Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape

a) Lack of a proper buffer zone (land tenureship issues)

b) Lack of a management plan

c) Mining activities

d) Development pressure

On 1 February 2011, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report. Between 15 and 19 November 2010 a joint World Heritage Centre/ ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission visited the property, as requested by the World Heritage Committee at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010), to consider the status of mining permissions in an area immediately to the east of the property. The mission report is available online at the following web address:  https://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/35COM/.

a) Status of mining licences and work of Vele colliery

The State Party report stated that the permit granted by the Department of Mineral Resources allows Limpopo Coal to mine in an area immediately to the east of the property. This permit gives them sole and exclusive right to mine, recover and dispose of minerals in, on and under the mining area for a period of 30 years, unless the permit is cancelled.

Limpopo Coal plans to work two opencast pits and two underground mining areas. The overall total of the mining area is 3963,88 ha. Authorisation for two ancillary projects, a 9km tarred road and storage facilities, has been refused, and the Limpopo Coal Company (Pty) Ltd has appealed. The company has suspended their activities on site until the appeal is settled. During this process, the Limpopo Coal Company will be responsible for updating the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and subjecting it to public comment.

The State Party reports that mining licences are issued by Department of Mineral resources while World Heritage sites are administered by the Department of Environmental Affairs. However, infrastructure associated with mining is regulated in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessments Regulations of 2006. Furthermore, the National Environmental Management Protected Areas Act empowers the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, after consultation with the Minister of Mineral Resources, to review existing mining activities and prescribe conditions under which those activities may continue.

The mission report notes that the Minister and officials of Department of Mineral resources are required by Act 28 of 2002 to consult other relevant State departments on issues relating to the latter. This includes the Ministry of the Environment responsible for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention Act and the Ministry of Arts and Culture responsible for implementing the National Heritage resources Act (NAHRA). The mission noted that in the current case, such consultation had not been carried out.

The mission further notes that the EIA hardly focused on the cultural attributes of the inscribed property and not at all on its Outstanding Universal Value. Its emphasis was on the natural environment, except for the “local community” and “land claimants”. Furthermore, the EIA had only focused on land to be used during the first phase of mining and not the second and third phases.

The mission was made aware that the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists had lodged an appeal in March 2010 opposing the granting of the mining permit as it did not address the full impact of mining on the cultural and natural environment. There is still no outcome concerning the appeal.

Taking on board the concerns by stakeholders, the mission reported that the mining company had been instructed by the State Party to cease all operations. A ‘process of rectification as provided for by the National Environmental Management Act, Act 107 of 1998’ (as amended) is underway. This entails the mining company revising the Environmental Management Plan as well as proposing alternative mining methods to be considered by the Department of Environmental Affairs.

The mission reported that the State Party is committed to undertaking a peer review of existing specialist studies in order to obtain an independent view prior to any decision to allow mining operations to recommence. The peer review outcome will be included in the evaluation process of the rectification application.

The mission did also highlight the fact that the coal seam extends to the west of the mining area towards the property and that it had been reported to them that Universal Coal and Anglo-Coal had applied for mining rights within and around the buffer zone of the property.

The State Party reported that the nomination dossier and the 2003 ICOMOS evaluation report noted that the property is supported by a buffer zone of around 100,000 ha – although it was not mapped. The following have been identified as making up this buffer zone: Venetia-Limpopo Nature Reserve, Vhembe Nature Reserve, and Limpopo Valley Game Reserve. The buffer zone has been ‘proclaimed’ but not submitted to the World Heritage Committee for approval.The mission report noted the current delimitation does not surround the entire property as envisaged at the time of inscription. There is no buffer zone on the east in the “free zone” between the property and the current mining area or for the mining area. It was explained to the mission that negotiations will continue in order to enter into agreement with landowners to extend the buffer zone, which is required under South African legislation. The mission recommended that the delimitation of the buffer zone should be reviewed as a matter of urgency in order to ensure that it surrounds the property completely.

b) Status of the Trans-Frontier Conservation Area (TFCA)

The State Party reports that a memorandum of understanding has been signed with Botswana and Zimbabwe for the development of the TFCA and that the intention is to try and extend it to cover the areas between the mining site and the property.

The mission report noted that the TFCA, as now envisaged, does not include the area to the east of the property, including the mining area, and therefore does not protect in an effective way the property’s Outstanding Universal Value, as envisaged at the time of inscription.

c) Status of land claims

The State Party reports thatland claims for restitution of land are bound by a standing parliament decision and that land claims affecting conservation land should not result in a change of land use.The mission emphasised the need for the land claim process to be transparent and inclusive and underscored the need to build trust among all stakeholders, including the international community.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies remain extremely concerned at the potential impact of opencast and underground mining operations on the Mapungubwe cultural landscape property. Although the mining site is some 7 km from the boundary, the property appears to be downwind from the proposed mining site and in an area of high archaeological significance that is related to the property. Furthermore, in terms of what was presented to the Committee at the time of inscription, the mining area is within the buffer zone of the property and in the middle of the proposed TFCA. Thus, if an appropriate EIA, which takes into account the impact on cultural heritage and the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, had been carried out, a mining permit should not have been granted. They also note that other mining companies are apparently seeking permission to mine in other parts of the buffer zone.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies note that the State Party acknowledges that the mining licence appears to have been issued without appropriate consultation with relevant ministries and that work has been suspended while a ‘process of rectification’ is undertaken that will entail the mining company carrying out a further impact assessment which must include impact on the cultural attributes of the property and its setting.

They further note that the buffer zone envisaged at the time of inscription to protect the boundary within South Africa, has not been fully promulgated nor submitted to the World Heritage Committee, while the boundaries of the TFCA that at the time of inscription were shown as surrounding the property and seen as a further protective layer, have now been amended to exclude an area to the east of the property including the mining area. It is essential that the immediate setting of the property is protected by a buffer zone approved by the Committee and that the TFCA offers further protection.

They welcome the measures taken to halt the mining and undertake further assessment, but remain concerned at the position of the current EIA that states that no negative impacts on cultural heritage assets are envisaged. It is crucial that a revised EIA is undertaken on the basis of proper data on the value of the landscape area where the mining is proposed, on the landscape between the mining areas and the property and on the Outstanding Universal Value and attributes of the property itself and that the EIA acknowledges that the mining area is within what was envisaged as a buffer zone and is within what at the time of inscription was part of the proposed TFCA.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies stress the need for a reform of the legal framework on mining in order to ensure that applications for mineral prospecting and mining respect the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage property and its setting.