The appeal was brought on the grounds that the EMP submitted by CoAL is deficient and that the approval of the EMP is unlawful and invalid because it purports to authorise conduct which is prohibited and unlawful in terms of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 57 of 2003. Specifically, the EMP omits to consider certain consequences of mining in the area; misrepresents the true consequences of mining in the area; misrepresents the true impact of the consequences of mining in the area it identifies; and is premised on fundamentally erroneous assumptions regarding the nature of the mining to be done, the appropriate methods of evaluating its impact and the possibility of effectively managing or mitigating such impacts.
Areas of major concern to the appellants include concerns for the sensitive landscapes in and around of the mining area; the statutory prohibition against mining on those portions of the mining area that have been proclaimed nature reserves; the archaeological and other heritage resources affected by the mining; the impact on biodiversity and specifically on habitat, ecosystems and various species in the mining area; the impact on the quantity and quality of water resources; the noise and dust pollution that will be caused by mining; and the impact on the socio-economic conditions of persons affected by the mining operations, including such persons' rights, under section 24(a) of the Constitution, to an environment that is not harmful to their health and well-being. Furthermore, concern has been raised for the failure of the EMP approval process to comply with the public consultation required in terms of the Act in that relevant persons and communities, including affected parties in Zimbabwe and Botswana (which border this mine) were either ignored or their specific concerns ignored, or they were not consulted at all when they should have been.
Further, Mapungubwe represents "a significant stage in the history of the African sub-continent", and therefore, the significance of preserving the Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape, both to South Africa and the world at large cannot be overstated.
Of significance are the concerns is the irreparable damage to the archaeological and palaeontological heritage resources which make this region so unique. The open-cast activities, according to the EMP itself, will result in the "total destruction" of any surface and sub-surface heritage resources and the palaeontological
remains that might exist. Rock art experts feel that the area has been insufficiently surveyed for rock art and that the potential impact of dust, vibrations and a change in the water table on rock art in the surrounding area, has not been dealt with adequately. The farms immediately north and west of Vele have been extensively surveyed for rock art and almost every farm has been shown to have rock art. Well known and important rock art sites immediately north and west of Vele will be impacted in serious and unacceptable ways, by the proposed mining work at Vele and any unknown sites at Vele will be destroyed should mining be allowed to proceed.
The Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape is an important part of South and southern Africa's heritage and is part of South Africa's national estate. Indeed, its designation as a World Heritage Site underscores its internationally recognised importance for informing us about early state formation processes in Africa and the important insights that the Mapungubwe hilltop and its related sites hold for our understanding of southern Africa's history.
Threats to the water resources are also significant and include acid mine drainage, surface and groundwater contamination, impacts on the quality and quantity of water on the Zimbabwean side of the Limpopo River, the impact of water abstraction on the boreholes situated along the Limpopo floodplain and the damage and loss to irrigation farmers (with associated impacts on food security) on both sides of the Limpopo River.
The concerns with this mine are great and are extensively covered in the appeal, which is available on request. Given the recent commitments of the South African Government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 34% in the years to come, the continued exploitation at all costs of our coal reserves and the ongoing development of coal fired power stations flies in the face of the country's attempts to be taken seriously for our commitments to address the scourge of global climate change. The appellants firmly believe that this mine is not only an inappropriate landuse for the MCL and a region that it already thriving on a sustainable ecotourism industry, but that it makes a mockery of our regulatory framework if the inadequacies of the EMP can be overlooked for the sake of expediting its approval. The losses incurred to South Africa, and the world at large, if this mine proceeds, will be great. At a time when South Africa is being showcased to the rest of the world and is trying to project a positive future, it would be sad if we were to bury our past in a heap of coal and rubble.