Monday, June 15, 2009

The other side of the story

Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Maranda press release
PRESS STATEMENT
MARANDA MINING (PTY) LTD vs LOUISE JOUBERT, ADAM MURRAY
CONSERVATION HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD AND SANWILD WILDLIFE TRUST
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS MADE BY MARANDA MINING COMPANY:
1. On Friday, 29 June 2009 the Supreme Court of Appeals of South Africa
under case number 296/ 2008 dismissed the appeal lodged by Sanwild,
Joubert and Adam Murray Conservation Holdings with the cost of two
counsels.
2. The appeal was lodged in light of an order made in the in the Supreme
Court of South Africa (North Gauteng Division) under case number
7013/2008, giving Maranda Mining Company access to the property
known as portion 7 of the Farm Leydsdorp Dorpsgebied 779LT ("the
property").
3. The order under case number 7013/2008 was made after an application
was brought by Maranda Mining Company in which they seek access to
property in terms of a mining permit granted by the Department of
Minerals and Energy ("the DME") on 21 September 2006.
4. In terms of the Mining permit Maranda Mining Company have the right to
mine on 1,5 hectares of the property.
REASON FOR STATEMENT
5. From the start of the dispute to date Maranda Mining Company endured a
flurry of negative press, which was largely instigated by Louise Joubert of
Sanwild.
6. We would like to state unequivocally that the statements made by Louise
Joubert personally and in other capacities against Maranda Mining
Company are untrue, misleading, false and made purely with the intend to
harm Maranda Mining Company in its reputation.
7. Jouberts actions were also made with the intent to mislead the public as to
the true state of affairs.
8. Maranda Mining Company therefore is making this statement in order to
provide the other side of the story, to set the record straight and most of all
to state the truth. The Public as well as those who funded Joubert in her
frivolous opposition to Maranda Mining Company's Court actions deserves
to hear the true facts of this matter.
BACKGROUND
9. The area in question known, as "Eldorado" was first worked in the early
1890's
10. Before the current Act, Act 28 of 2002, came into operation the mineral
claims were held under license 28317, diagram RMT M46/1985.
11. During April 2005 Maranda Mining Company applied for a mining permit
as well as a prospecting right on the Property.
12. Come Lucky (PTY) Ltd, the then occupier of the property and registered
owner, were notified in terms of the statutory requirements of Maranda
Mining Company's intentions to apply for a Mining Permit and Prospecting
Right.
13. In the same time Maranda Mining Company advertised in a local
newspaper, a Public meeting to all interested and effected parties to
attend the meeting. Nobody attended the meeting.
14. All subsequent consultations by Maranda Mining Company were
conducted with Come Lucky.
SANWILD'S OCCUPATION OF THE PROPERTY
15. Sanwild only took occupation of the property during about September
2006 after the consultation process for the permit and the Prospecting
rights were completed.
16. Come Lucky never indicated to Maranda Mining Company that Sanwild
took occupation of the property.
17. The basis on which Sanwild took occupation of the property from Come
Lucky is not known and Sanwild failed to mention this in their Court
papers. It is indeed trite law that it is the duty of the owner of property to
inform the tenant of any restrictions with regard to their tenancy.
18. On 25 June 2007 Adam Murray bought the property from Come Lucky.
Sanwild, as a shareholder of Adam Murray were also a part of the said
sale and a signatory of the deed of sale.
19. In the said deed of sale it is clearly stated that the Purchasers are aware
of the fact that Maranda Mining Company applied for a mining permit. The
property was only registered into the name of Adam Murray on 28
February 2008.
20. Sanwild was aware of Maranda Mining Company's application for a mining
permit when they first occupied the property. Sanwild in their Court papers
and in the press conveniently omits to mention this fact.
MINING PERMIT
21. The mining permit was signed by the DME on 21 September 2006 and
received by Maranda Mining Company at the end of January 2007. The
Supreme Court of Appeals also found that Maranda Mining Company
complied with all statutory requirements.
22. Maranda Mining Company informed Come Lucky that they were
successful in their application for a Mining Permit. Come Lucky at this
stage still made no mention that Sanwild is in occupation of the property.
23. Maranda Mining Company only became aware of the fact that Sanwild is
in occupation of the property on 31 October 2007 after attempting to
access the property.
24. Maranda Mining Company met with Sanwild and their Attorneys in order to
discuss the intended Mining operations with them. At this meeting
Maranda Mining Company made several suggestions with regard to the
practical side of the intended mining. Sanwild undertook to revert back to
Maranda Mining Company but failed to do so. Access to the property was
still denied.
25. In December 2008 Maranda Mining Company gave Sanwild a letter
stating that they should take the necessary legal steps to stop Maranda
