community Intelligence Centre, Serengeti Media, Shadow Films, Social Justice Coalition, Social Movements Indaba, Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa, South African Education and Environment Project, South African History Archives (Freedom of Information Programme), South African Labour Bulletin, South African Litigation Centre, South African National Editors Forum (SANEF), South Durban Community Environmental Alliance, Southern African Faith Communities Environment Institute, Southern African Historical Society, Southern African Media and Gender Institute, St Francis Bay Residents Association, St Martin’s Anglican Church, Students for Law and Social Justice, SynergyWORKS, The AIDS Consortium, Timbila Poetry Project, The Book Lounge, The Centre for Applied Legal Studies, The South African Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (SA GLAAD), The Umbilo Action Group, The World AIDS Campaign, Third World Investment Gateway Trust, Treatment Action Campaign, UCT Press, Uitkamp Action Group, Umbilo Park Conservancy, Umphilo waManzi, Unemployed People’s Movement, Walmer Estate Civic Association, Wildlife & Environment Society of SA: Lowveld Region, Wildlife and Environmental Society of South Africa, Women’s Legal Centre Trust, Zwartkops Trust

International Friends: Access Info Europe, Access to Information Programme (Bulgaria), Action Aid Australia, ActionAid Nigeria, African Freedom of Information Centre, Arab Freedom of Information Network (Casablanca, Morocco), Article 19, Kenya and Eastern Africa (Kenya), Asociacion por los Derechos (ADC) (Argentina), Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (Bangladesh), Bank Information Centre (USA), Bond (UK), CAinfo de Uruguay (Uruguay), Carter Centre (USA), Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (London) Centre for Independent Journalism (Romania), Centre for Law and Democracy (Canada), Centre for Peace and Development Initiatives (Pakistan), Citizens’ Campaign for Right to Information (Nepal), COECOCEIBA-FoE (Costa Rica), Committee to Protect Journalists, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (Africa Office), Cyrus R. Vance Centre for International Justice (New York City Bar), EarthRights International (USA), Freedom Forum Nepal (Nepal), Friends of the Earth (Australia), Friends of the Earth (Scotland), Friends of the Earth (Spain), Global Witness (London), Heinrich Boll Foundation, Inter Africa Network for Women, Media, Gender and Development (FAMEDEV), International Commission of Jurists (Kenya), International Press Institute (Austria), Jamaicans for Justice (Jamaica), Jubilee Austrialia (Australia) Ligue Centrafricaine des Droits de L’homme (Central African Republic), Media Institute of Southern Africa (Namibia), Netherlands Institute for Southern Africa (NIZA), Open Society Archives (Central European University), People’s Advocacy (USA), Proetica Peru (Peru), Sustainable Development Institute (Liberia), Transparency International (Hungary), Transparency International Secretariat (Berlin, Germany)

Over 400 individuals including: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nadine Gordimer, Prof Kader Asmal, Zakes Mda, Prof. Max Price, Prof. Jonathan Jansen, Zackie Achmat, Pieter-Dirk Uys, Mary Burton, Mazibuko K Jara, Prof Hoosen Coovadia, Max Du Preez, Andre Brink, Pippa Green, Breyten Breytenbach, Cathi Albertyn, Rhoda Khadalie and Andrew Feinstein

Statement issued by the Right2Know Campaign, August 31 2010

On the First of September 2010, Cabinet held a “secret” session on the closure of the PMBR company. Earthlife Africa Jhb has learnt that all may not be as it seems, and that issues such as conflicts of interests, accounting for taxpayer money spent, and rehabilitation of PBMR staff are being swept under the carpet.

The PBMR company has bled the taxpayers of this country of a staggering R10bn. This money has come from the wages of workers, and represents R10bn not spent on social services. Furthermore, there has been nothing of substance to show for this expenditure, and the question must be asked what were the citizens of South Africa paying for? Is it for retrenchment packages for PBMR board members in excess of R2 million each?

