The proposed dimension stone quarry is situated within the Malolotja Nature Reserve in north western Swaziland. A lease agreement between King Mswati III the Ngwenyama of Swaziland and Yun-Wei Lee representing Michael Lee Enterprises cc (MLE) gives the lessee the right to quarry, process, remove and sell "Ventalite" from the lease area of 163 ha located south of Bulembu, Kingdom of Swaziland.
The proposal from MLE is that the ventalite (or green chert) will be quarried using non-conventional methods (no explosives) where the fine fraction of the chert material will be removed by hand and excavators, whereas the larger blocks will be removed by cranes and loaded onto trucks to be upgraded/beneficiated (cut and polished) at Bulembu for export via cable-way to Barberton for shipment via Maputo.
The rate of quarrying is expected to be 300 tonnes per month, equivalent to 120 cubic metres per month. The quarry is expected to last for approximately 11 years. An estimate of the total reserve quantities is in the order of 1 600 cubic metres.
The deposit of green chert is expected to be of high quality and is much in demand in the Far East for jewellery and dimension stone to beautify buildings.
The proposed mine, not surprisingly, has created a great deal of opposition from various sectors within Swaziland not least from the Swaziland National Trust Commission on whose land the mine is to be located. Allegations of unprocedural mineral lease negotiation and granting have been the root of the controversy. Although this area 'falls within the Malolotja Nature Reserve managed areas’ this fact is not mentioned in the lease agreement where the land is described as "Swazi Area".
Initially the Swaziland National Trust Commission and the Senior Warden of Malolotja Nature Reserve refused entry to MLE to the nature reserve for any form of prospecting. This was later granted after the Minister of Natural Resources and Energy commanded the SNTC to allow MLE to enter the reserve.
The turn of events follows a resolution which was taken at a meeting convened by the Prime Minister Dr Sibusiso Dlamini, which included the Mineral Committee, Mineral Negotiating Committee, Swaziland National Trust Commission and the Ministry for Tourism, Environment and Communications.
However, Senior Warden Richard Boycott said the Taiwanese Company which seeks to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment Study in the reserve, will have to follow all rules that were laid down for visitors into the reserve. He has stipulated that they would also not be allowed to take any samples, erect beacons or camps, without specific permission within a stipulated time frame.
The (SNTC) has strongly condemned as well as opposed plans to give mining rights to a Taiwanese company, Michael Lee Enterprise to exploit the lucrative Green Chert stone inside the game reserve. In its opposition, the (SNTC) has used Section 20 of the Swaziland National Trust Commission Act of 1973 which prohibits any mining, digging or excavation in the country's nature reserves.
A directive in letter form, from Minister for Tourism, Environment and Communications Musa Nkambule, dated March 26 1998 ordered the Chief Executive Officer of the (SNTC), Sinaye Mamba to allow Michael Lee Enterprise to undertake the scientific study in the game reserve.
According to the letter from Nkambule, a resolution was taken by all joint committees into the matter to allow the study to go on as requested by Michael Lee Enterprise. The directive from Nkambule was written in strong words, giving Mamba no ground to debate or question the issue:
"You must give access to Michael Lee Enterprise to enter the nature reserve to conduct the scientific study as agreed, following the above resolution at the Prime Minister's Office. "Such instruction should have been been carried out, at the latest, 9:00 a.m on Tuesday, March 31, 1998. I expect to receive information, in writing, on the implementation of this order on or before 9:00 a.m on Tuesday, March 31 in my office." The conclusion of the letter continued in its peremptory tone: "I wish you will appreciate the fact that such an instruction is not negotiable and has to be adhered to as stated." On Monday March 30 1998, Mamba responded to Nkambule's
letter. His letter, written on SNTC letter head was brief and to the point - only three lines.
In it Mamba conceded to Nkambule's order and terms.
"As per the Honourable Minister's letter dated 26th March, 1998, directing the Commission to open Malolotja Nature Reserve to the Green Chert mining study, your instruction has been forwarded to the Director of Parks and Senior Warden - Malolotja Nature Reserve.
