24 October 2016

REGISTER OF COMMENTS:INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES (I&AP’s)

UNIVERSAL COAL DEVELOPMENT II (PTY) LTD

NO. Name Date of

Received

Comment Respond

1 Cath Vise 27-09-16 I saw your notice about a Scoping Report for an open cast

coal mine within the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve, Makhado

Municipality, Limpopo, in the Zoutpansberger newspaper.

Please could you send me a copy of the scoping report?

Please also register me as an I&AP, my details are below. I

am also resident in Makhado.

You have been added as an interested and affected party. Please find

attached the scoping report and the drop box link for the rest of the studies.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dq24i49q79sfvxq/AADeCT4bAGMKzmzw-

XNdFIm-a?dl=0

Cath Vise 04-10-16 Thank you for sending through these documents. However, I

see you have a meeting for 8th September, which has

already passed. Could you please let me know of the

corrected date?

Also, please remind me if there is there a deadline for

response from I&APs?

The meeting will be held on the 08th of October 2016 at Waterpoort Farms

Association Hall.

I already sent new email with the correct date of the meeting.

Vhutshilo Theo

Muthurwana

04-10-16 Good I think there is an error about the month’s

08th/September /2016 instead of October. Please verify.

The meeting will be held on the 08th of October 2016 at Waterpoort Farms

Association Hall.

I already sent new email with the correct date of the meeting.

A B BURGER

ATTORNEYS

04-10-2016 You mentioned a Public Meeting will be held on 8th

SEPTEMBER 2016?? At Waterpoort Farms

Sure that is not correct.

The meeting is on the 08th of October 2016 at Waterpoort Farms

Association hall, the date of 08th of September was incorrect.

Deon Van Heerden 05-10-2016 Please also sort out your mailing list as I have not received

any of the previous 3 mails that were sent by you. I used to

be on the mailing list as I am an affected party, but seemed to

have fallen off along the way.

Sorry for that, all email is forwarded to you.

Juanita De Beer 23-09-2016 Bokamoso Landscape Architects and Environmental Your offices are registered as interested and affected parties for this project.

Consultants would hereby like to register as an Interested

and Affected Party on behalf of surrounding

landowners/tenants/farmers.

Our contact details are as follows: Lizelle Gregory / Anè

Agenbacht / Juanita de Beer

E-mail: lizelle@bokamoso.net / info@bokamoso.net /

juanita@bokamoso.net

Landline: 012 346 3810

Cell phones: 083 255 8384 / 083 533 0420

Fax: 086 570 5659

It would be appreciated if you could clarify the process being

followed as a Scoping Report was published for public review

from 5 January 2016 to 4 February 2016.

Too our knowledge a new application for integrated

Environmental Authorisation was submitted to DMR on 2

September 2016.

If this is a new application i.e. previous application lapsed,

was the public afforded 30 days to Register as I&APs?

If not, could you please provide proof of exemption obtained

not to comply with Chapter 6, Section 41 of the 2014 NEMA

EIA Regulations.

It is furthermore requested that you keep our office informed

of all new information, reports, meetings etc. throughout the

remainder of this project.

Due to difficulties experienced during compilation of the water studies the

previous application 10121MR lapsed as interested and affected parties

would not have been given a minimum of 30 days to review the reports.

As such the new application was lodged and interested and affected parties

where notified of the status of the project. Following the NEMA process we

advertised in the local papers and via email to registered parties. Due to the

timeframe restrictions we made note of the status of the previous application

as well as availability of the new applications scoping report and as such

requested parties to register.

I hope all is in order. A public meeting will be held on the 8th of October

2016 at the Waterpoort farmers Association Hall,

Cath Vise 11-10-2016 In addition to the many impacts that your team has already

identified, I wanted to add the following considerations that

need to be addressed in any application going forward.

Zonation and International Conventions:

The proposed site is located within a Critical Biodiversity Area

(CBA) 1 and 2 according to the Limpopo Government's

Conservation Plan.

CBA1, under the guidelines, are irreplaceable sites where no

alternate sites are available to meet biodiversity targets.

Incompatible Land-Use practices include Mining and

associated infrastructure. Please see attached plan.

It is also worth noting the motion passed at the IUCN

congress regarding mining and areas importance for

biodiversity conservation:

https://portals.iucn.org/congress/motion/026

The proposed mine also falls within the UNESCO Vhembe

Biosphere Reserve. Biosphere Reserves are places where

SUSTAINABLE development is encouraged, with particular

regard to implementing global agreements such as the

Convention on Biological Diversity, Sustainable Development

Goals and in particular the UNFCCC COP21 Paris Climate

Agreement

https://www.environment.gov.za/mediarelease/southafricasig

nsparisagreementonclimate. Here, a statement for South

Africa to transition to a low carbon economy is made.

These comments have been noted and will be further addressed in the EIA.

We also refer to the specialist report for more information regarding the

social impacts.

Open cast coal mining, with associated carbon emissions and

impacts on climate change, water resources and biodiversity

would not be in line with achieving these international targets

and agreements which South Africa has signed.

Additional Environmental and Social Impacts to Address:

• concern over the removal of baobab trees, which

are a protected species

• cumulative impacts of the various mining and other

development applications in the region - especially with

regards to water security

• secondary impacts of the mining activities - i.e. the

coal that is transported to a different region (such a

Mpumalanga or further afield) will have a secondary impact

when burnt for power production in terms of both air quality in

that region, as well as associated carbon emmissions

• There is no mention of potential climate change

impacts in the scoping presentation (especially with regards

to CO2 emissions) for both local operations as well as end

use operations.