While Earthlife Africa Jhb regards the closure of the PBMR company and the ending of the nuclear project to be the correct course of action—and has advocated for such for over ten years—it is extremely concerned that no proper accounting of this expenditure will take place. If R10bn of taxpayer funds has been spent on a project that failed, then an open, transparent audit should be undertaken. Citizens of South Africa have a right to know on what their money has been spent, and the appropriate vehicle for this is an open investigation in Parliament and an audit by the Auditor General.

The rumours of conflict of interests, poor governance and management, and improper use of funds within the PBMR Company can only be dispelled through an open and transparent investigation. The Department of Public Enterprise, Eskom and the PBMR Company must put their books out in the public domain for examination.

Further, the issue of PBMR staff has been largely ignored. South Africa needs to retain many of those staff members and use their skills to right South Africa’s social ills; rather than have nuclear scientists, engineers, clerks, etc. selling their skills to the highest bidder on the global market. While Earthlife Africa Jhb does not believe that nuclear power is an appropriate choice for South Africa, there are other, more socially friendly areas in which these skills can be applied. For example, the National Nuclear Regulator is currently struggling to deal, due to lack of capacity, with uranium being leached into South Africa’s waterways from gold mines. We also have to deal with the legacy of nuclear power in South Africa; Koeberg will need to be decommissioned (an expensive process that will likely take a 135 years to complete) and the high-level waste will need to be stored. At the moment, there are no concrete plans to deal with this waste anywhere in the world, let alone South Africa.

Secrecy within the nuclear sector is contrary to the public interest, and the closure of the PBMR is no exception. If this process is being kept away from the public gaze, what will the situation be if the government’s information and media bills (which Earthlife Africa Jhb is opposed to) are passed? Already, the energy sector is littered with secret agreements and confidential pricing arrangements, those misguided, regressive and reactionary pieces of legislation will only make an already bad situation even worse.

As Tristen Taylor, Project Coordinator for Earthlife Africa Jhb states, “There is only one honourable and democratic path open to the government; a full, complete, honest and transparent examination of what happened at the PBMR Company, who benefited from it, and how ten billion rand of our money was spent. Anything less will only raise suspicion for years to come and be festering sore within the energy sector.”

For more information, please contact:

Tristen Taylor
Project Coordinator
Earthlife Africa Jhb
Tel: +27 11 339 3662
Cell: +27 84 250 2434
Email: tristen@earthlife.org.za
Website: www.earthlife.org.za

Energy and climate change have often been viewed as an environmental and economic issue – not one with a human face, much less a woman’s face. The longer we take to respond to climate change the sooner we run the risk of disrespecting the value of all life on earth.

The conference on women in energy and climate change hosted by Earthlife Africa-Jhb raised the main issues and concerns on the token-role women have been playing in the energy and climate change sector. Just as the women of 1956 made their voices heard about the injustices they faced, it is once again time to say, “Enough is Enough”!

Women’s voices need to be heard in the national and international discussions about Climate Change and energy policies. It is time to end the cycle of focusing on women as victims only, which keeps women trapped in limited roles and further enhance gender disparities. The fact that women are not recognised in decision-making processes and as contributors to the economy must stop NOW! We know that most poor homes are headed by women, who are responsible for the type of energy used in a home. We know that women are most affected by the lack of access to clean and affordable energy. This does not mean that we cannot play leadership roles nor be equal decsion-makers in the sector. In addition, we call on the youth to take their rightful place and become the leaders who will continue to fight for a sustainable future.

As women from diverse backgrounds and sectors, we have come together not only to raise our voices in the energy and climate change sector but also to map a way forward and to ensure our involvement at all levels of decision-making. Poverty is directly linked to the way in which both energy and climate change are being dealt with both nationally and internationally.

