Alarm bells: South Africa could earn the dubious honour of being the first country to allow seabed mining if the government does not reverse its go-ahead to mine the ocean's depths for phosphate.
COMMENT
Seabed mining has been labelled a new resource frontier and an environmental disaster. In the past, plans for commercial-scale marine sediment mining have been dampened by technological and financial constraints. This is no longer the case. There is renewed and rapidly growing commercial interest in seabed mining, with corporates and governments lining up to explore and mine the ocean floor for its rich mineral deposits. In South Africa’s case, the mineral of the moment is phosphate.
Recently, the department of mineral resources granted three prospecting rights for marine phosphate in South Africa’s exclusive economic zone to Green Flash Trading 251 (Pty) Ltd, Green Flash Trading 257 (Pty) Ltd and Diamond Fields International. Since prospecting rights are being granted there, there is every indication that marine mining will become a reality.
Yet the environmental and socioeconomic implications of seabed mining in our marine environment have not been assessed. Alarm bells should be sounding.
In response to concerns over seabed mining, a group of organisations formed a coalition called the Safeguard Our Seabed Coalition. The coalition includes organisations such as FishSA, the Responsible Fisheries Alliance, the Centre for Environmental Rights, the South African Deep-Sea Trawling Industry Association, the Masifundise Development Trust, BirdLife South Africa and the South African branch of the World Wide Fund for Nature.
The coalition’s key objective is to pursue a moratorium on seabed mining in South Africa. It believes that – at least until appropriate impact studies have been conducted and a strategic environmental assessment has been concluded – a moratorium is the only sane approach to seabed mining. Here is why.
Limited knowledge
There is very limited knowledge about the impact of seabed mining. Preliminary impact studies demonstrate that seabed mining would have a severe and irreversible impact on marine ecosystems. These studies suggest that there is no feasible way to mitigate these effects and there are no standards, management systems or protocols that can be put in place to reduce the destruction.
There is also limited knowledge about the ecological importance of seabed ecosystems. These ecosystems provide habitat, feeding, spawning and breeding areas for a staggering variety of marine species, many of which are commercially important.
Our marine environment further provides ecosystem services that are critical for the health and, indeed, survival of our planet, including carbon sequestration and oxygen production. We do not know enough about the relationship between the seabed and these critical ecosystem services. Permitting mining, in these circumstances, could have incalculable impacts.
The type of technology employed for seabed mining, trailing suction hopper dredging, has not been tested anywhere else in the world. It involves dredging and removing sediment at an alarming rate.
As outlined in recent seabed mining project proposals, a large dredging vessel could remove up to 5.5-million tonnes of sediment annually. Fine particulates and excess water would be released back into the water column in a giant plume that would bury and smother marine habitats.
For this reason, no other country has permitted seabed mining within its territorial waters. Countries that have received applications have refused consent, placed a moratorium on such operations or established a permanent ban. These include New Zealand, Australia and Namibia. If South Africa permits seabed mining, we will become the only country in the world to allow such a destructive practice. This will make us an international pariah in the governance and stewardship of the marine environment, and guilty of irresponsible mining practices.
Permitting seabed mining would also fly in the face of regional treaties and diplomacy. Seabed mining would not only have a devastating effect on our fisheries, but also on Namibian and Angolan fisheries. It is precisely because we share many marine resources that South Africa is a signatory and member of the Benguela Current Convention, which requires us to work together to manage shared marine resources.
It would be irrational for South Africa to allow the very mining activity on which Namibia has placed a moratorium when our activities will have a devastating effect on the fish stocks Namibia seeks to protect.
Harm to fishing industry
Of critical concern is that reduced fish stocks would, in turn, harm commercial and small-scale fishing and the associated jobs, livelihoods and food security benefits. South Africa’s commercial fishing industry contributes considerably to our economy.
A report by the department of agriculture, forestry and fisheries states that commercial fisheries contribute about R3.1-billion in export revenue alone to our gross domestic product and employ in the region of 27 000 people, with another 100 000 employed in fishery-related enterprises.
Our marine environment also supports 28 000 fisher households and some 150 fishing communities. These communities rely on continued fish stocks for livelihood, nutrition, food access and affordability, as well as income. Operated responsibly, fisheries are a renewable industry where seabed mining is not. Furthermore, the scale and location of the prospecting rights already granted is irrational, irresponsible and inappropriate.
Net loss: The local and regional fishing industry stands to lose out if fish stocks are depleted by offshore mining. (Paul Botes, M&G)
The prospecting areas are vast, together totalling more than 150 000km2. These areas coincide with several existing fishery footprints, including South Africa’s only Marine Stewardship Council-accredited fishery, which employs 12 000 people and generates about R4-billion in revenue every year.
The deep-sea trawling industry has operated sustainably for 120 years, creating thousands of jobs, within the area where the prospecting rights have been granted – and could continue to do so in perpetuity, provided the trawling grounds are not destroyed by seabed mining.
This sustainable industry and its thousands of workers are being threatened by an industry that would probably have a lifetime of only a few decades.
Thousands more in other fishing sectors such as chokka squid, the small pelagics and South Coast rock lobster are also being threatened. The areas also overlap with critically endangered ecosystems and habitats that have been earmarked for protection as part of a proposed network of offshore marine-protected areas.
The food security arguments raised by mining companies and governments to justify marine phosphate mining are problematic. Several companies argue that phosphorous is an essential agricultural input, conventional sources are dwindling and seabed mining will ensure food security.
This is misleading on a number of fronts. First, South Africa does not have a shortage of phosphates and our farming is increasingly criticised for its excessive use of inorganic fertilisers and the associated long-term negative effect on soil health. Furthermore, an excess of phosphates causes a multitude of negative environmental impacts when it enters our sewerage systems or leaches into streams and rivers. These include risks to human health and the death of marine species and livestock.
Second, there are viable alternatives for ensuring continued phosphate supplies. These include recycling phosphates through composting or using organic manure and phosphate recovery from sewage treatment facilities.
Gaps in frameworks
There are considerable gaps in South Africa’s legal and governance frameworks related to seabed mining. Our current legislative framework for mining, the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, does not deal explicitly with offshore mining.
Many provisions in the Act, particularly related to consultation and environmental impact, would be difficult to translate to offshore mining. Currently, the mineral resources department has inadequate capacity for monitoring and enforcing compliance with environmental management plans and the conditions of environmental authorisations when it comes to terrestrial mining. Where is it intending to get the capacity, experience and knowledge required to conduct such compliance, monitoring and enforcement for seabed prospecting and mining?
Finally, our marine environment is remarkably beautiful, complex, rich and abundant. The health of our country – our people and our environment and, therefore, our economy – depends on the health of our ocean. We have a duty of care towards our ocean, both for its intrinsic value and our own wellbeing.
The coalition recently addressed a letter to the minister of mineral resources to outline its concerns. It requested a high-level meeting with the department to motivate for a moratorium on seabed mining. It awaits the minister’s response.
We as South Africans have the constitutional right to an environment that is not harmful to our health or wellbeing, and to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations. Permitting seabed mining in our oceans will directly violate that right.
Saul Roux is a legal campaigner at the Centre for Environmental Rights