WEDNESDAY, 10 MAY 2006:
Marthinus van Schalkwyk, Minister of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism, has taken a decision regarding
the administrative appeals against the decision
to grant authorisation in terms of Section 22
of the Environment Conservation Act, No 73 of
1989 on the Expansion of the Cape Town Container
Terminal Stacking Area.
The decision The decision is
attached hereto.
The decision can also be viewed
on our website at www.deat.gov.za
APPEAL DECISIONS
1. SUBJECT
The National Ports Authority
(NPA) lodged an application for the expansion
of the container terminal stacking area at the
Port of Cape Town. The intention is to reclaim
a 300m wide section from the existing water’s
edge, parallel to and seaward from the existing
container terminal, increasing the container terminal
surface by approximately 42 hectares. An environmental
Record of Decision (ROD) was granted for the development,
but two appeals were then received against the
proposed development. My decision regarding the
administrative appeals against the decision to
grant authorisation in terms of Section 22 of
the Environment Conservation Act, No. 73 of 1989
on the proposed development is indicated hereunder.
2. BACKGROUND
In reaching my decision, I have
considered the following information –
the content of the project file;
the appeal documentation related to the two appeals
received as well as the CSIR response and appellants
further responses;
the Department’s response to the grounds of appeals
contained in the appeal submissions; and
an independent specialists’ review.
The documents before me indicate that:
Appeals:
The two appeals are based on similar grounds.
Indeed, it would appear that the Dolphin Beach
appeal was copied, with the necessary adaptations,
from the Woodbridge document.
The appellants dispute the following
Key Factors for Decision as contained in the RoD:
There is a clearly defined need
and desirability for the proposed development;
The project is intended to expand the container
terminal stacking area at the Port of Cape Town
in order to ensure that it has the capacity to
deal with the current and future growth in container
traffic; and
Specific environmental specialist studies in the
EIA process indicated that the impact of the development
was acceptable.
The issues raised by the appellants are wide-ranging,
and included the following:
Alternative means to address the need (e.g. improved
and increased equipment, higher stacking of containers,
inland storage of containers, etc.) were not adequately
considered;
The economic viability of the terminal expansion;
Polluting emissions from ship engines;
Visual impacts;
Beach erosion not adequately assessed; and
Impacts of beach nourishment on nearby communities.
Summary of the CSIR’s responses to the above:
The CSIR contends that:
There is much higher growth in container traffic
than averred by the appellants;
Constraints relating to suitable equipment do
not allow maximum stacking (5-high) as suggested
by the appellants;
Maximum stacking is not achievable as a norm,
is impractical, and impacts negatively on efficiency;
There are major objections to the alternative
favoured by the appellants, namely. the partial
filling of the Duncan Dock;
Larger ships mean that fewer vessels call, but
carry more cargo - and the new generation of ships
are built to be more fuel efficient and are more
environmentally friendly; and
The shoreline erosion problem will be mitigated
by beach nourishment, where suitable sand will
be deposited near the terminal.
Summary of the appellant’s replies to the CSIR’s
responses:
The CSIR has no reliable method
of forecasting the economic trends in container
traffic;
The appellants do not accept the CSIR’s arguments
regarding equipment, stacking heights and the
alleged difficulties with maximum stacking;
The appellants reiterate that the predicted turnover
in containers is overstated;
The objections of the CSIR against the filling
of the Duncan Dock are minor irritations and by
no means insurmountable; and
The appellants do not accept the conclusion of
the study to the effect that the erosion in their
areas will be minimal or of low impact, and question
the viability of the proposed beach nourishment.
The various arguments included in the aforegoing
are highly technical and it is for this reason
that I appointed experts to advise me on the appeals.
Mr. Willem Botes and Mr. Pieter Badenhorst were
appointed to conduct such a review. The report
of the specialist’s appointed by me consists of
inter alia the following:
Summary of the experts’ review
of the appeals
There are potentially significant
gaps in the Environmental Impact Assessment report;
Not all sensitive areas were identified in the
EIR (for eg. Milnerton Estuary, Salt River Mouth
and Caltex Sea Outfall);
The model utilized to predict
potential coastal erosion was not appropriate
for the study area (a straight line sandy coastline
was used as opposed to the complex nature and
composition of the study area);
The source of material for beach nourishment has
not been established. It is accordingly not clear
whether adequate resources (in terms of volumes
and consistency) are available;
There is information and data available to more
accurately model beach erosion and sediment transportation
that should have been employed;
The “do nothing” alternative
and other alternatives should have been assessed;
Trucking of material for beach nourishment through
residential and holiday areas will result in substantial
impacts on those areas;
Recommendations of peer reviewers
were not included in the report (without providing
reasons for dismissing such recommendations);
and
The practicality of engineering alternatives was
not assessed.
In their conclusions, the experts opine, inter
alia, that certain aspects of the previous studies
and therefore also the EIR need to be further
investigated to confirm that the “conceptual”
design was indeed balanced and is the optimum
with regard to economic, environmental and social
benefits to all interested and affected parties,
the coastal zone and existing infrastructure and
properties. The following issues were considered
as key issues:
Lack of critical information;
Technical limitations and uncertainties;
Questionable approach followed concerning beach
nourishment;
Coastal management; and
The EIA process.
