The MMSEZ, which was designated in 2017, comprises a northern light industrial site near Musina, focused on manufacturing, agro-processing and logistics sectors, and a southern heavy industrial site focused on mainly steel manufacturing.
The development of the proposed Musina-Makhado Special Economic Zone (MMSEZ) in Limpopo threatens the heritage integrity of the Mapungubwe cultural landscape, a Unesco-inscribed world heritage site, which lies in the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve (VBR).
This is according to the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (Sage), which is housed in the Academy of Science of South Africa.
“The development of the MMSEZ will degrade critically biodiverse areas and irrevocably threaten the ecological integrity and conservation goals of the VBR, a designated Unesco biosphere reserve,” the Sage sub-committee on the environmental and heritage implications of the MMSEZ said.
It consists of Aliza le Roux and Peter J Taylor of the University of the Free State, Stefan Foord and Lutendo Mugwedi of the University of Venda, Lauren Liebenberg, of Living Limpopo, John Rosmarin, of the VBR, Keagan Pokpas of the University of Western Cape, Sershen Naidoo, of the Institute of Natural Resources and Jerome Amir Singh, of Sage.
The MMSEZ, which was designated in 2017, comprises a northern light industrial site near Musina, focused on manufacturing, agro-processing and logistics sectors, and a southern heavy industrial site focused on mainly steel manufacturing. The zone is north of the Soutpansberg on the Musina-Makhado municipal boundary.
Threats to wetlands, water security
“Given its potential detrimental impact on water resources in the area, the development of
the MMSEZ could threaten sensitive wetlands within the VBR, including the Makuleke Wetlands, a designated Unesco Ramsar site,” the sub-committee said.
Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance.
The development poses a threat to the region’s water security and will probably prejudice water users in Limpopo and outside South Africa, particularly water-scarce and drought-prone Zimbabwe, which has been proposed as the source of a dam to
supply the envisaged water-intensive industries of the MMSEZ.
It will lead to an increase in South Africa’s greenhouse gas emissions, in contravention of international commitments to reduce its emissions. The development will yield high levels of air, soil and water pollution, detrimentally affecting human health, and degrade the ecological functionality of the area, Sage said.
These outcomes are “incompatible” with the domestically enshrined, and internationally recognised, human rights of affected stakeholders to a healthy environment. The zone will also detrimentally affect other sectors crucial to sustaining livelihoods in the region, including farming and tourism.
Flawed process
Sage said different departments and entities of the Limpopo provincial government, “are serving as the developers, approval authority (including in relation to environmental
authorisation), and adjudicatory appeals authority, of the proposed MMSEZ”.
The environmental impact assessment process (EIA) is “flawed” and “not in the interest of the public and the environment, on multiple levels”, it said, adding that what it called the Limpopo government’s vested interest in the MMSEZ represented a “patent conflict of interest” and rendered its oversight of the approval and appeals process flawed.
The impending development “represents an imminent threat to the region’s ecological integrity, cultural heritage, palaeontological heritage, water security, tourism sector and agricultural sector” and thus constitutes an emergency, Sage added.
Recommendations
Among Sage’s recommendations are that the national government’s executive and the Limpopo government’s executive should urgently institute a moratorium on activities, including vegetation clearance for fencing and bulk services infrastructure.
It says independent experts should conduct a cost-benefit analysis based on accepted full-cost accounting methodologies. “Such an assessment needs to consider the feasibility and viability of the project, particularly in the context of climate change, water scarcity, South Africa’s power generation capacity constraints, South Africa’s commitment to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, and the country’s fiscal constraints.”
Sage urged the national and provincial governments to respect South Africa’s international commitments to green energy conversion and its embrace of a just energy transition, in line with the Paris Agreement, as well as biodiversity conservation, in line with the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The MMSEZ state-owned company (MMSEZ SOC) said it had no comment on the advisory, while the Limpopo department of economic development, environment and tourism (Ledet) did not respond to the Mail & Guardian’s queries.
Legal challenge
Meanwhile, a civil society coalition has approached the high court in Polokwane to review and set aside the environmental authorisation granted for the first stages of construction, which entails vegetation clearance for fencing and bulk services infrastructure on the project’s south site.