• there will also be light pollution which could affect

tourism operations/ sense of place/ cultural ecosystem

services with regards to 'enjoying the African skies' and star

gazing attraction of the area

• You will also need to address impacts on

biodiversity (roadkill etc) of increased traffic on both roads

and railway

• Increased traffic (especially heavy vehicles with

restricted speed limits) may impact on other road users

operations

• Influx of people (construction workers, mine

workers) can also have an associated impact on local

communities. Of particular concern (which has been picked

up in developments elsewhere) is the increase in violent

crimes against women.

With regards the to water use licence, the quantity of water

required - a total of 4542 cubic metres per day as per the

presentation - seems extremely excessive in an already

water stressed area - in particular with the associated impact

this will have on water availability to existing agricultural

operations, which as noted by one of the attendees will also

affect existing local employment.

Of particular concern too will be the impact of climate change

on these water resources - what is already a stressed supply

now may become even more stressed in future as climate

change takes its toll on local environments.

I hope this helps to bring further depth and consideration to

your Environmental Impact Assessment.

Please do keep me informed of any further updates regarding

this project.

Erika 11-10-2016 The Waterpoort Farmers Union wishes to be registered as an

Interested and Affected Party with reference to the above

project. The reason for our registration is to be informed of

information that could have an effect on our members.

Thank you for the comments. Please supply me with your P.O Box so I can

send you a C.D with the specialist studies.

And as previously discussed, if you can supply us with other I&AP's who

weren't at the meeting but interested in the project.

Contact details are as follows:

Contact Person : Erika Helm

Cell phone : 0796996032

Email : erikahelm@mweb.co.za

Postal address : PO Box 26, Waterpoort, 0905

With reference to the public meeting as been set forth on the

8th of October 2016, we wish to furnish our

comments/questions as follows.

1. We wish to inform you of an Extraordinary Provincial

Gazette, dated 13 November 2015 Notice 344 of 2015 signed

and promulgated by the premier of Limpopo Province

whereby the area has been declared the area as disaster

area due to persisting drought according to the Disaster

Management Act 57 of 2002. This fact has again been

confirmed in the Parlement during the second quarter of this

year. According to this information it is therefor a very

sensitive area especially with reference to the water situation.

It is by this information that the farmers union wishes to

demand an Integrated Regional Water Study integrating all

mining projects in the area to be done. We take note that this

is not an obligation according to legislation – however it is the

opinion of this union that the project can have detrimental

effect on the livelihood and existence of each resident in the

area. Copy of the Provincial Gazette handed to the

Environmental Practitioner during the meeting.

2. We take note the life of mine for the Block OC 1 is

expected 20 years. We also take note according to the

information as being supplied during the meeting that the OC

2 and OC 3 blocks is situated within the 100 year floodline

and the Life of Mine on this blocks cannot be supplied. We

wish to enquire when will this information be available to the

Interested and Affected Parties.

3. We wish to request that the Safety and Security

impacts also be addressed during the assessment studies as

the influx of workers will have an influence on the current

situation as being experienced.

4. We refer to the existence of 4 graves within the

project area. Could the deceased be determined and what is

the age of these graves? In which block is this graves

situated?

5. Stockpiles – we take note of the sides being

vegetated to prevent erosion. The concern exist for the

invasive and non-indigenous plants which could invade these

stockpiles. What will the actions be to manage this situation?

6. We take note of the blasting that will occur with

reference to mining operations. The concern is that the

structures in the area was originally not build to endure the

stress of such operations. Please indicate the financial

guarantee be set in place for rehabilitation in respect of

damanges to the structures.

7. We take note of million tons of coal to be produced

per month. What is the quality of the coal and who is the

customers of Universal Coal?

8. We refer to the presentation of Mr Mandla Masango

with reference to the WULA application. We need to be

informed of the distance of the municipal sewerage treatment

plants from the proposed project as this is one of the water

sources as been specified in the presentation.

9. We take note the possible usage of the Brakriver in

the project. We wish to inform you to take note the Brakriver

is a river with a non-permanent waterflow. There will be an

impact on the water users downstream as well as the

environment which are supported by the water of this river

when it is flowing during the rainy season.

10. We take note of the pollution control dam – where

will this dam be constructed? It is our concern of the

possibility of pollution during overflow of this dam. This need

to be addressed.

11. In the documentation and presentation of Mr

Masango the Life of Mine is stated as 33 years and the

WULA application also in respect of this. It is however stated

in the MPRDA section 23 (6) that a mining licence can only

be approved for a maximum of 30 years. OC 1 is also

expected for only 20 years, whereby OC 2 and OC 3 is yet

not been established. Please explain the 33 years as this is

not clear with reference to the timeframes as set out above.

Thank you for the presentation as been conducted on 8

October 2016. We look forward in receiving the Draft EIA.

Juanita De Beer 07-10-2016 Our former e-mails in which Bokamoso raised various

concerns regarding the new EIA Application process for the

Universal Coal Mining Development known as the Berenice

Mining Application Refer

Take note: !!!!!!!!!!! This is a very important e-mail and all

I&APs must take cognizance of this correspondence,

because it also affects the rights of the registered interested

and affected parties and the parties that were not afforded an

opportunity to register as I&APs in this new application

process. We are of the opinion that the EAP is no

transparent, not independent and that they are once again

hiding important information from all the I&APs. This can

simply not be tolerated any longer.