This meeting demands that government acknowledge that women have been marginalised in all Energy and Climate Change policy processes, specifically, IRP2, National Climate Change Response, roll-out of REFIT (Renewable Energy Feed in Tariffs) and the Renewable Energy White Paper review. We therefore want government to act on the following:

• Our Planet is in crisis
• Energy and climate change issues are not the responsibility of one Ministry and must include an integrated and coordinated campaign
• Women’s right to participate in energy choices that affect them
• Women’s right to be consulted and included in all current energy processes
• Resources to be made available for increasing women’s participation and understanding of current energy and cliamte change processes
• Establishment of a gender technical committee and a stakeholders forum

As women, we commit to genuinely consultative processes and reject any participation that only serves to legitimate an inherently unfair system that privileges dominant interests. We need to participate in the consultation and policy development process around energy to ensure that a feminist, sustainable and pro-poor perspective is represented. This includes:

• Free Basic Services for all including energy, water and sewage
• Transparency, openness and access to information to enable informed choices, including provincial public hearings on the current processes
• Sustainable jobs
• Increased focus on renewable energy and energy efficiency – for example, the immediate roll-out of solar water heaters
• Immediate implmentation of REFIT
• Improved skills development and promotion of women in high level decision-making in the energy sector
• Direct communication campaign both in rural and urban areas to inform the public of the current energy processes
• Inclusion of rural areas in all discussions and policy planning
• Use of Indigenous knowledge to inform policy and plans

In reflecting on our own approaches to the matter of gender and energy policy as activists, scholars, labour and civil society members, we must acknowledge that our actions and initiatives have often been piecemeal, reactive and rushed.  We need to build stronger organizations and good alliances, share resources, lobby effectively and design a holistic and integrated approach. This is key to our effective participation in the current energy processes and the Climate Change meeting to be held in South Africa in 2011. Furthermore, national processes such as the local government elections must be used to mobilise increased participation of women in energy and climate change processes.

Arising out of this meeting, the women commit to the following:

• Signing on to the Statement and publicising the outcome at all Women’s day events.
• Handing over the Statement to political decision-makers at a local, provincial and national level
• Endorsing the Statement in our respective organisational plans and platforms
• Commit to working together on current energy and climate change policies
• Include aspects of climate change into all areas of mobilising
• Continuosly share and increase our knowledge on the issues being discussed
• Ongoing action to reach our energy and climate change goals

As we commemorate Women’s day on 9th August, we are reminded of the power that the 20,000 women demonstrated in 1956. It is a power that we must not forget nor leave behind. While many things have changed in South Africa, the role of women has not changed enough. This is especially true in the energy and climate change sectors.

Earthlife Africa – Johannesburg is convening a one-day conference on “Women in Energy and Climate Change”. The main purpose of the conference is to bring women from all walks of life to discuss the challenges and obstacles facing women in the energy and climate change sectors and to map out a way forward.

The conference will be held on:
Date:         5 August 2010
Time:         8.30am – 4.30pm
Venue:     Orion Hotel Devonshire
Address:     Cnr Melle and Jorrisen Street, Braamfontein, JHB.

The key note address will be by Yvette Abrahams from the Commission on Gender Equality {full programme attached below}. Various organisations have been invited to participate including community-based organisations, labour, social movements and political parties.

Women and men contribute differently to the causes of climate change and are affected differently by energy choices. In addition, women and men react differently to the impacts of climate change and given the choice favour different solutions for dealing with energy and climate change. These differences are based on gendered roles and responsibilities in most societies, and on gendered access to resources and political influence.

Often gender research focuses on women as victims only, which keeps women trapped in limited roles and further enhance gender disparities. This perception must change. Women should have a key role to play when addressing energy and climate change policies in the country. It is time to re-live the power of the women of 1956 and to send a strong message to Government on issues regarding future energy plans for the country including the IRP2 process and the National Climate Change Response Policy.