Review of Preliminary EIA/CMP, Scoping Report and Draft Terms of Reference
Background information
A lease agreement between King Mswati III the Ngwenyama of Swaziland and Yun-Wei Lee representing Michael Lee Enterprises cc gives the lessee the right to quarry, process, remove and sell "Ventalite" from the lease area of 163 ha located south of Bulembu, Kingdom of Swaziland. Although this area falls within the ‘Malolotja Nature Reserve’ this fact is not mentioned in the lease agreement where the land is described as "Swazi Area". In terms of the lease of five years duration, extendable for further four year periods, the lessee will pay a royalty for stone mined but is exempted from mining rental. Apparently, the Malolotja Nature Reserve will not benefit
financially from the resources extracted in their reserve.
The mining lease is subject to conditions which stipulate an acceptable rehabilitation plan and annual revision of rehabilitation costs. Noise and dust are highlighted as impacts to be avoided although there is no requirement to reduce visual impact. The Commissioner of Mines is granted powers to stop the operation.
An "Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) & Comprehensive Mitigation Plan (CMP)" for the proposed quarry was submitted by consultant K.K. Smith in May 1997, followed by a draft "Scoping Report and Terms of Reference" in October 1997, which reports the issues raised at a public participation meeting held on 29th September 1997.
The Environmental Audit, Assessment and Review Regulations (Legal Notice No. 58 of 1996) define the procedural aspects pertaining to activities which could impact on the environment. Mineral development and mining are included in the list of "Category 3 projects" (First Schedule, regulation 7) which are likely to have significant adverse impacts whose scale, extent and significance cannot be determined without in depth study. The Third Schedule (regulation 4) outlines the need for in depth studies in areas located in or near environmentally sensitive areas.
The proponents have taken the route of submitting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Comprehensive Mitigation Plan (CMP) for the proposed quarry before conducting the consultation process designed to involve and include interested and affected parties, authorities and NGO’s, as stipulated by Section 11 (3) of the Environmental Audit, Assessment and Review Regulations (Legal Notice No. 58 of 1996). The regulations prescribe that draft Terms of Reference should be forthcoming from this consultation process and that work on the EIA/CMP should not begin unless the Authority has approved the Terms of Reference (sub-regulation 6).
Clearly the "Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) & Comprehensive Mitigation Plan (CMP)" for the proposed quarry which was submitted by consultant K.K. Smith in May 1997 was not compiled after the required in-depth consultation and represents a superficial "desk study" analysis. The application process was brought in line with legislation through the public participation process which led to the public meeting on 29th September 1997. The draft "Scoping Report and Terms of Reference" under consideration includes issues raised at the meeting and others deemed pertinent by the author, Ken Smith Environmental Services cc. The fact that the
consultant had to include issues/ aspects based on his experience highlights the superficial nature of the scoping process and places doubt on the level of expertise or experience of the I&AP’s consulted regarding the potential impacts of the proposed mining venture.
Comments on issues raised at Scoping meeting and the draft Terms of Reference (ToR)
Although the scoping meeting and resultant ToR must focus the Environmental Impact Assessment, these issues cannot be the only aspects addressed. The contribution of the scoping process and public meeting is a reflection of the concerns of persons contributing/attending and will be skewed to reflect their fields of expertise or level of information supplied concerning the proposed operation.
The issues listed reflect a concern for the effect of mining on the environment and the viability of socio-economic benefits. It is noted that the proponents environmental consulting team have apparently been denied access to the propose mining area for the purposes of this investigation. Under these circumstances it is impossible to make an accurate evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed mining nor provide the in-depth site description required by I&AP’s to formulate an opinion.
The fact that the consultant included some aspects not raised at the meeting demonstrates that many important aspects were not addressed although no distinction is made between the respective origins of contributions in the draft ToR document.
1) Minerals lease and conflicting legislation
Although the existing legislation provides for environmental protection it is apparent that the context of this minerals lease application was not adequately investigated by the officials concerned.
a) The lease should not have been signed before clarity had been obtained as to whether the area is "Swazi Area" or a nature reserve with statutory protection.
b) The lease is termed a "Quarry lease" whereas The Mining Act (Part III, section 44) describes the application procedure for a "Mining lease".
c) Mining and related activities occur within the framework defined by the Mining Act (Act No. 5 of 1958) and although Part I (10) does not specifically prohibit mining in a nature reserve, section (a) prohibits mining or prospecting on "land dedicated or set apart for any public purpose other than mining....except with the consent of the owner or the Ngwenyama".