As already stated in our former correspondence and

comments provided we represent (as environmental

consultants) various land-owners/ farmers in the area that are

totally against the proposed open cast coal mine which will

cover an area of more than 7 000ha.

We are extremely disappointed in the modus operandi of

Jomela, because Jomela failed to disclose (in the former EIA

process) to the I&APs that DMR closed their files before the

Dear Interested and Affected Party;

Regarding the previous application, we noted that due to the delays with the

water studies which where supplied two weeks late that I&AP’s would not

have adequate time to comment on these reports. We requested not forced

I&AP’s to submit their comments as we had submitted a request for

extension as the due date for final submission was the 9th of September.

The DMR could not grant a second extension and based on the fact that

I&AP’s would not have had 30 days to review all the reports, the application

was deemed as lapsed. We did not refuse to afford I&Aps extra time but

rather stated that we were waiting on the department to give us feedback as

we indicated in a letter sent to you. This was also explained in a project

status quoi letter sent to registered interested and affected parties. We

requested comments on the EIA/EMPr report because the information is still

the same, the project is still the same and we want to address these

comments so that when we send the EIA report for the new application we

would have amended and addressed the issues raised.

Regarding the new application, newspaper adverts where placed in the

Limpopo Mirror and Zoutpan Newspapers ( 23 September 2016) and site

Notices were placed. In your previous queries you requested that we

provide you with an exemption letter for not following the NEMA PP

regulations and we advised you that we were conducting the PP according

submission of the Final EIA Report. Jomela forced the I&APs

to supply comments before a specific date and expected that

the I&APs review and comment on an incomplete

Environmental Impact Assessment Report and submit the

comments to DMR after Jomela submitted their Final EA to

DMR. We received some of the specialist reports almost 2

weeks after we received the EIA report without the annexures

for comment. We requested an extension of time for the

submission of the comments for the former EIA Report, but

Jomela refused to afford the I&APs an extension of time.

Whilst we were compiling the comments and whilst we

waisted a significant amount of time on the compilation of the

comments, we were informed that DMR closed the project file

and that DMR instructed Jomela to start afresh with a new

application process. Jomela were already aware of the

closure of the file when they forced the I&APs to supply

comments within a limited timeframe. In fact, Jomela already

submitted the nee mining application to DMR whilst waiting

for the I&APs comments regarding the EEIAR. This is

regarded as unprofessional, rude, reckless and to say the

least arrogant, because Jomela waisted the precious time of

the I&APs on a process that no longer existed and Jomela

withheld important information form the I&APs.

After some of the I&APs notified Jomela of DMRs

confirmation of the closing of the file, Jomela suddenly

decided to notify all the registered I&APs of the fact that the

former EIA process was terminated and that the process will

to Chapter 6, Section 41 of the 2014 NEMA EIA Regulations. The scoping

report was updated and sent out to registered parties from the previous

application as you so “however’ mentioned that they should also be included

which we have done so. We put up notices and advertised and we have

been adding parties who are registering for this process.

The reason why we arranged the meeting during the scoping period (which

is not against regulation) was due to the fact the we are also doing the

MPRDA consultation and we are aware that some of the farms in the area

have changed ownership. The issues raised by I&AP’s from the previous

application are still valid and we would like to afford new parties to raise

their issues.

This “selfish time driven process” as you call it is based on the legislation.

The scoping report has been released and I&AP’s have been given 30 days.

As you well know that the scoping report needs to be submitted within 44

days of the submission of the application how do we then give I&AP’s 30

days to register and then another 30 days for the review of the draft report

and be still within the timeframes?.

We are not limiting comments from registered parties but to anyone

interested or affected by the project. Jomela appointed specialists who

compiled studies and the negative impacts identified have not been masked

or hidden to I&AP’s. Jomela has not downplayed comments from I&AP’s, we

have included objections in the consultation reports and made the

department aware of these. The issue that water is a problem in the area

has been noted and the request for a regional study from IAP’s was noted in

the minutes. And as part of the IWULA which we are undertaking the DWS

will either approve or reject the application for the water use license based

start afresh. Jomela undertook to handle the new process in

a transparent matter, but this is once again not the case.

Jomela decided, without any permission from the delegated

authority (Jomela could not provide any proof of permission)

to refrain from placing any new newspaper adverts and site

notices which made I&APs aware of the new process. Jomela

furthermore failed to distribute notices to the surrounding

land-owners and tenants and to the current occupants of the

land. We only recently received a BID document, which was

sent out to the registered I&APs after Bokamoso enquired

about the PP process that was followed for the new EIA

process.

Bokamoso furthermore requested in recent correspondence

that Jomela supply proof of the newspaper advertisements,

site notices ad notices that were distributed to the

surrounding land owners in terms of the new process, but

Jomela failed to respond to this request.

We are of the opinion that Jomela failed to follow due process

and that the Public Participation for this new application is

once again “fatally flawed” and that it needs to be repeated.

New I&APs could have moved into the area since the last

public participation and the refusal to re-advertise will most

definitely have a negative impacts on new land-owners and

tenants. The fact that the new process was not re-advertised

furthermore creates an enormous amount of confusion,

because many of the I&APs still think that that Jomela is

on the stressors and water availability of the catchment.

A final register plus issues and response report will be included in the final

scoping report will be made available to all interested and affected parties.

And continuous engagement is not limited to the 30 days of the scoping, if

I&AP”s request another meeting we will schedule it. It is your prerogative not

to attend the meeting but we will still hold the meeting and identify other

parties.

continuing with the former EIA process.

