SA can’t rely on government to protect country’s resources
We depend on nature and the ocean for food, medicine and livelihoods
WHEN Sinegugu Zukulu, Nonhle Mbuthuma and Siyabonga Ndovela grew up, everything revolved around the life-giving ocean on the Wild Coast.
Their parents and grandparents taught them how the ocean mattered. For them, as members of fishing communities on the Wild Coast, like those on the West Coast, the ocean still matters.
They depend on the ocean for their sustainable livelihoods and take their connection to the ocean seriously.
They do not just go to the beach for recreation, but harvest food and medicines through a craft passed on from generation to generation.
They bear duties and obligations relating to the sea and other shared resources like our land and forests; it is incumbent on them to protect the natural resources, including the ocean, for present and future generations.
The ocean is the sacred site where their ancestors dwell, so they must ensure their ancestors are not unnecessarily disturbed and are content.
They are some of the applicants who celebrated the September 1 decision by the Eastern Cape High Court (Makhanda) putting an end to any seismic survey in the ocean off the Wild Coast.
The court held that the exploration rights granted by Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy Gwede Mantashe to Impact Africa and Shell were unlawful.
In their victory celebration, I could occasionally catch a sense of frustration between the lines, something they seemingly wanted to say but could
not. Now that the court judgment has affirmed their rights, they finally let rip. They argued in a cathartic conversation about the court decision’s impact.
Politicians are trampling over constitutional norms, making things that would once have shocked us seem routine.
But communities no longer cling to an old idea of impartiality and balance in Parliament as an institution elected to represent the people. They no longer automatically trust that the human rights of the poor and vulnerable people will get an equal say in decision-making on mining licence applications affecting their lives.
They no longer trust that scientific evidence and upholding human rights values will be allowed to prevail in deciding. Instead, they witness multinational corporations colluding with politicians in government effectively now weaponising licence application processes against them.
On the issue of environmental harm, the court found the decisionmaker should have adopted a precautionary approach due to the apparent dispute between expert evidence on the harms of seismic testing to marine life.
This preventive approach applies particularly when uncertainty requires risk aversion and caution.
How disturbing that Shell and Impact Africa argued to the end that seismic surveys are “routine” and there was no evidence that they are harmful to marine and bird life.
Above all, it is regrettable that Mantashe pinned his colours to Shell’s mast by refusing to review the exploration rights awarded to them and by opposing the interdict, instead of abiding by the interdict granted by Judge Gerald Bloem in December 2021.
I am very proud of the community activists involved in this case, some of whom I have trained, taught and mentored in human rights advocacy.
To me, their determination to fight is unmistakably more raw and personal in that those traditional leaders indirectly referenced in the case are my kinship. Traditional leaders are hardly alone in being accused of an incestuous relationship with power wielded by business and government.
On the issue of public participation, the court found it was incorrect for consultations to only be conducted with kings, monarchs and other traditional leaders and that such an approach “finds no space in a constitutional democracy”, and further, that “a chief does not denote a community”.
The court also found “there is no law, and none was pointed to, authorising traditional authorities to represent their communities in consultations”.
It further stated that “…meaningful consultations consist not in the ticking of a checklist, but in engaging in a genuine, bona fide substantive two-way process aimed at achieving, as far as possible, consensus”.
There’s nothing new about multinational mining companies stretching boundaries to obtain licences and rail against unflattering media coverage of the adverse consequences of their activities. It happened regularly under previous administrations in the early years of our democracy.
But when that outright flaunting of legislation and policies comes in, what matters to us citizens is knowing that our elected representatives in government have our backs covered.
Once those mining magnates learn that your elected representatives will surrender at the first hint of deal-sweeteners and kickbacks, they will keep pushing.
Passively relying on the government to protect the natural resources, including the ocean, for present and future generations becomes virtually impossible if someone in public office seems open to both deal-sweeteners and satisfying an insatiable appetite for fossil fuels.
Mantashe hung vulnerable communities in the Wild Coast out to dry in handling community complaints.
I wonder if he would continue doing the same to inland communities earmarked for fracking.