For more information, please contact
Makoma Lekalakala
Cell: 082 682 9177

or

Ferrial Adam
Cell: 0741813197

Office details:
Earthlife Africa Jhb
Tel: 011 339 3662
Fax: 011 339 3270

The World Bank Inspection Panel it to undertake a full investigation of the $3.75 billion loan by the World Bank to Eskom, the South African energy utility.  This was the finding of the preliminary investigation undertaken in May 2010. In April 2010, local residents in the Waterberg, Limpopo Province, addressed their concerns on inter alia health, environment, cultural and human rights issues to the Inspection Panel. [1]

At a full World Bank board meeting on the 29th of July, Mr. Roberto Lenton Chairperson of the Inspection Panel stated that, ‘based on its review of the relevant documentation and its field visit, and taking into account the sharply different views of the Requesters and Management, the Panel considered that the Request raises important issues of compliance and harm that can be addressed only in the context of an investigation.’ [2]

This full investigation it to be undertaken despite the South African government, backed by Algeria and Saudi Arabian Executive Directors of the World Bank requesting an almost unprecedented full meeting to discuss the project in an unsuccessful ploy to challenge the complaint and limit its scope.

‘This action highlights South African government’s anxiety about the fact that community people and NGO’s have raised concern about this project, and that there is truth in their evidence’ says Bobby Peek, Director of groundWork, Friends of the Earth South Africa who submitted together with Earthlife Africa Johannesburg a call for the inspection on behalf of the local community in the Waterberg.

Tristen Taylor of Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, raises the importance of being on the ground with the local people to understand the environmental justice impacts.  ‘When the inspection panel came to South Africa, interviewed the people, went to the area and actually saw what is going to happen and what is already happening, they got a bit of a wake-up call’.

Both groundWork and Earthlife Africa Jhb remain concerned about the conflict of interest between the World Bank loan, the Medupi power station, and the ANC’s financial stake in Chancellor House. This issue remains a blight upon the body politic of South Africa.

Earthlife Africa and groundWork together with our international allies especially those in Washington will continue to work with the local people to prepare for the full investigation.

For more information, please contact:

Bobby Peek
Director
groundWork
Cell: 082 464 1383
Website: www.groundwork.org.za

Tristen Taylor
Project Co-ordinator
Earthlife Africa Jhb
Tel: 011 339-3662
Cell: 084 250-2434
Email: tristen@earthlife.org.za
Website: www.earthlife.org.za

Footnotes:

[1] http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/Request_for_Inspection_(PUBLIC).pdf

[2] http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/Final_Elig_Rpt_for_Disclosure.pdf

 The miners have not received regular wages since February 2010. They are also living in their hostel without water and electricity, since the mine management company has not paid the bills from Eskom and Rand Water.

 Aurora Empowerment Systems operates the mine – a company that we would have expected to act more responsibly as its board members include Zondwa Mandela, Nelson Mandela’s grandson, and Khulubuse Zuma, President Zuma’s nephew. Michael Hulley, Jacob Zuma’s lawyer, is also on the board.

 Aurora’s treatment of its workers and inadequate management of its toxic mine water constitute gross violations of human rights. Earthlife Africa Jhb has called on the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) to take action in this matter. For more information see the letter below, sent to the SAHRC on 14 July 2010, endorsed by nine other civil society organisations. As of 23 July 2010 no reply has been received.

Download letter: Earthlife letter to SAHRC re. Aurora and human rights violations

Parliament’s water affairs portfolio committee finally wakes up to the acid mine drainage crisis see http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-07-21-johannesburg-on-acidic-water-time-bomb

The Department of Energy is planning the next fifty years of our future electricity generation choices in the space of five months. One month of planning for a decade! As you might expect, there’s a heavy bias towards nukes and coal.

From the introduction to our formal submission on the Integrated Resources Planning 2 (IRP2) process:

Very rarely do policymakers have the opportunity to avert disaster. Usually, it is only after some cataclysmic event (such as war or natural disaster) that the decisions proceeding that event are shown to be unwise, ill-considered, and more rational alternatives are made clear. Further, actors are often unaware of how their decisions will reverberate throughout history, acting not in the interest of the species at large but in narrow, short-term self-interest.

The Department of Energy (and, by extension, the South African Government) are not in this position. There is a possible disaster looming (the warming of the global climate causing massive erosion in the quality of this country’s ecology) that is widely considered a strong scientific possibility. We know what is coming if we do not act, and we know the solution; the urgent transition to a low-carbon economy.