Mining Company from mining. Again Sanwild elected to do nothing.
26. In a total disregard of the Act, Sanwild merely closed the gate and refused
Maranda Mining Company access. These actions by Sanwild forced
Maranda Mining Company to approach the Supreme Court for an Order
granting them access.
EFFECTS OF MINING
27. Maranda Mining Company in terms of the Mining Permit is only entitled to
mine 1,5 hectares on the property. The mining area, as well as the
prospecting, area amounts to about 11 Hectares.
28. The mining and prospecting area is on the one border of the Property and
can be easily fenced out of the property. Maranda Mining Company
indicated that they are willing to properly fence the area with a game fence
to specifications at their own cost. When fenced the interference with
wildlife as well as Sanwild can be reduced to a minimum.
29. Maranda Mining Company also indicated that they would endeavor to
access the property from the neighbours farm in order to minimize
interference with Sanwild's activities. Sanwild purposely omits these facts
in their press statements.
30. The area in question is also not an environmentally sensitive area, nor
does it fall within a reserve or environmental protected area.
31. The effect of the proposed mining activities on wildlife and on Sanwild is
exaggerated to the point of being ridiculous. If one would look at all the
facts soberly and objectively, it will be clear that the mine and the
sanctuary is not mutually exclusive and that they can co-exist with the
minimum effort.
32. Sanwild is not operating a registered "sanctuary" or a "reserve" and there
is no legal basis for them to refer to themselves as such. These
statements by Sanwild are misleading and made with the intent to create
the misconception that Maranda Mining Company intends to mine in an
existing reserve or sanctuary.
33. As far as Maranda could establish with the Department of Environmental
affairs and tourism only the following two permits were issued to Sanwild:
33.1 A permit to establish and operate a Rehabilitation Centre. This
permit was granted in June 2005 and lapsed in June 2008. Seeing
as Sanwild only occupied the property in question from about
August 2006 this permit in any event could not have been granted
for this property;
33.2 A permit to import a live wild animal. This permit apparently was
used in the moving of the Thukela Elephants. The permit lapsed in
December 2006. Again this permit could not apply to the current
property, as Sanwild was not occupying it.
34. In 2008 and again in February 2009 Maranda gave notice to the
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism that any applications for
permits by Sanwild would be opposed, seeing as on their own account the
animals and their activities would affect Maranda's rights to mine. No
response has been received from the Department of Environmental Affairs
and Tourism in this regard. During Augustus 2008 Maranda consulted with
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism at Polokwane who
indicated that there are no applications by Sanwild to register a Sanctuary
and/or any other application.
35. Maranda Mining Company further provided sufficient security with the
DME for the rehabilitation of the mining area.
36. Maranda Mining Company obtained their rights first and there is no legal
basis why Sanwild can refuse mining on the property.
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
37. The legal cost of Maranda Mining Company amounts to about R800 000
for which Sanwild, Louise Joubert and Adam Murray Conservation
Holdings (PTY) Ltd will be responsible. Together with their own legal cost
this totally unnecessary opposition to Maranda Mining Company's rights
will cost about R1, 6 million, which will most likely be paid out of
donations.
38. Maranda Mining Company is also in the process of calculating its
damages suffered by the actions of Sanwild and the other parties
39. The mine will provide work opportunities for several employees and the
economical benefit for the area, as well as the province, will be
substantial.
CONSLUSION
40. Maranda Mining Company complied with all legislation to obtain a valid
mining permit.
41. Sanwild, notwithstanding the fact that they had knowledge of Maranda
Mining Company’s application when purchasing the property, elected to
take no legal and lawful steps to prohibit Maranda Mining Company from
exercising its rights. Instead Sanwild endeavored to unreasonably and
unlawfully deny Maranda Mining Company access to the property.
42. Taking in consideration all facts, Maranda Mining Company, was more
than willing to accommodate the then owner and the current occupier of
the property.
43. Sanwild only obtained their rights after Maranda Mining Company
obtained their mining permit. The correct way for Sanwild would have
been to properly apply for the necessary permits and to consult with all
affected and interested parties, before they engaged in their activities.
44. It is not correct for Sanwild in proceeding with activities, which on their
own account would sterilize the minerals rights, without properly
consulting with all the effected parties, including the Department of
Minerals and Energy, as the custodian of all minerals rights.
45. Take note that all supporting documents will be made available on
request.
*********
Posted by wildtalk at 5:59 PM

