DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM
APPEAL QUESTIONNAIRE
[An electronic copy of this questionnaire may be obtained from Ms C van Eeden
at telephone: (012) 310 3590 or e-mail: cveeden@ozone.pwv.gov.za or from the
department’s web site: www.deat.gov.za ]
Once completed, this document must be forwarded to:
Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Private Bag X447
PRETORIA
0001
Fax: (012) 322 0082
Appellant’s contact information:
Name:
Dr. Molefe Tsele
Address:
Khotso House
62 Marshall Street
JOHANNESBURG
Phone:
011-241 7818
Cell:
082 458 2037
Fax:
011-838 4818
2
Project information:
Project name: N2 Wild Coast Toll Road between the Gonubie Interchange near
East London (Eastern cape) and the isipingo Interchange south of Durban
(KwaZulu-Natal)
Authorisation reference number as on letter of authorisation and record of
decision:
A24/16/3/246
Authorisation date as on letter of authorisation and record of decision:
Manual inscription of 3/12/2003?
Please note:

The decision of the department is reflected in the letter of authorisation or
rejection. The conditions of approval are contained in the record of
decision (ROD) document, attached to the authorisation letter.

The appeal must be accompanied by all relevant documents or copies of
these that are certified as true by a commissioner of oaths.

The appeal must set out all the facts and the grounds of appeal.

To assist in this regard, the following questions are listed as a guideline
only – more space may be used if necessary:
-----------------------------------------
1.
Are you lodging this appeal as an individual or on behalf of a
community/organisation?
Individual
Community/
organisation
X
If on behalf of a community or organisation, please provide proof of
mandate to do so.
The South African Council of Churches
3
2.
Is your appeal based on factors associated with the process that was
followed by the applicant in obtaining authorisation?
Yes
X
No
Please provide reasons:
Public participatory processes are intended to be lengthy for good reason
and in principle needs to be conducted between the relevant government
institution and civil society. The SA Council of Churches cannot, therefore,
in fairness accept the record of decision, S8.7, which states that “the
(preliminary design stage of) the project is the basis for discussion and
refinement with affected communities … and ... that public consultation to
refine the preliminary design, and to finalise it, is a function that the
applicant must undertake.” Since the proposed environmental and
“developmental” consequences of this project are enormous, one would
expect a broader and deeper human and social process of consultation to
have taken place before arriving at a record of decision. Instead, the
process appears to have been both precipitated and protracted. In terms
of the significance of the Christian community as a stakeholder in this
decision, an extrapolation of the figures from Statistics SA 2002 shows
that The South African Council of Churches represents some 15-18 million
Christian members and adherents in South Africa. A significant proportion
of these members is represented in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu Natal
provinces. Neither the Eastern Cape nor the KwaZulu Natal Provincial
Councils of Churches believe, however, that they have been adequately
consulted on these developments. We therefore concur and object to the
manner in which the authorisation process was conducted.
3.
Is your appeal based on factors associated with environmental
impacts not taken into account by the department in refusing or
authorising the application?
Yes
No
X
Please provide reasons:
The Central Committee of the SA Council of Churches, having met in
August 2003, approved a clear resolution calling on government “ … to
upgrade the existing routes … rather than allowing the Wild Coast
4
Consortium’s proposed route through the ‘greenfield section’ of
Pondoland.“ (A copy of the resolution is attached.) Further, our
correspondence is informed by the work and research of Bishop Geoff
Davies of the Diocese of Umzimvubu, amongst others. The record of
decision to proceed with the construction of a Toll Road appears to negate
all environmental and community proposals for alternatives. The dominant
assumption appears to be that development of a capital intensive nature is
the only alternative to sustainable human, social and ecological progress.
If this is the basis of the proposal, then more time is required to test, with
due transparency, a broader segment of community opinion that may be
contrary to the predominant view.
4.
Would you agree to the activity proceeding if your concerns can be
addressed by rectifying the process or mitigating or eliminating the
impacts of the activity?
Yes
No
X
Please provide reasons:
The South African Council of Churches remains opposed to the
construction of a Toll Road on the pristine Wild Coast. The Council also
fails to understand how such a project may be able to rectify or eliminate a
negative impact on the related environment. As mentioned above, the
primary outcome of such a project, being capital intensive, is the profit
motive for a few, leaving human and social development of affected
communities a distant secondary outcome.
5.
Are you fundamentally opposed to any development activity on the
site?
Yes
No
X
Please provide reasons:
We state again that the SA Council of Churches is NOT opposed to
development activity on the N2 Wild Coast, in fact we welcome
discussions on the issue of poverty alleviation and development in this
5
area. For this to bear fruit, though, an extension of time to discuss this
matter on a broader scale is required. We remain unconvinced, however,
that the proposed construction of a Toll Road on this stretch of road is the
answer to poverty alleviation, human and social development.
6.
Do you have an objection in principle against the development?
Yes
No
X
Please provide reasons:
Our understanding of activity that benefits human and social development
is that there needs to be a significant body of opinion from civil society, not
just from a limited sector, that affirms, enhances and adds value to the
proposed project. Since the proposed project elicits divided opinion on the
developmental as well as ecological sectors, the SACC as a
representative of the faith community is hard pressed and unable to give
principled support to such a proposal.
7.
Does your appeal contain any new information that was not
submitted to the environmental consultant or department prior to the
department’s consideration of the application?
Yes
No
X
If the answer above is yes, please explain why it should be
considered by the Minister and why it was not made available to the
environmental consultant or department during the application
process.
S 8.8 of the Record of Decision states that the purpose of the project is “
… to provide a better, safer, and shorter route between Durban and East
London, and a national road that serves the interests of business,
development and society between the centres.” It goes on to declare that
“the construction of the road is also an integral part of the social and
economic upliftment of the community in this part of the Eastern Cape.
The benefits of the road includes (sic) amongst others, improved road
6
access, better access to markets, education, social and health services,
nature reserves and tourist destinations, the development of SMMEs,
training and employment opportunities, accessibility for development of
agro-forestry, impetus for the Wild Coast SDI, improvement of road travel
and safety and through the development of ecotourism, contribute to
general tourism revenue accruing to the province and South Africa in
general.”
Such purpose appears to be the hindsight of the record of decision and,
more seriously, indicates an abrogation of the South Africa’s social and
economic rights accorded by the Constitution into the hands of privatised
developers and construction engineers. In this context it may appear that
our objections to the contrary are “new” but the SACC nonetheless
requess the Minister to continue with a broader and transparent process of
dialogue rather than placing the dialogue between the communities and
the proposed developer as a fait accompli. Since the outcomes of our
stance and that of the ROD differ radically, we would also hesitate to
recognise the proposed project as a de facto exercise in human and social
development. To this end we further submit articles that appear recently in
the press and which call for serious rethinking on the ROD.
8.
I have no objection to this appeal being made available to any
interested and affected third party and/or member of the public, since
I understand that the EIA process is transparent.
Yes
No
X
If answer above is no, please provide reasons:
Not Applicable.
7
DECLARATION:
I declare that the contents of this submission are to the best of my knowledge the
truth and I regard this declaration as binding on my conscience.
Dr. Molefe Tsele, General Secretary, SA Council of Churches
APPELLANT
DATE: 17th December 2003