The specialists found the EIA process and the
EIR to be flawed and recommended that the appeals
be upheld and the National Ports Authority (NPA)
be instructed to repeat and improve certain specified
elements of the EIA. The specialist’s report was
further reviewed by Dr. A E F Heydorn, both in
his capacity as a former staff member of NRIO/CSIR
closely involved in the coastal studies in the
area in question in the early 1980s and in his
capacity as independent coastal ecologist and
consultant. He indicated that he fully supports
the recommendations by the two experts, and made
additional comments under the following headings:
Coastal processes and ecology;
Economic impacts;
Aesthetic/visual impacts; and
Human health and welfare.
Dr.. Heydorn’s comments are summarised below:
Coastal processes and Ecology
Dr Heydorn points out that it
is a well-known fact that the intensity of extreme
(or episodic) storm events is creating high risk
situations of magnitudes not experienced previously
in many coastal regions worldwide, and that Table
Bay cannot be assumed to be an exception. The
assessment of these risks needs to be addressed
in far greater detail through in-depth modelling.
Regarding the proposed mitigatory measures through
various forms of sand-pumping, his opinion is
that these are entirely inadequate. Fishing, both
commercial and recreational, will be affected.
The effectiveness of mitigation through sand-pumping,
and the risk that sand-pumping holds, requires
proper assessment. In the light of these uncertainties,
the Precautionary Principle cannot be ignored.
Economic Impacts
The EIR for the proposed expansion
of the container terminal does not take cognisance
of the exceedingly high risk of negative impacts
on the industry, infrastructure, residential development
and tourism of Cape Town and the country. Aesthetic/visual
impacts The region holds unique aesthetic/visual
values which are recognised throughout the world.
If the configuration of the coast or its ecological
viability is further disrupted, the economic consequences
will be severe and incalculable. This aspect is
also not addressed in the EIR.
Human Health and Welfare
Thousands of people live in
the Table Bay area and their total financial ability
may be invested in properties such as those owned
by persons represented by the appellants. Erosion
of the beach/dune zone, or the silting up or other
forms of degradation of Rietvlei, could be an
unmitigated disaster for such people. There will
also be health risks if Rietvlei was to lose its
ability to absorb effluent from the sewage works,
because water exchange with the sea is impeded
by changes in the configuration of its mouth.
This may not be overlooked.
3. DECISION
Having had cognisance of the
above, I have accordingly concluded as follows:
The non-disclosure by the CSIR
of the concerns and recommendations highlighted
by their expert, renders the EIA process flawed
and reflects a serious breach of responsibility;
Notwithstanding the contention in paragraph (a)
above, there is a clearly demonstrated need to
increase capacity to deal with container import
and export associated with Table Bay to meet the
current and foreseeable future need;
Calculations and investigations of the NPA confirm
the financial and economical feasibility of increasing
the container capacity at Table Bay Harbour;
Indications are that alternative locations, such
as Saldanha are unlikely to be feasible;
The NPA confirmed in relation to 3(b) above two
possible options in meeting the demands, namely:
to either find an inland alternative at Table
Bay Harbour (e.g. through redesign of the harbour)
or;
their preferred solution, expansion of the Container
Terminal by reclaiming areas from the sea.
The acceptability and severity of Environmental
Impacts associated with the latter are contested
by appellants and some of their concerns are confirmed
by the expert external reviewers. Major issues
of concern relate to:
Beach erosion and associated
impacts on coastal communities;
Adequacy of beach nourishment proposals to counter
beach erosion;
Source material for beach nourishment;
Impacts on communities related to beach nourishment;
Impacts on sensitive areas, specifically the Milnerton
and Rietvlei Estuaries;
Visual impacts; and
Pollution caused by ships.
With the exception of the latest two I concur
with the concerns raised above, (for which limited
substance could be provided). I am concerned about
impacts on the beach and sensitive ecosystems
due to erosion and adequacy of mitigation measures
proposed. I am also concerned about the impacts
on local residents brought about by the proposed
mitigation and management measures. It is my view
that if these impacts cannot be altogether avoided,
more appropriate mitigation must be found.
I have accordingly decided to
partially uphold the appeals submitted in this
regard, set aside the ROD, and direct that the
applicant is required to do additional work and
compile reports to be submitted to me for consideration.
Such reports, the content and extent of which
are detailed below, together with the information
already compiled and submitted, will inform a
revised decision to be issued within 60 days of
submission of such reports as hereby required.
Such work must include the following:
Thorough investigation of inland
solutions through harbour redesign, and only if
this is not at all feasible (and proven by means
of reports in this regard), investigation of viable
and adequate mitigation measures for impacts associated
with reclamation of the sea through an expansion
of the container terminal;
On the assumption that the structure would result
in significant increase in beach erosion, revisit
mitigation measures to find nourishment solutions
that are scientifically and technically viable(the
applicant may opt to revisit the model used to
estimate erosion to have more accurate estimates
of trends to be countered by nourishment);
A monitoring programme needs
to be developed to constantly evaluate achievement
of (b) above;
Even should the applicant successfully confirm
the findings of the model previously used, nourishment
alternatives and related monitoring mechanisms
would need to be refined as per USACE (2003a);
Identify adequate and appropriate sources for
beach nourishment;
Investigate impacts caused or
likely to be caused as a result of the expansion
of the structure. A management plan to counter
or manage such impacts as might be identified
must also be included; and
Investigate and assess impact on marine ecology
and coastal processes as identified by Dr. Heydorn’s
report and referred to in the content of this
decision under paragraph 2. A management plan
to counter or manage any impacts identified through
such investigation must also be included in the
report to be submitted to me.
On submission of the above information,
being adequate and complete, I will issue a revised
Record of Decision that will give effect to these
changes and will stipulate the conditions to which
any authorisation will be subject.
