Phosphate mine proposal in national park sparks outrage

Mail & Guardian

01-05-2025

SANParks and the WWF are blocking the mining application inside West Coast National Park
Last September
On 14 March, it formally applied for a portion of phosphate-bearing land to be excluded from the park in the Western Cape to allow it to mine in the area.
'To compensate for the potential deproclamation of the relevant area, Kropz has formally offered
This proposed land swop 'would not only consolidate' the park's footprint but also support SANParks' 'long-term biodiversity goals' with the addition of infrastructure and land access, it said.
The focal conservation point of the 40 000ha park is the
SANParks person JP Louw said: 'SANParks cannot allow any mining activities within a declared national park, as this is prohibited under section 48(1)(a) of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act [Nempaa]. We have communicated this official position to Kropz and other relevant stakeholders.'
Last week, environmental group WWF-SA
'WWF will do anything in its power to preserve the long-term security of irreplaceable biodiversity assets within our national parks system, which at best represents a relatively small proportion of our total land surface area,' it said.
Its chief executive, Morne du Plessis, told the
Mail & Guardian
: 'The land on which the phosphate-bearing deposit sits inside the park is immediately adjacent to the existing mine, which is just outside.
'The land with the phosphate inside the park technically belongs to the
'SANParks have transferred the request from the mining company to us because, as owners, we could or should give a response as to whether we would be open to stepping away.
'We would just say no; we wouldn't entertain this because we've said it in public and that would be the end of going after the phosphate inside the park.'
The trust owns 17 separate properties that have been declared to be part of the West Coast National Park. Five properties form part of the park that are either contiguous or located in close proximity to the Elandsfontein mine.
'The thing that can't be underemphasised is its importance in terms of migratory pathways,' said Du Plessis. 'That's what gives it Ramsar status, which means you're not just messing with impacting with something that is local but you're also messing with large numbers — tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands — of migrating shorebirds and they belong to everybody along the migration route, all the way to their breeding grounds in Eurasia.'
The park is also home to more than 250 bird species, including large populations of waders and flamingos, and is known for its spring wildflower displays.
Kropz' response
Kropz said it was granted a mining right by the then-department of mineral resources and energy in January 2015 to mine phosphate on portions 2 and 4 of the farm Elandsfontein 239. The farm is owned by Elandsfontein Land Holdings Ltd, a subsidiary of the Kropz Group.
'The phosphate ore body extends into the adjoining farm (portion 3 of Elandsfontein 349), which was incorporated in the West Coast National Park in 2013, at a time when Kropz was already in the process of applying for its mining rights.'
In accordance with section 20(2) of Nempaa, Kropz submitted an application on 14 March to SANParks, requesting the exclusion of this portion of land from the park. 'Section 21(2) of Nempaa provides a lawful mechanism for such an exclusion when there is agreement between the parties.'
The company said the 'phosphate-rich nature of the land in question' is a matter of public record, with official drilling data held by the Council of Geoscience. Phosphate is used to produce fertilisers for agriculture.
The mine supports more than 500 direct jobs, primarily from the neighbouring town of Hopefield.
'With a conservative estimate of 1:10 dependency, over 5 000 individuals rely on the continued operation of the mine. In a country with one of the highest unemployment rates globally, the socio-economic contribution of Elandsfontein Mine is significant.'
'We are committed to responsible environmental stewardship and deeply committed to the sustainable use of South Africa's natural resources,' said Kropz's chief executive, Louis Loubser.
'At the same time, we are fully aware of our responsibility to protect the livelihoods of our employees and their families. We operate under the firm belief that economic development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive — we can and must do both.'
The company said it has always complied with all its environmental authorisations and undergoes regular audits by the department of forestry, fisheries and the environment, the department of water and sanitation and the department of mineral resources.
'I do think the company, if they pursue this further, will try and make a very strong social argument for the unemployment and destitute communities. One should also remember that these deposits have a 15-year lifespan. After that, what could be mined would have been mined and then what?' Du Plessis said.
Biodiversity offset that never was
But legal action is already playing out over Kropz's failure to implement earlier biodiversity offset conditions imposed on it in 2015 to mitigate damage done through its opencast mine operation.
In March, WWF-SA filed papers in the Western Cape high court to set aside the decision by Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Minister Dion George to dismiss appeals filed in 2020 against an offset exemption granted to the Elandsfontein mine.
On 10 September, George, who acts as an environmental appeal authority, upheld the decision of the minister of mineral resources to remove the offset requirement from Kropz Elandsfontein's environmental management programme (EMPr).
The mining company was first given permission to mine at Elandsfontein in 2015 but failed to implement the biodiversity offset conditions, which were to have been implemented within the first year of operation. This offset involved the company's purchase and donation of about 10 000ha to the West Coast National Park.
In 2019, Kropz successfully negotiated with the department of mineral resources to have these conditions removed.
'No decision was made by the appeal authority, which was the [former] minister of environment, Barbara Creecy, for four years until Dion George, the new minister was appointed and within two or three months,he rejected all the appeals. He said, 'no, it's cool, mineral resources was right; there was legally no justification for granting this appeal',' Du Plessis said.
'That's the issue we've taken on review at the high court because we believe he's been poorly advised. We are arguing that that biodiversity offset condition has to be reinstated.'
In his founding affidavit, Du Plessis noted: 'Reduced to its essence the right to mine Elandsfontein, was procured by Kropz based on assurances of a biodiversity offset. Several conditions aimed at enforcing the implementation of the biodiversity offset were included in the environmental management programme report in consequence of the environmental impact assessment process.
'Despite the requirements in the EMPr that the offset be established within one year, it was not. Nearly five years later, precipitated no doubt by the poor financial performance of the mine, a less costly solution presented itself to Kropz, the amendment of the EMPr.'
The amendment was achieved 'through the impugned decisions of the regional manager and the minister (on appeal) to purportedly 'remove' the offset condition'.
'This has had the effect of clearing Kropz of the duty to establish an offset, and in so doing, adequately compensate for the environmental damage caused by its mine. WWF, would have expected a company like Kropz with its associated shareholders to have held itself to a higher level of environmental and social responsibility than that which has been evidenced in the facts of this matter,' he said.
He added that 'the main game for us in town' is taking George's appeal decision on review.
Kropz, the department of forestry, fisheries and the environment and of mineral resources and petroleum had not responded to the
M&G'
s enquiries by the time of publication.
WWF-SA doesn't readily opt for litigation, Du Plessis said.
'We've only ever once taken a minister to court. This is really not our preferred way of solving issues but in this case it's the only way.'