Jomela should have followed the following steps with the new

Application:

Option 1: Follow a complete new process with full Public

Participation (PP)

Such a process will require that at least the following PP

be done:

- Placement of advertisements in newspapers in line with

the requirements of the MPRDA/ NEMA, the NWA and

NEM:WA;

- Placement of site notices at prominent points on the

site;

- The distribution of notices to the surrounding land-

owners, tenants. Occupants of land etc. (not only to I&APs

registered in terms of the former PP process, which was also

“fatally flawed”);

- Affording the I&APs a period of 30 days to register as

I&APs and to raise issues and concerns before compiling the

Draft Scoping Report and before making the Draft Scoping

Report available to I&APs;

- Creation of revised I&AP data base; and

- The compilation of a Scoping Phase Issues and

Response Report

None of this was done!!!!

The EAP simply used the I&AP database compiled during the

former EIA process, which is no longer valid and made no

effort whatsoever to comply with the steps as listed above.

The EAP had the arrogance to supply the I&APs registered in

the former EIA process with a copy of the same Draft

Scoping Report compiled for the former process and

requested that the I&APs supply comments within 30 days.

This is unfair and the I&APs and surrounding land-owners

and tenants are being prejudiced by this time driven and

selfish process of the applicant and the EAP. This clearly

indicated that he EAP is bias.

What is even more concerning is the fact that the EAP even

went as far as to arrange a public meeting in the SR

comment period. The public meeting was arranged less than

2 weeks in advance and during a school holiday. It is

regarded as reasonable if a public meeting is arranged at

least 2 weeks in advance.

Option 2: Apply for Exemption from PP

If the EAP wanted to make use of the PP process followed in

the previous application for which the file was closed. The

EAP should have applied to DMR in a formal exemption

application for exemption from public participation.

Unfortunately an exemption process also requires Public

Participation and it is therefore often just better to repeat the

public participation process when a file is closed and when

the EIA process needs to start afresh. As EAPs with many

years of experience in EIA applications, we had similar

situation in Limpopo Province with files that were closed and

PP processes that we wanted to carry over to the new EIA

processes. The delegated authority simply refused to allow

the usage of the previous PP process without an exemption

application and we eventually had to repeat the entire pp

process for the new applications.

Based on the above, we are of the opinion that the public

meeting cannot take place without proper advertising and

notification of the I&APs. We are furthermore of the opinion

that the request to provide comments regarding the Draft

Scoping Report is premature, because the EAP simply

accepted that no new I&APs will register in the mining

application process and simply decided to limited the I&APs

for the new process to the I&APs that were identified and

registered in the former EIA process.

This mining application will have a devastating and

irreversible impact on all environmental associated with the

study area and its surroundings and many of the I&APs are

getting the impression that the applicant plans to down-play

their comments in order to achieve the results as prematurely

promised to the investors.

The proposed open cast mining activity will amongst others

include the following impacts/ “fatal flaws”:

- The proposed mining activities will lead to the total

exploitation and destruction of the limited water resources in

the area, which is mainly associated with the river bed area

(the applicant’s own specialist confirmed this statement

during the former EIA application which lapsed). At present

the game farms and other vegetable farmers are already

struggling to irrigate their crops and feed game during

drought periods and the proposed new mine will utilize every

drop of available ground water. This is not in line with the

reserve determination allocations of the National department

of Water and Sanitation (DWS);

- The current ecological systems associated with the

river system in which the coal mining will take pace will be

destroyed completely (the applicant’s own specialist

confirmed this in his fauna and flora report attached as part of

the former EIA report compiled for the application which

lapsed);

- The relative flat landscape with the scattered Boabad

trees create a unique “Sense of Place” ad this will be

destroyed completely;

- The area have a very tranquil atmosphere and most of

the farmers purchased farms in this area in order to enjoy the

tranquil atmosphere with starlit evenings without any lighting

pollution. The proposed open cast mine will destroy this

valuable asset of the area;

- The road infrastructure in the area and the available

accommodation and social facilities in the area will not be

able to cater in the needs of the new employees at the mine;

- The surrounding roads are sub-standard roads and

cannot accommodate heavy vehicles and machinery that

travel to and from the mining areas.

Way Forward:

- If the EAP decide to continue with the process without

complying with the Public Participation requirements of the

applicable Regulations and Acts, the EAP must supply proof

that DMR exempted the EAP from new public participation;

- If the EAP received exemption from DMR for PP, all

I&APs have the right to peruse such exemption that was

granted, because exemption applications usually require

public participation;

- The EAP must give I&APs at least a 30 day period to

register as I&APs before making the Draft Scoping Report

available for comment. Surely the I&APs must be afforded

opportunities to raise new comments and issues of concern;

- If the public meeting takes place, the I&APs will

demand another public meeting after all the surrounding

farmers have been afforded a fair opportunity to register as

I&APs in the prescribed 30 day period. The meeting of 8

October 2016 will not be regarded as a proper public

meeting. This preliminary meeting can at most be regarded

as an introduction and first round data collection meeting that

will supplement data and information collected during a

proper public meeting;

- We will only supply comments regarding the Draft

Scoping Report after the 30 day I&AP registering period has

lapsed and once the Scoping Report has been updated in

order to accommodate the new list of I&APs and the new

issues and comments raised by the newly registered I&APs.

- It is however also recommended that the EAP also add

the I&APs registered in the previous application process as

I&APs of the new application process.

