The state of public participation in the EIA process and its role in South Africa: a case of Xolobeni

ABSTRACT

Public participation is an integral part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, as it provides opportunities for interested and affected parties (I&APs) to participate in the decision making process. This process is part of the legislative regime in South Africa and recognized as the main instrument to ensure that the proposed development is sustainable from a triple-helix perspective (i.e., ecological, socially, and economically sustainable). Therefore, the paper describes a case of public engagement in Xolobeni, located in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa, as well as the environmental politics that evolved from arguments that favoured development over environmental conservation. The proposed mining project was known as the Xolobeni mining development project. The Department of Minerals and Petroleum Resources announced in 2005 that an Australian company, Transworld Energy and Minerals (TEM), would establish a mining development project in Xolobeni to mine red sand dunes contained within five blocks, each named after the river that runs through it on its southern border. The Department of Minerals and Energy is the exclusive custodian of mining licences and thus the only Department that issues them, according to the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (Act 28 of 2002). When seeking mining rights, it also requires corporations to consult with local populations. The Amadiba Crisis Committee filed a mining licence appeal based on a lack of consultation. One of the complications was also brought about by the divided community. TEM’s solicitors sent a redacted copy of the mining right application to the community on 3 February 2016. The community was informed that drilling would begin on February 22nd, and that force would be employed if access was not granted. Following the receipt of the mining rights copy, an objection was lodged under section 10 of the MPRDA. The people resisted because they did not want their land, to be taken away. The community also opposed the proposed mining because they were concerned about the negative social, economic, and environmental effects. The land in Xolobeni was also used by the community for agriculture, or tourism and they did not want to lose that. The community also resists the migration of foreigners who wish to dwell in their village, fearing that they will overrun their way of life and impose a social lifestyle commonly connected with mining activity. The preceding study highlights the potential for conflict when communities reject the establishment of mining enterprises. As a result, the goal of this study is to see if incorporating community agreement into South Africa’s legal requirements for granting a mining licence could help to reduce community unrest. The High Court ruled in favour of Xolobeni residents in this mining rights case

KEYWORDS:

• Public participation
• EIA
• sustainable development
• Xolobeni
• mining
• process

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Recommendations

• Public participation is a process and consultation should adequate and be inclusive

• The public should be provided with sufficient information for better decision making

• Legislation should be read in context and interpreted correctly for example, the MPRDA and IPILRA should not be read in isolation.

• The involved government needs to work together to promote sustainability. Department of Minerals should not decide alone whether mining rights should be awarded or not. (may need to be elaboration) This will ensure that our future economic progress does not jeopardize the integrity of our environment

• There is a need for more research on issues of corruption during EIA

Study limitations

Due to the lack of resources, the researchers were not able to conduct a field study in the form of questionnaires and interviews.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2022.2087726