Save Mapungubwe
The story | Latest news | Documents | Images | Frequently Asked Questions | Videos
The story
The South African government has granted a license to an Australian mining company, Coal of Africa Ltd. (CoAL), to begin construction of an opencast and underground coal mine less than 6 km from the Mapungubwe National Park and adjacent to the World Heritage Site.
A stakeholder group consisting of the Endangered Wildlife Trust, the Mapungubwe Action Group, the Office of the International Coordinator and Greater Mapungubwe Transfrontier Conservation Area (GMTFCA) on behalf of Peace Parks Foundation objects to all industrial activity in that part of the very sensitive Limpopo Valley without an approved Integrated Regional Development Plan. The group, represented by the Centre for Applied Legal Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand, has lodged an appeal to address the serious shortcomings of the Environmental Management Programme (EMP) and to attempt to prevent further damage to this environmentally sensitive and culturally important environment for all South Africans.
The appellants also appealed to the Minister of Mineral Resources to exercise her powers in terms of section 103(4)(b) of the Mining and Petroleum Resources Development Act to suspend the right to mine, pending the outcome of this appeal.
Acknowledgment to the Bateleurs for sponsoring the two aerial photography trips (photographs available on Mapungubwe Mining Gallery below).
Follow our FIGHT TO SAVE MAPUNGUBWE on:
Latest news
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Mapungubwe important to South Africa?
Mapungubwe was the capital city of a flourishing African kingdom a thousand years ago and was one of 24 sites around the world added to UNESCO's World Heritage List in 2004. It is a natural treasure holding the history of 50 000 years of human development and contains priceless archaeological and paleontological treasures, with those thus far discovered likely representing the tip of the iceberg of historical and cultural knowledge contained in this delicate landscape. While Mapungubwe may be best known for the golden rhino and other gold objects recovered from the sit eof Mapungubwe Hill, the entire area encompassed by the Maungubwe Cultural Landscape World Heritage Site, contains a remarkably diverse collection of archaeological sites reflectign the complex history of South - and southern Africa. These include not only Farming Community or "Iron Age" sites but also numerous rock art sites, Early Middle and Later Stone Age sites, sites relating to the influx of pastoralists into the area and the later arrival of the trekkers. This represents an archaeological record stretching from 500 000 years ago to the nineteenth century. It was for all these reasons that the area's declaration as a World Heritage Site declared it as a "Cultural Landscape". This marks it as an area that contains a network of sites that can inform us about the long history of human interaction in this part of southern Africa, both with one another and with the environment. This kind of information is important to us, first, because like the people at Mapungubwe we too are facing various environmental and social crises and second, diverse populations in this area interacted, cooperated and fought with one another, long before South Africa was colonised. This adds to our understanding of South Africa's history and can shape the way that we interact with one another today.
In what way is Mapungubwe under threat?
The Vele mine is located 5.6 kms to the east of the Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape (MCL) World Heritage Site and bordering directly on the World Heritage Site buffer zone. As indicated in the Vele Mine’s Environmental Management Programme (EMP), 50% of the mine’s west pit will overlap the Viewshed protection area around the Mapungubwe National Park.
As such, it is very likely that the mine will impact on the World Heritage site in a number of ways including endangering protected species, causing dust and noise that disturbs the feel and look of the area, possible pollution of water resources and damage to and/or total destruction of culturally sacrosanct rock art.
What exactly is at risk of destruction & why?
The single most important aspect at risk of destruction is the permanent loss of a “green”, nature-based tourism destination, which will over time – if the mine continues to operate - be transformed to a “brown” industrial development area. The resultant impact of this will be the loss of a potential 2 million hectare transfrontier conservation area existing between Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe, which would be able to harness a similar wildlife product to the world renowned Kruger National Park but, with the added element of the cultural global significance of Mapungubwe, a historically highly civilized African existence hundreds of years before the first Europeans arrived.
In addition, the mining and related operations will impact significantly on plant and animal life, avifauna, invertebrate species and herpetofauna. The Vele Mine’s Environment Management Plan is poor on dealing with threatened species and does not even contain a reference to the local invertebrate species.
The mining and related operations will also negatively impact on the available water resources, in terms of both quantity and quality, in a region that is already water-stressed. These impacts have implications for South Africa’s international obligations in that the mining and related operations are being conducted on the banks of the Limpopo River, a shared watercourse with Zimbabwe, Botswana and Mozambique.
What do you say to the argument that once the mine is operational it will result in 30 000 direct and indirect jobs?
Figures such as these are rolled out by mines all the time and often do not come to fruition. The facts are, as quoted from the Vele Mine’s Environment Management Plan , that the mine will employ 826 permanent employees resulting in an impact on the direct livelihood of approximately 1 495 people. Whether this translates into 30 000 direct and indirect jobs is speculative.