Juanita De Beer 08-10-2016 Thank you for your response. Please find attached consultation documents for Universal Coal

First of all you failed to provide us with proof of the

advertisements that were placed after we specifically

requested the proof. You only supplied it yesterday evening.

The proof of public participation should have been attached

as part of the Draft Scoping Report that was made available

to the public for review. This was not done. The applicable

regulations specifically require that proof of the public

participation process be attached as part of the Draft Scoping

Report. The new EIA Process

You already made the Draft Scoping Report available for

review on 13 September 2016, but you only placed the

advertisements and site notice 10 days after the Draft

Scoping Report was made available for review. In the

newspaper notice you mentioned to the new I&APs that the

Draft Scoping Report is available for review and that they

only have until 13 October 2016 for comments (less than

30days were afforded to newly registered I&APs for

comment). You once again failed to afford the I&APs a

minimum of 30 days for comments and you are once again

not complying with the timeframes as set in the legislation.

In your previous e-mails and notices forwarded to the I&APs

you explained that the former EIA process lapsed, because

you failed to supply the I&APs a minimum of 30 days to

supply comments regarding the report that was made

available. You decided to repeat this mistake again in the

new process. The new I&APs (the I&APs who registered after

Development II (Pty) Ltd as requested.

Your comments have been noted. For compliance purposes we will submit

the scoping report on the 14th but we will receive comments until the 23rd of

October and update the consultation report which we will submit to the

department.

We also have the Mining Right application commenting period open until the

2nd of November 12p.m.

We will send out the scoping report to registered parties on the 14th and we

will keep the registration process of any I&AP’s open. The reason why we

had the meeting during the scoping period is due to the fact that from the

previous consultation I&AP’s had concerns that we had held the meeting

outside the scoping period.

We do however are not limiting I&AP’s to one meeting. If I&AP’s do however

request a meeting we will be more than happy to arrange.

the advertisements and site notices were placed and the

I&APs who can still register until 23 October 2016) are once

again prejudiced, because they have less than 30 days to

supply comments and the public meeting is held before the

lapsing of the 30 day registration period. The people who

register after the public meeting will not even have an

opportunity to attend a Scoping Phase public meeting,

because the public meeting is held before the registration

period ends on 23 October 2016. This is a very sensitive

project and the proposed mine will have a devastating impact

on the environment and it is therefore crucial that you follow

the correct procedures and processes. Your own specialists

emphasized the irreversible and significant negative impacts

on the water resources, ecological environment and various

other environments and you are fully aware of the

controversy around this project.

Are you going to give the newly registered I&APs an

extension of time for the submission of comments regarding

the Draft Scoping Report? Are you going to make an

amended scoping report available which includes the public

participation details and which includes the comments and

issues raised by the new I&APs? Please clarify the way

forward.

We will also appreciate it if you could supply us with minutes

and attendance register of the first public meeting that will be

held today. We will also appreciate it if you could furnish us

with a copy of the power point presentation presented at the

meeting. We need copies of the minutes and the presentation

by Monday 10 October 2016, because you only afforded

I&APs until 13 October 2016 to supply their comments

regarding the Draft Scoping Report.

Naas Grové

11-10-2016 Kindly forward information to be registered as an IA&P

President: Dendrological Society of South Africa

082 575 4244

Constance

Ndavhedi Mbali

(Mudau

10-10-2016 Good day Yvonne

My name is Constance Ndavhedi Mbali (Mudau) I hereby

respond to the below mentioned notice and likewise declare

my interest in the matter.

NOTICE OF A COAL MINING RIGHT APPLICATION AND

A SCPOING REPORT ON THE FARMS

BERENICE 548MS, CELINE 54 PORTION 1

DOORVAAEDT 355MS, REMAINDER DOORVAARDT

355MS, MATSURI 358 MS, LONGFORD 354MS AND

GEZELS 395MS LOCATED IN MAKHADO, LIMPOPO BY

UNIVERSAL COAL DEVELOPMENT II (PTY) LTD.

I deem myself as one of the affected parties in respect of the

above mentioned matter. I am the daughter of the late

Moyanalo Annah Mudau whom was a daughter to Jacob

Maano Motau and Moshasawe Sophi Motau who are my

grandparents. My grandparents own a portion of the farm’s

land. They had children and raised them on the very same

farm who are now my aunts and uncles. I too was born and

You have been registered as an interested and affected party. You will

receive any and all communication regarding the project. We are

independent environmental consultants and only deal with the

environmental issues. Compensation issues can only be discussed with

Universal Coal after such a time the mining right has been granted. But the

issues that you have raised will be noted. Since we did not have your details

previously that is why we submitted hard copies to the actual farm to allow

the residents an opportunity to share the information with other members.

grew on the farm. I spent most of my childhood upbringing on

the farm and I was raised by my grandparents following the

passing of my mother. I am currently based in Gauteng and

when I go to my homelands during holidays I go to the farm.

The farm is a home to me and holds a precious place in my

heart as it contains rich history of my family and our heritage

as the Badau clan.

Sadly the head of our family Mr J M Motau( Mudau) passed

on and he was buried on the farm. We have a very big family

and we hold our annual family gatherings on the farm. I am

convinced that with the information I have declared to you I

am truly and deeply affected by the changes to take place on

our homeland.

I therefore would like to find out more information about how

will I benefit from the compensation and what plans are put in

place for the affected individuals going forward.

Should you require further clarity you may contact me on my

cell: 071 595 7019 or email: andembali@gmail.com

In addition to the above, kindly note that the following will

also be part of the affected parties. I have CC’d them to ease

your reference.