The applicants are the Herd Nature Reserve, Living Limpopo and the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, who are being represented by All Rise Attorneys for Climate and Environmental Justice.
Cited in the legal papers are the Limpopo Economic Development Agency (Leda), Limpopo’s member of the executive council for economic development, environment and tourism, the provincial chief director for environmental trade and protection at Ledet, the minister of forestry, fisheries and the environment as well as the MMSEZ SOC.
Procedurally fair
In a statement, the applicants noted that the final EIA report issued in February 2021 by Delta Built Environment Consultants did not recommend authorisation but “in spite of this, the Limpopo provincial government proceeded to appoint another environmental assessment practitioner [EnviroXcellence] to issue a revised final EIA report in September 2021, which paved the way to grant itself authorisation in February [2022]”.
Cals and All Rise, along with several civil society organisations, brought internal appeals against the decision to grant environmental authorisation, which were all dismissed in July last year.
“We have therefore approached the high court to review and set aside the environmental authorisation and instead uphold our appeal. We argue that the EIA, appeal and public participation processes needed to be more procedurally fair and properly consider the impacts on, among other things, climate change and water security,” they said.
The MMSEZ SOC referred the M&G to Ledet and Leda. Zaid Kalla, Ledet’s spokesperson, said: “Regrettably, the department will not be able to comment on the matter as it is sub-judice.” Leda did not respond.
‘Fatally flawed’
In their founding affidavit, the applicants said “project splitting” of the EIA process has resulted in this environmental authorisation being granted for only one aspect of the entire project.
“This one aspect is dependent on the numerous other environmental authorisations for all the subsequent aspects being successful. However, according to the various specialist studies such as climate impact, water and energy, there are a number of uncertainties that exist and many more studies and assessments to be done. Project splitting of this nature has ultimately resulted in a failure to adequately consider the need and desirability of the project.”
In authorising the irreversible destruction of thousands of hectares of pristine indigenous vegetation, thereby eliminating a carbon sink and harming people who depend on the functioning of an intact ecosystems of the savanna biome and the biodiversity it sustains for food security and livelihoods, this initial environmental assessment itself constitutes a breach of the Constitution’s section 24 right, said Liebenberg, the director of Living Limpopo, in her founding affidavit.
Moreover, approval for site clearance and establishment of the south site of the MMSEZ enables the commencement of the development and “thus serves as a de facto approval for the MMSEZ itself in the absence of a proper assessment of its impacts”.
‘Dangerous path’
Liebenberg said: “On its own specialists’ versions, the coal-based MMSEZ will take South Africa down a dangerous developmental path, seriously jeopardise our greenhouse gas emissions reduction commitments, with significant economic and political consequences for the country, and flies in the face of the urgent need to decarbonise the economy in order to protect the planet from the serious risks of rising atmospheric temperatures.”
The emissions released by the industrial plants in the zone over its operational lifetime of 30 years “will consume as much as 10% of South Africa’s carbon budget, making the project’s climate impacts alone absolutely dire”.
The applicants’ founding affidavit cites how, on 2 March 2022, Lelhogonolo Masoga, the chief executive of the MMSEZ SOC, announced publicly that plans to build a coal-fired power plant to provide electricity for the hub’s proposed steel, coking and pig iron plants had been ditched.
“Environmentalists said no. World leaders said no — [saying instead] let’s reduce our carbon footprint and stop producing energy through coal … we have abandoned that part of the project. We are now focusing on solar.”
In September last year, Masoga told City Press: “One of the appeal grounds by various organisations about the EIA was that we wanted to build a coal-fired power station. We have abandoned it and we are now going to use a combination of Eskom power, solar supported by battery storage and hydrogen.”
The EnviroXcellence EIA report noted that the construction of a photovoltaic solar farm to support industrial activities in the zone was not viable, recommending a combination of renewable energy and a scaled-down independent coal-fired power plant.
According to the applicants, “even in the absence of coal-fuelled power generation, the project cannot be decarbonised and will have a significant impact on South Africa’s cumulative emissions regardless of the power source”.
“Coal is a primary input in steel manufacture and proximity to the coal deposits of the Soutpansberg and Limpopo Valley coalfield is repeatedly given as the economic rationale for steel manufacturing as the SEZ’s primary activity.”
[/membership]