Beyond this knowledge, we have both the capacity and opportunity to act. Somewhat fortuitously, the South Africa electricity sector is in need of a massive overhaul to replace the fleet of aging coal-fired power stations built in accordance with Apartheid’s ruthless minerals-energy complex paradigm. We are looking at an electricity generation bill of over a trillion rand; the question is, ultimately, do we use this trillion rand to solve the problem of climate change or do we stumble along on the same old development path that got us into this situation in the first place?

Or, more simply, do we have the guts to push aside the old ways of thinking, to take on the powerful interest groups, and seek real, substantive change?

The signs on one hand are not good. In advocating recently for a transition to a low carbon economy and the redirection of international funds (through the World Bank, for example) towards this end, South African civil society was declared unpatriotic by certain ministers. This submission on the IRP2 in not made in the spirit of nationalism or economic self-interest, but in a deeper spirit that lies at the base of South African culture, that of ubuntu, of the solidarity between all human beings regardless of culture, race, sex, religion or nationality, of the idea that my neighbour’s misfortune is my misfortune and her gain is mine.

Hopefully, the DoE will approach all the submissions in the IRP2 process in this manner.

On the other hand, the IRP2 represents an opportunity, as allude to above. It can be used to avoid the worst effects of climate change by making wise decisions today. It can be used as the vehicle to make those changes, and, hence, the IRP2 needs to well-considered and not rushed. The aim of stakeholder participation surely must be to received well-researched, informed, rational and in-depth contributions that will help to build a better, more efficient & effective, and transparent IRP2; the decisions taken on IRP2 are long-term and highly capital intensive, and mistakes made during this process could have generational impacts. Therefore, we must be cautious (but bold) about decision-making.

Lastly, it is worth pointing out that the DoE is constitutionally mandated to protect the rights of South Africa’s citizens to live in a safe and clean environment. We argue that it is this constitutional right must be uppermost in DoE planning processes. This right trumps a coal companies desire to open a new mine, Eskom’s desire to build a nuclear plant, or a wind company’s wish to build a wind farm.

A South Africa where drought blights the land, where fisheries collapse and malaria spreads, where famine stalks our towns and cities, and where our native species fade into extinction due to climate change can hardly be seen as the actualisation of our common right to a safe and clean environment.

Read the entire submission: Earthlife IRP2 Planning Assumption Submissions.

Page 3-1 of the ESKOM NUCEAR 1 FEIA admits that the proposed nuclear power plant would not commence generating electricity until 2018.   Energy conservation and wind power are both measures that can fill South Africa’s energy needs in a matter of months, not years.  Therefore, the EIA needs to inform South African authorities and its citizens whether the staggering cost of building a new nuclear power plant (taking commissioning, decommissioning and storage of waste into account) is a better way forward than investing limited public funds in initiating energy conservation measures or certain new energy generating projects that close the gap between energy needs and energy availability over a much shorter time period.

In conclusion, it is therefore submitted it is incumbent on the FEIR to consider the alternatives mentioned above and to provide a cost benefit analysis of the various options indicated above (especially the option of concentrated solar energy) against the cost of producing nuclear power, since in terms of the NEMA it is imperative to pursue the selection of the “best practical environmental option”.  This option is defined in NEMA as:

“the option that provides the most benefit  or causes the least damage  to the environment as a whole , at a cost acceptable to society in the long term as well as in the short term”

The failure to conduct such analysis, in particular with regard to concentrated solar energy constitutes a violation of the duty to place relevant information before the decision maker as well as a violation of NEMA Principle 2(4) (b), and any decision flowing from the FEIR  which is devoid of such analysis will be fatally flawed.