1. Maropeng Daphey Sithole ( Mudau) - 851008 034

2082 – 072 123 8347

2. Refilwe Paulete Duba ( Mudau ) – 881125 037 2085 –

072 145 2180

I trust you find the above in order and I hope to hear from

you soon.

tel:071%C2%A0595%207019mailto:andembali@gmail.comtel:072%C2%A0123%208347tel:072%C2%A0145%202180

Bokamoso 1) INTRODUCTION

It was requested that Bokamoso, on behalf of some the

surrounding landowners/tenants/farmers to peruse the Draft

Scoping Report for the above mentioned project and submit

comments regarding the report to Jomela Consulting (Pty)

Ltd. A copy of this comment document will also be forwarded

to the Limpopo Department of Economic Development,

Environment and Tourism (LDEDET).

To follow now are the preliminary comments regarding the

Draft Scoping Report for the new application for the proposed

open cast coal mine, which will be developed on the above

mentioned farms.

2) COMMENTS REGARDING THE DRAFT SCOPING

REPORT WHICH WAS MADE AVAILABLE ON 13

SEPTEMBER 2016

2.1) SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS

SUPPLIED IN THE DSR

Universal Coal Development ll (Pty) Lt had been appointed

by Jomela Consulting (Pty) Ltd to conduct an Environmental

Impact Assessment (EIA) to evaluate the potential

environmental and social impacts of the proposed project.

The applicant intends to establish an opencast coal mining

operation, located in the Limpopo Province of South Africa,

some 120 kilometres (km) to the North of Polokwane and to

the east of the settlement of Alldays. The project may

be REACHED via an all-weather gravel road that branches

off from the tar road. The R584, between Alldays and

Waterpoort.

The farms covered by the Berenice Project is 7761.0950

hectares in extent, is held under Prospecting Right (PR) (No.

LP30/5/1/1/2/378PR); granted to Universal Coal

Development lI (Pty) Ltd that expires on 19 March 2016. The

'Boreholes drilled in the prospecting area indicates that the

area of interest lies on the farms Berenice 548 MS, Celine

547 MS, Doorvaart 355 MS, Matsuri 358 MS and Longford

355 MS, with no coal on the Farm Gezelschap 395 MS.

Apparently the Berenice Project has a JORC compliant coal

resource of 1.358t (gross tonnes in situ) of which 424.91 Mt

are measured, 800.92MT indicated and 124.29MT inferred.

The Proposed site location (Berenice project), is located

within the B-block of the Mopane

Sub-Basin sector of the Soutpansberg coalfield.

In order to assess the potential impacts, it was stated that the

following specialist studies will be conducted and included as

part of the EIA:

0 Air Quality impact assessment

Hydrological assessment (Surface water)

0 Geohydrological assessment

Ecological assessment

Soil and land capability

Social impact assessment

0 Visual impact assessment

0 Noise assessment

Traffic impact assessment

Heritage impact assessment

In the Scoping Report the EAP referred to the public

participation process that was followed.

The EAP however only included detail of the PP process

followed as part of the former EIA process application for

which the file was closed due to the fact that the EAP failed to

afford the l&APs 30 days to supply comments regarding the

reports that were made available.

The I&AP database as supplied in the Scoping Report also

refers to the I&APs that registered in the former EIA process

for an application which is no longer applicable.

2.2) COMMENTS REGARDING THE DRAFT SCOPING

REPORT AND THE PROCESS

FOLLOWED UP TO DATE:

GENERAL:

As qualified environmental consultants with many year’s

experience in the compilation of EIA applications, we are of

the opinion that the EAP appointed for the mining application,

failed to act as independent consultant. The independence of

the EAP will be challenged.

The EAP is well aware of the time constraints associated with

an application once an application has been submitted to the

delegated authority, but due to fact that the mining application

is subject to serious time constraints, the EAP forces the

I&AP’s where supplied with the relevant documents via email, including the

minutes from the public meeting.

Comment has been noted

I&APs to participate in a flawed PP process.

The EAP is also well aware of the fact that the 2014 EIA

Regulations make provision for the compilation of specialist

reports and extensive PP prior to the submission of an

application to the competent authority, because such pre-

application procedures actually allow for the EAP to address

and consider all issues raised by the I&APs before embarking

into a process with strict timeframes.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

The Public Participation process that was followed in the

Scoping Phase is once again regarded as insufficient and

“Fatally Flawed”;

The advertisements for the new EIA process were only

placed on 23 September 2016. In the advertisement it is

stated that all l&APs have an opportunity to register as

I&APs until 23 October 2016, but in the same advertisement

it is mentioned that the Scoping Report is available for

review, but only until 13 October 2016. How is this possible?

This is very irregular and arrogant and will without any doubt

prejudice any new I&APs that wish to register during the

public participation process for the new application. In the

EAP’s own notices that were distributed (after the closure of

the file for the former application) and in this scoping report,

the EAP stated that the former application file was closed due

tot the fact that they failed to allow the l&APs 30 days to

supply comments regarding the EIA Reports;

Comment Noted

This objection has been noted. We have kept the commenting period open.

Please do note that we are re-advertising and as requested in the email

received from Bokamoso, we will keep the registration and commenting

period open for another 30 days. These comments will be continuously

updated in the comments and response report.

