The Makhado Action Group (MakAG) expressed their dismay with an article in last week’s Zoutpansberger that focussed on the activities of Australian mining company Coal of Africa Limited (CoAL), especially where it was stated that "no formal objections" against the proposed projects were lodged.

The article reported on six amended environmental management plan (EMP) documents that CoAL submitted to the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) on 14 August, after no “formal objections” towards their Greater Soutpansberg Project were received.

MakAG differs from this statement.

According to a press release MakAG issued on Monday, they submitted their objections in writing to CoAL’s independent consultant, Naledi Developments, on 24 July. This statement refers to the time (25 June until 24 July) that the public had to comment on the draft EMPs. CoAL needs to submit these documents to obtain prospecting rights licences from the DMR.

In addition, MaKAG points out that their objections were also highlighted in the Comments and Response part of all six EMPs. “It is unwise and unsustainable to continue to plan such large mining developments in such a water-scarce area without being able to answer strategic questions about water supply,” says the group. “The region’s water is too precious to gamble on any mining company's being able to somehow find enough water down the line when there already is not enough water.”

Regarding the fact that they had received no “formal objections”, CoAL this week explained that various affected parties had indicated that they wanted to object to the prospecting licences. “This objection is mainly based on the possibility that the prospecting rights will be promoted to mining rights, which are not the subject of the adapted EMP,” said CoAL’s legal advisors, Russell and Associates, in an email to the newspaper. This, they said, is why they hold that no objections to the prospecting and matters relating to the adjusted EMPs have been received.

Russell and Associates, however, did confirm that they had received a formal objection from MakAG regarding the “potential impact of mining activities … not the prospecting.”

In the meantime, MakAG said on Monday that they intended to lodge a formal objection to the DMR “now that CoAL’s application has been received by the department.”