d) An element of protection of conservation areas is provided by Section 30 (a) which stipulates that the holder of a prospecting licence "shall not prospect in a private forest or game reserve,....., unless he has first given notice to the owner...., and complies with the conditions imposed by such persons".
e) The "quarry lease" awards mining rights to Michael Lee Enterprises cc at an address in South Africa. In the "preliminary" EIA/CMP submitted in May 1997 the proponent alleges to represent the "Republic of China". Does this project represent an official agreement between the two countries? If so, why was this fact not disclosed in the "quarry lease"? Perhaps the matter should be investigated in terms of section 22 (1) of the Mining Act (5 of 1958).
The strongest protection for the environment is provided by The Swaziland Environment Authority Act, 1992 (Section 19, Act No. 15 of 1992) which stipulates that "Where there is an inconsistency with any other law which affects the environment, this Act shall prevail".
2) Interested and Affected Parties (I&AP’s)
Adoption of the "Integrated Environmental Management’ option is essential as this introduces public participation through consultation with I&AP’s at all stages of the planning. Scoping is necessary to identify key issues early in the planning phase. The entire operation cannot be planned on the basis of one meeting with I&AP’s and there must be periodic feedback regarding their concerns.
a) Tourists and backpackers
One group who were not consulted are visitors to Malolotja who travel to this remote area specifically to enjoy the unspoilt environment. The land capability of the area is described as "mountain grazing" which is somewhat misleading as it does not address an important secondary landuse, namely tourism. How do the tourists feel about a mine in this area? Will this influence future trips to Malolotja? As the life blood of the reserve, surely the visitors should have a say as to whether the proposed mining will affect the "sense of place" or their perceived value of the area.
3) Structure and content of EIA/CMP
The structured approach used in the "preliminary" EIA/CMP submitted in May 1997 followed the format of the "Environmental Management Programme" (EMP) report required by South African mineral law. This standardised format was devised by representatives from government departments and consultants to provide all the data which these authorities require to make a value judgement regarding proposed mining. The document format requires input on a range of potential environmental impacts and the ToR derived from the scoping process should influence the level of detail required in these specific sections.
a) Bio-physical aspects
Site specific studies are necessary and bio-diversity, floral and faunal populations and the relative "worth" or environmental economics of the opposing land use options must be assessed comprehensively. The site is apparently classified as a "wilderness" section of the reserve and there will have to be collaboration with nature conservation officials from Malolotja regarding the proposed access route, mining method, infrastructure, transport and rehabilitation programme.
b) Surface and ground water
The site is apparently close to a watercourse in a mountainous region. It will be necessary to determine flood levels associated with storm rainfall of 1: 50 & 1:100 year return periods. Attention must be given to separating "clean" runoff from potentially contaminated runoff emanating from the mine. The mining must not affect the quantity or quality of water in the immediate area of the mine. The hazard of flooding of mine working must be addressed in the mining method. Will diversion of the river be necessary?
4) Mine access roads and infrastructure
The possible effect of access roads and vehicles was only raised from the point of view of danger to animals. In fact, the upgrading of the access road with its associated environmental damage, the visual impact of the road, cut & fill slopes and drainage probably represent more serious concerns. The effect of increased traffic volume, littering along the road, potential chemical spills and hydrological changes are all aspects which need to be addressed.
5) Mining area and mining method
It is most surprising that neither the consultant or any I&AP’s at the scoping meeting raised the issue of the mineral deposit, mining method, mine site infrastructure or actual rehabilitation and monitoring processes. This is the central issue and cannot be excluded from the EIA and CMP. Should the proponent decide to utilise the EMP format for the EIA, these matters will be addressed. The scoping process should ensure adequate attention to detail. Some critical issues regarding the mineral deposit and mining method are discussed below:-
a) Mineral deposit
The deposit is described as "ventolite" in the "Quarry lease" but in all subsequent documents it is described as green chert or a generic term "greenstone". Accurate definition of the target mineral or rock type is essential to avoid mining of other rock types e.g. serpentinite. The generic term greenstone used in the EIA/CMP is broad enough to permit mining of a range of rock types found in the vicinity of the deposit. The term ‘ventolite’ seems to be an obscure, perhaps very specific term and the proponent must define the anticipated products more carefully.