The EAP is now repeating this mistake. The EAP supplied

the I&APs that registered in the former EIA process (which is

no longer applicable) with a Scoping Report for review on 13

September 2016 and requested that their comments be

submitted to Jomela on 13 October 2016, because the Final

Scoping Report will be submitted to DMR on 14 October

2016. This just illustrates that it was never the EAP’s intention

to incorporate and address the issues raised by the l&APs on

13 October 2016 as part of the Final Scoping to be submitted,

because it is impossible to thoroughly address the issues

raised by the formerly registered I&APs (in an amended

report), especially with regards to a controversial application

such as this one, in only one day.

The EAP simply ignored that fact that they have to follow a

new PP process for the new application and that the new

process must allow l&APs 30 days to register as l&APs and

only after the l&APs are registered in terms of the new EIA

process are they allowed to make the Draft Scoping Report

available for a further 30 days for review to all parties that

registered.

The EAP is now furthermore going to submit the Final

Scoping Report to DMR without the comments of the newly

registered l&APs and l&APs that can still register until 23

October 2016. The public meeting was also held prior to the

lapsing of the registration period for the l&APs and this selfish

and time-driven action also prejudiced the l&Aps who still

have an opportunity to register between 8 October 2016 (the

day of the public meeting) and 23 October 2016 (the last day

The public meeting was held during the scoping phase as we had noted

objections not to hold the meeting outside the scoping phase. We are

however prepared to have another meeting for the scoping phase at the

request of I&AP’s/

afforded for registration).

As stated in our e-mails that were sent to Jomela prior to the

public meeting, they should have applied for exemption from

public participation if they intended to submit the Final

Scoping Report before the new registration period/

advertisement period for the l&APs lapsed and if they wanted

to rely on the PP of the former application (for which the file

has been closed due to insufficient PP) in the new

application. l&Aps are now very confused, especially due to

the fact that the EAP requested that the l&APs who

registered in the former EIA process for the mine, now also

submit their comments regarding the Jomela EIA report that

was made available in the former process.

It is also important to note that we were recently contacted by

land-owners, workers and tenants in the area who only

recently became aware of the proposed mine in the area.

Some of the PDls are extremely upset about the limited

efforts that were made to notify them of the proposed mine,

which will have a devastating effect. Apparently some of the

l&APs could not understand the language on the notices and

they are furthermore not equipped with technology to register

by means of faxes/ e-mails.

How are you going to deal with l&APs that register after you

submitted the Final Scoping Report? Will you withdraw the

Scoping Report at DMR in order to afford them the required

30-day period to comment on the Draft Scoping Report?

Certainly you are not again going to submit your final report

and as an afterthought file the submissions and comments of

such I&APs who lawfully has time to lodge their submissions

until :23 November 2016.

If DMR decide to accept this flawed PP process it will create

an untenable precedent and applicants for similar

applications will be able to use advertisements and

comments supplied by I&APs in former processes, without an

application for exemption in an endeavor to comply with the

PP requirements for the new EIA process. It shall indeed

make a mockery of the entire PP process to the detriment of

I&APS

The I&APs were once again not afforded 30 days for the

submission of comments;

The EAP will not be able to attach an updated I&AP data

base to the Final Scoping Report, which is unacceptable;

The EAP failed to notify all the organs of state that could

have an interest in the matter;

The low attendance figures at the public meeting held on 8

October 2016, which was arranged with less than 2 weeks

notice and before all the I&AP had the opportunity to register,

once again confirms the “non-transparent” and flawed public

participation process that was followed up to date. The EAP

clearly only pays lip services to the statutory requirements in

that regard and with undue haste to the detriment of the

The comments received will be submitted to the DMR and in addition to that

these comments will also feed into the EIA report.

entire process endeavors to bulldose the process to

finalization;

The EAP failed to apply for an extension of time for the

submission of the Final Scoping Report and the time limits

associated with the application will without any doubt

prejudice the I&APs. The inevitable result of the aforegoing

would be that this process shall again be nullified as a result

of non-compliance with the timeframes imposed by applicable

legislation.

2.3) DETAILED COMMENTS

The proof of PP attached as part of the DBAR is not in line

with the applicable

legislation;

The DBAR lists the specialist studies to be conducted during

the EIA process. We are of the opinion that it will be

necessary to conduct the following additional studies:

4» A detailed wetland delineation, because most of the

mining activities will take place within a very sensitive

watercourse. In the former EIA it was stated that

it was not possible to do a wetland delineation due to limited

access to the properties;

4. An aquatic assessment;

4:- A red data fauna and flora study;

Noted and these will be done during the EIA

1L A certification of the pre- and post-construction 1:100 year

floodline, because mining activities will have a significant

impact on the flood line, even outside the boundaries of the

mining area;

4» The technology problems and language problems of the

PDI l&APs must be taken into consideration and dealt with in

line with the applicable PP Regulations and guidelines;

«L An updated geo-hydrological assessment will be required,

because the geo-hydrological report compiled as part of the

former application process was incomplete and sub-standard.

3) CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Bokamoso is of the opinion that the PP process followed for

the new application is “fatally flawed”. The EAP once again

failed to afford l&APs 30 days to supply comments regarding

a Draft Report and the public meeting was held before all

l&APs had the opportunity to register for the new process.

The EAP had to apply for an exemption if they wanted to

deviate for the PP requirements as set out the applicable

regulations and DEA guidelines.

Based on the above, we regard the process followed up to

date as invalid and it is recommended that the EAP rather

terminate the current application process and start afresh

Adverts will be published in Venda, Afrkaans and English.

