Craig Bishop
Port Elizabeth business leaders, trade unionists and politicians are uncorking the champagne in anticipation of the go- ahead for development of Africa’s first deep-water port at Coega, about 7km outside the city.
But a growing band of environmentalists and social critics are determined to take the fizz out of their celebrations. They are up in arms over what they call “an [outdated] 1960s route to development”.
Consultants Africa Environmental Solutions recently completed an environmental impact report commissioned by zinc manufacturer Billiton – which plans to build a R2,7- billion refinery at Coega, provided Portnet goes ahead with its intention to spend R1,7-billion on the port.
The report will be handed to the provincial Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism next Monday June 15. The department will then have only five days to decide whether to grant a permit to allow the development at Coega to go ahead.
This time-frame “imposed by Billiton” is “totally unrealistic”, says Boyce Patu, the deputy director of the environmental NGO, the Southern African Environmental Project. “We are very unhappy with government’s response to the issues we have raised. The present timetable does not give adequate opportunity for the public to respond.”
Billiton’s zinc refinery is expected to pump out 770 tons of sulphur dioxide a year, adding to the already high levels of pollution in the Port Elizabeth region. Environmentalists are concerned that the development of more heavy industry will have a serious impact on citrus growers in the Sundays and Coega River valleys – which represent 30% of South Africa’s citrus industry – the Algoa Bay fishing and mariculture industries, and the nature reserves in or near the Coega region.
Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Pallo Jordan says “the best of First World environmental standards will apply at Coega”. And the chief executive officer of Port Elizabeth’s Chamber of Commerce, Kevin Wakeford, warns South Africa will lose investment and trade to other parts of the southern hemisphere if Coega does not go ahead.
“World trends are moving towards huge, new-generation vessels that carry 7 000 containers per trip. Coega could be the southern hemisphere’s first deep-water port that complies with the standards set by the International Standards Organisation. South Africa, through Coega, could become the hub of the world’s shipping movement,” says Wakeford.
But the director of the Southern African Environmental Project, Norton Tennille, says the government is following a “1960s route to development. Did you see the movie Field of Dreams? That’s Coega – build it and they will come.”
Critics of development strategies that focus on “dirty industries” are urging the government to look at alternatives.
Richard Haines, professor of sociology at the University of Port Elizabeth, says ecotourism and agriculture could transform the region into the “Disneyland of the 21st century. The government needs to do a cost-benefit analysis before Coega happens. We have the `big five’ in a malaria-free, historical- heritage area, and all of this stands to be affected by Coega.”
Stephen Hoskings, professor of economics at the university, also challenges the “economic hype” of the Coega industrial development zone: “It will be a pleasant surprise if the total number of jobs over the two-and-a-half-year construction phase exceeds 5 000 – at least 20 000 less than Wakeford declared there would be.”
The director of Africa Environmental Solutions, Chris Dalgleish, this week gave assurances that its report is “not a sweetheart report. Billiton has expressed a clear indication for an Eastern Cape site, but nothing has been compromised. We have always stood our ground as an independent environmental body.” – DMA
This is echoed by the permanent secretary for nature conservation at the provincial Department of Environmental Affairs, Maria Mbengash
, who will head the panel that decides whether the Coega development gets the nod. “Billiton cannot pressure us,” she says. “If our scientific support group is unsatisfied with the environmental impact report, we will refuse the permit.” – DMA
Critics of development strategies that focus on “dirty industries” are urging the government to look at alternatives.