Thursday, June 11, 2009

SAVE THE SANWILD WILDLIFE SANCTUARY


SanWild has published a Facebook Group SAVE THE SANWILD WILDLIFE SANCTUARY. Kindly pls join this group asap to learn how you can help us bring pressure on the South African Government and the Department of Minerals and Energy to withdraw a open-cast mining permit that was issued to Maranda Mine Company. Should mining proceed in the sanctuary it will mean the demise of more than 4500 wild animals and will lead to the closure of a unique registered wildlife sanctuary that indeed belong to the animals themselves. We as the human custodians of SanWild need your help to speak out for the animals whose home is being threatened. They cannot fight the miners and they cannot even speak for themselves - it is up to us to fight this battle with your support. Please join asap and we will update you on a daily basis what you can do to help save the SanWild Wildlife Sanctuary. Let's together show the world that indeed we can make a difference and that we are willing to fight against injustice and the continued destruction of our natural resource, wilderness areas, bio-diversity, fauna and flora. You can help us make all the difference that is needed to ensure the safety of all the rescued SanWild animals. They need you now!

Kind regards
Louise

SanWild Wildlife Sanctuary
Main website: www.sanwild.org
Interactive website: www.sanwild.com
Office: +27(15)3187900/1
Fax: +27 (0) 86 5422228
Mobile: +27 (0) 833103882
Non-Profit Organisation Number: NPO 011-266
Public Benefit Organisation Number: PBO 930 013 787
Trust Number IT 8147/00

"Be the RightKind for WildKind"

Friday, June 5, 2009

Bullfrogs versus Bureaucracy

Proposed development on Portions 15, 41 & 49 of the Farm Olifantsfontein 410JR, referred to as Clayville Extension 50

A meeting was held on Thursday May 28 2009 at the Eskom Conference Centre with Golder Associates Africa, who are preparing the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

Approximately 80 residents were present. Janet Schofield represented RCE and the Midrand SPCA. Robyn Heathfield also attended.

The proposed development by Calgro M3 is for social charter housing, to include 15 000 units. One-third would be Housing Department subsidy houses valued up to R100 000, with the remainder being valued between R200 000 and R600 000.

Minutes of the meeting, including comments and slide are to be sent as soon as possible, when available.

Some of the comments include:

· The Glen Austin Pan is a protected area and no development should take place within a one kilometre radius.

· There are insufficient bulk services and electricity available to support the development.

· The entrances to the development depend on the construction of the proposed K109.

· Ekurhuleni’s own biodiversity plan names the Glen Austin Pan as one of 8 wetlands to be protected within the municipality.

Rob Heathfield submitted an objection to the proposed development to the EIA consultants on June 1 (acknowledged on June 3).


DEVELOPMENT OF 17,000 RDP HOUSES IN WORLD REKNOWNED BULLFROG BREEDING SITE

In an astonishing turn of events, an area written about in publications as widely respected as the New York Times, and explored by David Attenborough and the BBC, is about to be bulldozed to make way for 17,000 low cost houses. This, despite the fact that there is an international effort underway to save the African Bullfrog. The species is not only listed on the IUCN listed of endangered, threatened and protected species, but also on a list published by the Minister of Environment in 2007. The Glen Austin bullfrog reserve and the Glen Austin Bird Sanctuary will make way for a 400ha RDP housing development, and a nail in the coffin of the Pyxicephalus adspersus will have been struck.

So what were City Parks saying back in 2004, when they said: "We are currently negotiating with land owners in the area so that we can make the whole pan into a conservation area." Clearly this was forgotten some time later, and the largest landowner in question had their farm expropriated to make way for 17000 houses. In fact in 2004, 3000 housing beneficiaries were listed, long before the farm was expropriated.

Officially recognized as a bird sanctuary, the pan (and its resident population of bullfrogs) was recent recognized, according to GDACE (the Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment), as one of several “Irreplaceable” Biodiversity sites in Gauteng Province. The DEAT website says: The protection of Giant Bullfrog populations at Bullfrog Pan and Glen Austin is considered crucial to the long-term conservation of this species in the Province. GDACE is in the process of identifying additional areas that are important for sustaining the breeding, foraging and migration requirements of this species and all pans are considered potential habitat.”

The City of Joburgs’ report on sustainable environmental management lists the Glen Austin Pan as an ecologically sensitive area, while the Ekurhuleni Biodiversity and Conservation Report of 2003 claims:

There are 8 protected areas within the EMM, comprising 0.97% of the land area. Ekurhuleni contains a small portion of the northern section of Suikerbosrand Nature Reserve. The following nature reserves are included in the EMM: Marievale Bird Sanctuary Provincial Nature Reserve, Korsman Bird Sanctuary, Glen Austin Bird Sanctuary, D Meyer Bird Sanctuary, D Meyer Municipal Nature Reserve, Rondebult Bird Sanctuary, Bill Stewart Municipal Nature Reserve. Many of these bird sanctuaries are popular places for tourists and birders to visit.” With less than 1% of the total Ekuruhleni protected, one might imagine they would be less cavalier about the loss of one of the 8 areas. The problem with the Glen Austin pan and the Austin Roberts Bird Sanctuary, is that they are located just outside the border between Joburg and Ekuruhleni, so technically they fall under the jurisdiction of Joburg City Parks and the Jo’burg Municipality.