The site is described by Barton (1982) whose geological map was included in the preliminary EIA/CMP. The deposit is described as being located along a fault zone in Fig Tree Group rocks and in a serpentinite body. Another rock type with ornamental stone potential, Jasper conglomerate, occurs in Moodies Group rocks nearby.
The outcrop form and volume of the green chert resource is described as 30m high x 100m long x 2m thick and is exposed in a cliff face. A high proportion of the 15 000 tons at surface is apparently low-quality material (Barton, 1982). In the preliminary EIA/CMP the proponent describes the resource as being 40m x 20m x 20m (16 000m3) which is regarded as sufficient to support a mined volume of 300 tons (120 m3) per month.
It would appear as if there is some uncertainty regarding the true extent of the deposit or classification of acceptable grade. In negotiating the large lease area of ~163 ha, with the first phase mining area of ~25ha of which only 10 ha will be affected by the mine, the proponent has allowed himself plenty of room to manoeuvre. Without a site visit it is unlikely that the mining area could be more closely defined.
b) Site access and infrastructure
The report describes the improvements to the existing 8 km access track which could represent a significant environmental impact in terms of visual intrusion, surface water runoff hydrology, noise and dust. These impacts would be most serious during the construction phase but the disturbance would be sustained during the life of the mine with increased traffic volumes. Electricity and telephone connections to the site would presumably follow this route, further increasing the visual intrusion imposed by linear structures in this rugged mountain wilderness. A road so close to the South Africa /Swaziland border could also represent a convenient access for illegal movement of
persons between the two countries, exacerbating an existing problem.
A project of this size will increase human activity in the area. The ToR should describe how movement of the fifty staff will be controlled to reduce environmental impact. Uncontrolled movement will lead to creation of numerous footpaths in the area, littering, disturbance of wild animals, poaching and utilisation of trees for firewood, increased water utilisation as well as creating sewage, waste disposal and faecal pollution problems. Mine infrastructure covering a wide area will effectively impact on the ‘sense of place’ which attracts tourists. It is unlikely that visitors to the reserve will find an active mine to be an attraction and this site cannot be compared with
abandoned mines which do generate some interest.
c) Mining method
The draft ToR and the preliminary EIA/CMP do not provide adequate detail of the proposed mining method. It is understandable that diamond saw techniques will be used on the chert but this will not be cost effective in removing the hangingwall overburden. Accurate description of the mining method is critical to the operation as it will determine the amount of waste material produced and the size of the affected area as well as the noise levels. The proponent must not underestimate the volume of waste rock and overburden to be excavated, transported and stockpiled, nor the cost of moving this material back into the pit.
Will the hanging wall overburden also be removed by sawing? This is unlikely and blasting will probably be necessary to make the operation cost effective. Certainly blasting will be more frequent than envisaged in the mining methodology outlined in the preliminary EIA/CMP. The impact of airblast and vibration on steep natural slopes in the area and influence of fly rock and blast fumes must be addressed.
The deposit is apparently located in a valley bottom situation "partly in a crevasse" (preliminary EIA/CMP) and is surrounded by steep hillslopes. The chert deposit dips at 65o towards the ENE, into the steep hillside and an appraisal of deposit reserves based on the published description (Barton, 1982) estimates outcrop reserves at surface to be 15 000 tons (6 000m3). The mine proposes to extract 40 000 tons (16 000m3) over 11 years. Interpretation of the reports submitted by the proponent suggest 15 000 tonnes (6000m3) will be mined from surface exposure, presumably over 4.17 years, with the remaining 25 000 tons (10 000m3)
presumably to be taken over the subsequent 6.94 years.
The impact of mining on the surrounding areas will only become apparent during the second phase of mining when the proponent defines whether the quarry will be extended along strike (laterally along the outcrop) or down the 65o (1:0.47) dip slope (below ground surface). In both cases waste rock and overburden will be generated. Excavating down dip will require removal of large volumes of hangingwall rock in order to reduce the safety hazard of mining within a narrow slot which could possibly reach depths of up to 50m into the hillside in order to extract the volumes defined from the thin chert band resource. Depending on the angle created when relieving the hangingwall slope,
tens- or even hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of overburden will have to be moved and stockpiled. In order to ensure safety of workers in the pit and create access ramps, the size of the quarry pit will also be enlarged to create stable sidewalls. The safety factor can only be increased by stepping the sidewall which further increases the radius of the pit. A geotechnical investigation of the soft serpentinite forming the hangingwall will dictate the most stable sidewall development system.