Rikus Myburgh 17 October

2016

Wie dit mag aangaan,

Hiermee gee ek aan Universal Coal Development II (Pty) Ltd

kennis dat ek;

‘n Geaffekteerde person is as verteenwoordiger en

proxy vir die plase Renfrew, Thurso en Andromeda

aangrensend tot die projek

Ten sterkste beswaar maak teen die beoogde

mynprojek aangesien:

o Daar bloot nie naastenby genoeg water in

die gebied is vir mynboubedrywighede nie,

veral oopgroef steenkoolmyne

o Die beoogde projek die migrasieroete van

luiperds van/na die Soutpansberg afgesny

en/of erg beperkend sal maak, met

gepaardgaande eskalering van skade vir

wildboer wat in die gebied boer;

o Besoedeling van ondergrondse water ‘n

ernstige negatiewe invloed op die

verbouing van ‘n verskeidenheid van

groente in die gebied sal he

o Die padinfrastruktuur is glad nie in staat om

die addisionele swaarvoertuie te

akkommodeer nie.

Thank you for registering as an affected party. Your objection has been

noted. We will address the issues in the EIA report.

Dr Ian Little 14 October,

2016

RESPONSE TO: DMR REF NO. LP 30/5/1/2/3/2/1 (10131)

Your comments and objections have been received.

EM, application for mining rights (Berenice project), Makhado

local municipality Limpopo.

The Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) is a non-governmental,

non-profit, conservation organisation, founded in 1973 and

operating throughout southern Africa. The EWT conserves

threatened species and ecosystems in southern Africa by

initiating research and conservation action programmes,

implementing projects which mitigate threats facing species

diversity and supporting sustainable natural resource

management. The EWT furthermore communicates the

principles of sustainable living through awareness

programmes to the broadest possible constituency for the

benefit of the region. The EWT has developed a unique

operational structure through which the mission and

objectives of the EWT can be achieved. The EWT achieves

its conservation goals through specialist, thematic Working

Groups, designed to maximise effectiveness in the field and

enhance the development of skills and capacity.

The EWT strives to conserve biodiversity assets, ecosystem

services and our natural heritage in general to the benefit of

all people in South Africa.

The proposed mining project is situated in a highly sensitive

and biologically important area. This is supported by the fact

that 90% of the area is identified as Critical Biodiversity Area

1 or 2 and the remainder as Ecosystem Support Areas 1.

Cumulative impacts including road networks, air, soil and

water pollution in the region will have further knock-on effects

on associated critical biodiversity areas including the Langjan

Provincial Nature Reserve (17km from proposed site). It is

Noted

important to note that there are No alternative sites available

to meet the proposed targets, especially because this whole

region falls within the within the proposed buffer zone of

Vhembe Biosphere Reserve (2016 SEMP). On top of this are

the water issues that will be associated with this proposed

mining activity. The proposed area is on the Brak River which

is a Class B river (Largely Natural under NFEPA

classification). The impacts on the river and its riparian zone

will be impossible to rehabilitate and this on top of the fact

that the proposed water consumption exceeds the annual

rainfall in the area and that the area is a drought catastrophe

area means that this proposal should not even be considered

from a Water Use Licence perspective.

Given the overall biodiversity value of the area, the

cumulative impacts of the proposed activity, the inability to

rehabilitate such a sensitive area and the extreme water use

issues we strongly oppose this application.

It has been noted that the buffer has been proposed and not implemented

yet. This has been noted and will be taken into consideration by the DMR as

they evaluate the feasibility of the project.

Due to the sensitive nature of the Brak River, the applicant has amended

their layout cutting out areas of the proposed OC2 and OC3 mining areas.

This was done so as to avoid mining within 100m of the river and floodlines.

Noted.

Bokamoso These l&APs requested our office to register them on your

data basis as some of them do not have access to emails.

Therefore we would like to inform you of additional l&APs

whom we would like add on your l&APs Database. Take note

that all correspondence regarding

this project should be forwarded to both the l&APs and

Bokamoso in the future.

We are also under the impression that the comments on the

Draft Scoping Report had to be submitted on the 13th of

October 2016, however the registration period for l&APs is

Noted

accepted until today 23 October 2016 (which falls on a

Sunday therefore the actual date will be Monday, 24 October

2016). These l&APs would also like an opportunity to

comment on the Scoping Report and they are allowed to

have a 30 day comment period to peruse the available

documents and supply your office with comments. The 30

day comment period should commence on Monday, 24

October 2016 until Tuesday, 22 October 2016. It is therefore

requested that your office make the Draft Scoping Report

available to them at a public facility in close proximity to them

in order for them to peruse the documents (Draft Scoping

Report). Unfortunately our offices are not close to them and

therefore we cannot assist them in this regard. As mentioned

before, please ensure to inform the people without any email

addresses by means of sms communication.

A list with the additional people to add to your database is

attached as Annexure A to this.

Kindly keep our office as well as these individuals updated

regarding any other available information, meetings, reports

etc. regarding the project throughout the remainder of the

process. Please note that some of these affected parties do

not have access to emails and it is requested yet again that

your office inform them by means of sending them a sms. It

should also be considered to arrange for an interpreter to

attend any future public meetings as some of the people do

not understand English and should be given the opportunity

to fully grasp what is being said in their own home language.

The common home language in the area is Pedi and Venda.

We have received the list of I&AP’s and we will contact them and find the

nearest area where we can send the reports for them.

Bokamoso furthermore would like to know if the Final

Scoping Report for this project had been submitted to the

relevant authorities for consideration. Please provide our

office with written confirmation in this regard as well as proof

that the additional l&APs were registered and given an

opportunity to peruse the Draft Scoping Report.