Read the entire submission: ELA Jhb EIA submission on Nuclear 1

The area has a rich biodiversity.  Within the national park there are 26 species that are on the international Red List of plants that have a high risk of becoming extinct. Over 400 types of birds have been recorded, included Pel’s Fishing Owl and the Martial Eagle. Large mammals such as eland, kudu, giraffe and elephant cross the Limpopo River, moving between Botswana, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

 The Mapungubwe cultural landscape tells the story of a southern African kingdom between AD900 and 1300, and the way of life of the San and Khoekhoe people thousands of years ago. 

Mapungubwe Hill

Mapungubwe Hill, is the site of an ancient city that was once an important trading route between north and east Africa, China and India. Southern African gold and iron objects, ivory carvings, ostrich eggshells and pottery were traded for glass beads, cloth and other goods from far away countries.

A golden rhino, one of the archaeological treasures of Mapungubwe

A San rock painting over 1000 years old

All this is at risk from pollution from proposed mining activities. Coal of Africa Ltd has already started activities 5.4 km from the border of the Mapungubwe National Park without a water license and without completing all Environmental Impact Assessment processes. See: http://www.earthlife.org.za/?p=1092

 The dire state of South Africa’s rivers, especially the Vaal, indicates that the government is unable to effectively implement environmental laws related to water. As of June 2010, it has also failed to deal effectively with acid mine drainage from past mining activities around Johannesburg, despite scientific reports warning of the current crisis since 1996. For years acid mine water has been flowing underground into the area around another World Heritage Site, the Cradle of Humankind, about 50 km from Johannesburg. The rock formations in the caves where the archaeological remains of our human ancestors were found are at risk of being destroyed by the acid water.

Many local communities object to the mine which is in an area in the north of South Africa near the Limpopo River that is special for:

• its high biodiversity  – South Africa, Zambia and Botswana have agreed to make the area a Transfrontier Conservation Area
• Mapungubwe National Park –  a UNESCO World Heritage Site that includes the remains of an ancient African city that was an international trading centre in the 1200s, see: http://www.earthlife.org.za/?p=1121. The proposed mine site is only 5.4 km from the park’s border. See photos below. 

The Mapungubwe National Park, where the Limpopo and Shashe Rivers meet (Photo: Nick Hiltermann)

The South African Department of Mineral Resources seems to be trading:

• jobs in ecotourism, renewable energy and agricultural sectors
• the clean water, air and soil needed for a healthy environment and sustainable livelihoods
• South Africa’s unique heritage and biodiversity
• South Africa’s reputation for honouring its international agreements.

 In return for:

• dirty fossil fuel – coal – for an electricity power station that will contribute to climate change
• air pollution – coal dust is very bad for people’s health
• water pollution – coal mines are a source of acid mine drainage
• limited jobs for local people in an unhealthy and unsustainable industry.

 Take action against unsustainable mining

On the grounds that CoAL’s Environmental Management Plan is deficient and that the approval of it by the Department of Mineral Resources is unlawful,  an appeal against the mine has been lodged by the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), the Peace Parks Foundation (PPF), the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA), the Mapungubwe Action Group (MAG), the Wilderness Foundation South Africa (the WFSA), the World Wide Fund for Nature South Africa (the WWF) and BirdLife South Africa (BLSA). The appellants are being represented by the Centre for Applied Legal Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand. 

 There has been some criticism of the proposed mine expressed by the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs. However, the powerful Department of Mineral Resources has earned a reputation for not accommodating the concerns of other government departments. Ordinary citizens can help to change this by showing the government that they are also opposed to the mining operation.

 Join the growing numbers of concerned people from around the world to save this international heritage site.

See:  http://www.ewt.org.za/getinvolved/savemapungubwe.aspx

 Spread the word: talk to friends and colleagues – show the South African government that we want it to effectively regulate mining and protect our health and environment.

 If you use facebook: Write a comment and join the debate on the Earthlife Africa Johannesburg facebook site. 

An existing threat to the area: 

An open cast coal mine on the Zimbabwe side of the Limpopo. It is suspected to be an illegal mine as it is within the 100 year flood line and the Environmental Impact Assessment report has not been seen despite requests from the Peace Parks Foundation (http://www.peaceparks.org/Home.htm)