In addition, after 29 years (being the approximate life span of a coal mine), the employment opportunities will end. In comparison, in the tourism sector at least 700 permanent jobs currently exist in the core of the Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA) whilst the conservative estimated direct jobs to be created within the TFCA over the next 15 years amounts to 3 904 direct jobs. The fundamental difference being that these employment opportunities are sustainable and the intact environment will continue to contribute towards the GDP of the country for the benefit of all future generations.
Further to the speculative figures used in support of the mine, the Mapungubwe region does not have enough people to supply the estimated employment number, which suggests that workers may have to be brought in, with social and cultural consequences.
The figures also do not take into account the jobs that will be lost in other thriving industries in the region such as agriculture and ecotourism. Jobs in the these sectors employ wider diversity of people including women and elderly people, whereas mining usually only targets a limited range of people in terms of demographic factors.
Jobs in mines also often come with serious health and social impacts. In the move towards a Green Economy, dependence on mining for the only form of job creation will leave South Africa in the dark ages. The MCL offers opportunities for many other forms of jobs that are sustainable, more socially equitable and less environmentally damaging. If local people lose out on access to natural resources (such as clean water), the income from their jobs in mines will have to be significant enough to compensate for this and we have yet to see this happen, so the opportunity cost of these ‘jobs’ must also be carefully measured.
What do you say to the argument that any action to stop the building of the intended mine is actually hindering economic growth?
Again, this assumes that the only form of economic growth is mining which, if true would spell a disastrous long term future for SA. Any business that relies on utilising its non-renewable capital base for its sole form of income will soon run into trouble. Whilst SA is currently heavily reliant on the mining sector for job creation and income, and no-one disputes this, it cannot remain the case forever. It is the more diversified economies that have the greatest competitive edge in the global marketplace. It is also vital to weigh up the opportunity cost of mining in certain areas as the short term gains may not justify the long term costs and losses which may be a bigger burden to the economy. So when mining destroys water catchments, causes the loss of agricultural land, pollutes the air and rivers, destroys valuable biodiversity, effects ecotourism etc, it should be considered against the opportunity costs as well as the other development options that may be suited to the region and will be more equitable and less damaging in the long term.
What do you say to the argument that the land upon which the mine will operate will be rehabilitated?
Mopane veld does not rehabilitate back to its original form. It is also impossible to fully rehabilitate any disturbed area 100% and certainly, with the resources set aside by most mining companies to do this, there is clearly no intention to even try in some cases.
Once water has been used up, it cannot be re-created, once the dust and noise have affected the agricultural farms, their businesses cannot be revived. Once heritage sites have been destroyed, they cannot be re-created. The word ‘rehabilitation’ is thrown around a lot without a full appreciation for what this means or what it entails.
What should Business SA be aware of in relation to this matter?
This mine, and many others are being proposed in sensitive areas. Development therefore needs to be contextualised within the broader landscape of SA. A strategic assessment of the most appropriate land uses and wisest use of our limited resources should be undertaken to inform decision making around the RIGHT kind of development. Right now, development agendas are being driven by individual companies with very selfish interest. This needs to shift to a more strategic approach to development in which mining has its key place, but not at the risk of all other development opportunities and our own long term sustainability.
To those South Africans who support the building of the mine, what do you have to say to them that is in addition to what has been said already?
People need to interrogate what they are being told. The employment numbers need to be validated. The claims about restoration and limited impact need to be investigated. The acid mine drainage crisis facing Gauteng right now is evidence of how decisions taken for the sake of ‘development’ were ill informed in terms of the long term consequences and how mitigation measures have been grossly inadequate. We cannot afford to keep making these same errors when faced with new development plans that clearly benefit a few over the short term as opposed to many over the long term. We have to learn from the past! We’re not against mining. But certain areas should not be sacrificed to short term gains at the cost of a sustainable future.
How can businesses and ordinary South Africans show their support and assist in this campaign?
By becoming better informed about the real risks posed by many current mining applications that are threatening to destroy large tracts of sensitive ecosystems and cultural landscapes, as well as that which compromises many community’s access to resources and a healthy environment.
Investors need to rethink investing in such projects and collectively, we need to increase the pressure on government and various sectors of industry to start moving towards a Green Economy and seizing the enormous opportunities that are open to a developing country like SA, and to demonstrate leadership in this area by filling the niche , which ultimately results in a more prosperous and healthier future for us all.
People need to interrogate what they are being told. The employment numbers need to be validated. The claims about restoration and limited impact need to be investigated. The acid mine drainage crisis facing Gauteng right now is evidence of how decisions taken for the sake of ‘development’ were ill informed in terms of the long term consequences and how mitigation measures have been grossly inadequate. We cannot afford to keep making these same errors when faced with new development plans that clearly benefit a few over the short term as opposed to many over the long term. We have to learn from the past! We’re not against mining. But certain areas should not be sacrificed to short term gains at the cost of a sustainable future.