Different arms of the government are at one another’s throats over a proposed 21-storey dam on a major river that passes through the Kruger National Park and feeds Mozambique.
South African National Parks (SANParks) has threatened legal action against its principal, the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, and the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.
Water affairs plans to start building the R4billion De Hoop dam on a tributary of the Olifants river in the middle of this year, mainly to feed mining interests. But SANParks and critical NGOs protest that the project violates national and international laws and pits ministries against each other.
“It will boil down to which department has the most political clout,” said Nick King, executive director of the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), which rejects the project. “Water affairs’s mandate is the delivery of water, environmental affairs must conserve the resource base and SANParks protects biodiversity.”
In last year’s State of the Nation speech, President Thabo Mbeki announced the proposed De Hoop dam “to provide water for platinum mining and agriculture”. Half a dozen platinum mines are planned for surrounding Sekhukhuneland, which straddles the border between Mpumalanga and Limpopo.
But the Steelpoort river, where the dam will be built, is a major tributary feeding the Olifants. For the first time on record, the Olifants stopped flowing last year for 78 days because of drought and growing demands on its water.
Late last year, environmental affairs approved water affairs’s application for construction of the dam in a controversial record of decision, against which SANParks and at least four NGOs have appealed.
Water affairs said one reason it wants to build the dam is to supply three local municipalities with domestic water. But, asked the EWT in its appeal, “How will domestic supply be guaranteed? No evidence is provided that local communities will receive water, let alone be able to pay for it.”
In its appeal, SANParks said the dam would negatively affect tourism, wildlife and concession areas in the Kruger. “If our rivers dry up, the value of the tourism experience in Kruger will be diminished and tourism support for the area will cease.”
If the project went ahead without clear assurances that Kruger would continue to receive its share of downstream water — known as an “ecological reserve”— “SANParks will have no alternative but to approach an appropriate court for appropriate relief”.
SANParks added that the dam proposal “seriously compromises the relationship between South Africa and Mozambique”, which is upgrading the Massingir dam on its end of the Olifants river. Massingir has also come in for criticism, because it will flood parts of the Kruger and endanger an important breeding habitat of the Nile crocodile.
Vera Ribeiro, coordinator of the Mozambican environmental NGO Geasphere, said the Mozambique government had been notified about the De Hoop development. “But we are concerned there hasn’t been enough information adequately disseminated or disclosed on the project and about the potential impact on communities. The avail-able information is mostly in English and almost impossible for Mozambicans to assess and make informed decisions on.
“The two governments must adhere to the Southern African Development Community’s protocol on shared watercourses, with close cooperation to ensure the sustainable use of shared water bodies.”
Ribeiro expressed concern not only about the quantity of downstream water on the Mozambican side, but that chemical pollutants and heavy metals from mining would affect water quality.
Ironically, the EWT added, environmental affair’s own research had identified the Sekhukhuneland region as one of nine national conservation priority areas because of its high biodiversity and ecosystems service value. At least 20 species of plant found nowhere else on Earth will be flooded by the 1 700ha dam, along with at least 20 animal and reptile species already threatened with extinction.
Opponents of the dam were furious when environmental affairs released its record of decision in late November, giving them 30 days over the holiday period to appeal. SANParks said it was given no official communication of the decision, but “only received notification early in December 2005 through other means”.
JP Louw, head of communications at environmental affairs, said there was nothing malicious or intentional about the timing. “The fact that both the Wild Coast [N2 tollroad] and De Hoop decisions were issued towards the end of the calendar year is purely coincidental, and there is certainly no deliberate intent by the department to issue decisions on big or controversial applications during this period.”
After the furore over the Wild Coast decision in December 2004, Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Marthinus van Schalkwyk extended the appeal period for 30 days. But no such concession was made for the De Hoop dam this week.
“The law does not provide for an extension of the appeal period. Appellants will, however, be provided a second opportunity to make inputs when the minister avails the applicant’s responses to the grounds of appeals to appellants,” said ministerial representative Riaan Aucamp.