Published on the Joburg City website:

A bid to save
the African bullfrog

September 22, 2004

By Anish Abraham

THE African bullfrog - an inhabitant of the Glen Austin pan in Midrand - has been listed as a "near threatened" species by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and Johannesburg City Parks has decided to do something about it.

City Parks, along with a residents' group in Midrand, the University of Pretoria and Gauteng's Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land Affairs, are investigating the possibility of setting up a conservation area to preserve the bullfrogs' natural habitat.

The Glen Austin pan is home to one of Gauteng's largest populations of African bullfrogs.

About two thirds of the pan is owned by City Parks, while the rest is in private hands.

"We are currently negotiating with land owners in the area so that we can make the whole pan into a conservation area," says John Kruger of City Parks.

"One of the main problems is the uncontrolled development in these areas leading to loss of habitat," says Caroline Yetman of the Centre for Environmental Studies at the University of Pretoria, explaining that "near threatened" classification is given to species that are likely to face the future risk of extinction in the wild.

As part of her PhD on the Glen Austin frogs, Yetman is currently working on DNA sequencing and fitting some of the frogs with radio transmitters for tracking purposes. Earlier in 2004 Yetman counted some 100 adult bullfrogs in the pan and says this number shows a general decline - a statement supported by many residents in the area.

Research conducted by Clayton Cook of the University of the North on the African bullfrogs in the Glen Austin pan between 1991 and 1996 reported that there were between 250 and 300 adults and over half a million juveniles at that time.

"These frogs are very difficult to track, so getting an exact figure is difficult," says Yetman, adding that in an effort to track the frogs, "we are requesting that members of the public that spot these frogs should photograph them and send it to us with details of where they were found."

The African bullfrogs' breeding grounds are in the poorly drained rocky highveld grasslands of Midrand and Fourways, as well as on the East Rand.

The bullfrog pan in Benoni, where around 100 adults used to breed, is believed to be the only other major breeding area in the province, with a large numbers of tadpoles dying because of water contamination.

Unlike a stream or river, a pan has no in- or outflow of water. A depression in the ground that is covered by rainwater, it dries up during extended periods without rainfall and in extremely hot summer conditions.

Besides affecting the environment, construction developments in Glen Austin are leading to increased water usage and the draining of marsh areas for building.

Cook maintains that there has been an 80 percent decline in African bullfrog numbers in the last 10 to 15 years and the possibility of the species becoming extinct in Gauteng area in another 10 years is very real.

A primary factor leading to the decline in bullfrog numbers is the destruction of the frogs' habitat. Cook points out that developments in the area in the early 1980s, "including the Fourways Mall, were done on former wetland areas".

He adds: "Putting up high security walls has also hampered the breeding of these frogs as they are highly migratory."

Another threat to the frogs is the human palate. In some cultures, especially in northern and eastern Namibia, the African bullfrog is regarded as a delicacy. This trend has also surfaced in Limpopo, where the frogs are being unlawfully sold from the back of bakkies for their meat.

Cook also claims that these frogs are being illegally caught and sold overseas to collectors. In countries like US and Germany, where demand is high, collectors pay as much as $100 for a large adult male.

The African bullfrog, however, is a protected species and trading in them is prohibited, according to Craig Whittington-Jones, a scientist at the Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land Affairs in Gauteng.

Several hundred frogs are killed on the roads when they leave the pans at the end of the breeding season.

"People are also known to catch tadpoles and young frogs from pans and other breeding areas to feed their pet snakes," Yetman adds.

"It's really difficult for the police to enforce environmental regulations, you find pet shops in Johannesburg with lizards and other amphibians even though it is illegal to trade in those species," adds Cook.

"The only way to help these frogs is by getting as much public awareness and support as possible."

To secure the future of the Glen Austin pan and preserve the African bullfrog population in the province, City Parks is working towards forming a Bullfrog Working Group made up of interest groups like local landowners, Ekhuruleni Metro, the Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land Affairs, the Centre for Environment Studies at the University of Pretoria, the Working for Wetlands and Working for Water groups and the Endangered Wildlife Trust.

For more information, contact Johan Kruger or Willie Nell of Johannesburg City Parks on 011 712 6600, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature on 012 342 8304/5/6, or Caroline Yetman at the Centre for Environment Studies at University of Pretoria on 012 420 4283.