The visual impact of this site must be accurately assessed using GIS ‘intervisibility’ analysis. It may be practical to hide parts of the sideslope using camouflage nets.
d) Environmental management system (EMS)
The hierarchy of responsibility for actions at the mine, implementing and auditing of the environmental management programme, monitoring and maintenance are all issues which must be discussed in the EIA. It would be pertinent to define an Environmental Management System which outlines the mines environmental policy and represents a commitment by senior management to self-assessment and regulation of the mining operation by implementing, auditing, reporting, monitoring and modifying the environmental impact mitigation procedures.
e) Decommissioning
The mining process should be undertaken with effective rehabilitation in mind. A "life cycle" survey of all infrastructure and equipment is necessary as is a detailed inventory. If the surface infrastructure is to be left intact for use for nature conservation purposes then the Malolotja nature reserve staff should have a say in the design and location of these structures. If these structures are to built of local material or stone this should also be addressed during the EIA.
f) Rehabilitation
The visual intrusion of the mine will have to be carefully planned. Colour contrast of fresh exposure and weathered rock must be mitigated. Chemical patinas can be utilised to speed up the "weathering" effect.
The open cast pit will apparently be infilled with overburden during rehabilitation. If the proponents mine the chert using only "diamond saws" then the pit will presumably be small and steep sided. This will create problems during rehabilitation as there will be limited access for mechanical equipment needed to compact the overburden. Intensive geotechnical surveys will be necessary to ensure the long-term stability of the slopes.
The site will apparently be used as a dam after rehabilitation although without proper compaction the overburden will fill the pit and probably create a protruding heap as the bulking ratio of the extracted rock is high relative to the small volume of chert removed. This possibility has been overlooked by the consultants although it represents a key issue in the rehabilitation programme.
The rehabilitation programme should address the issue of establishing plant growth in an area where natural soil cover is thin and stockpiling of this material may render the soil sterile. The pit sideslopes will have to be developed to facilitate plant growth and where slopes are steep it will be necessary to provide hanging wire baskets in which to establish vegetation. Although rare plants will be relocated this does not address the source of the bulk of plants to be used during rehabilitation. As the site is in a protected area and the proponents do not wish to create an "oasis" situation, only indigenous plants from the immediate area should be utilised. Will
these be taken from within the nature reserve? What impact will this collection have on the surrounding areas? Consideration should be given to establishing an on-site nursery which could propagate indigenous plants to be used in the rehabilitation process.
The rehabilitation programme should define a post-closure monitoring and maintenance programme which will ensure the viability of the restored vegetation and soil as well as ensure the stability of the pit and access roads.
g) Financial provision for rehabilitation
The proponents will have to make full financial provision for rehabilitation proposed. It would be preferable to have a lump sum deposited in a trust fund within Swaziland, administered jointly by the proponent, Malolotja officials or Swaziland National Trust Commission and controlling government departments. The mine assets should also be considered with regard to financial provision for rehabilitation and an accurate inventory with annual depreciation analysis undertaken.
Monitoring of the rehabilitated site after closure should be built into the cost as suitably trained persons must audit the site and supervise any maintenance work for a period of several years.
The proposed dimension stone quarry is situated within the 
The rate of quarrying is expected to be 300 tonnes per month, equivalent to 120 cubic metres per month. The quarry is expected to last for approximately 11 years. An estimate of the total reserve quantities is in the order of 1 600 cubic metres.
The proposed mine, not surprisingly, has created a great deal of opposition from various sectors within Swaziland not least from the Swaziland National Trust Commission on whose land the mine is to be located. Allegations of unprocedural mineral lease negotiation and granting have been the root of the controversy. Although this area 'falls within the Malolotja Nature Reserve managed areas’ this fact is not mentioned in the lease agreement where the land is described as "Swazi Area".
However, Senior Warden Richard Boycott said the Taiwanese Company which seeks to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment Study in the reserve, will have to follow all rules that were laid down for visitors into the reserve. He has stipulated that they would also not be allowed to take any samples, erect beacons or camps, without specific permission within a stipulated time frame.