Browse all documents

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

This case study describes a legal challenge by the Mpumalanga Lakes District Protection Group (MLDPG) and landowners against a coal prospecting right granted to Khulile Mines on Farm Witkranz 53 IT in Mpumalanga. The appeal centers on inadequate stakeholder consultation, the ignoring of biodiversity designations by the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA), and the submission of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) containing materially false information regarding the area's topography and ecology.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Khulile Mines applied for a coal prospecting right on portions 4, 7, 11 and the remaining extent of Farm Witkranz 53 IT in the district of Chrissiesmeer, Mpumalanga. The Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) accepted the application on 8 May 2008, granted the right on 17 November 2008, and approved the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) on 3 March 2009.
  • The prospecting area is located in a region of high ecological importance, identified by the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA) as 'highly significant' due to significant wetland areas. This land type represents only 12.3% of the land in Mpumalanga. The area's water flows into the dam for the town of Carolina and subsequently into the Nooitgedacht dam, a primary reservoir for Eskom.
  • The Mpumalanga Lakes District Protection Group (MLDPG) and landowners lodged an administrative appeal on 21 June 2009, alleging that the consultation process was inadequate. They claimed they received insufficient information to be meaningfully consulted and that the EMP was in final draft form two months before the first notifications were sent to applicants.
  • The appeal asserts that the EMP contained materially false information and lacked baseline data. Specifically, the EMP described the area as 'slightly flat with open veld' when it is actually 'very undulating with steep slopes running into wetlands and streams'. Additionally, the EMP failed to address the 'no go' option and omitted the variety of plant species in the area.

Cite the original document

APA
Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). KHULILE MINES - WITKRANZ. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Khulile-Mines-Witkranz.pdf?x21779
Chicago
Centre for Environmental Rights. KHULILE MINES - WITKRANZ. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Khulile-Mines-Witkranz.pdf?x21779.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=KHULILE MINES - WITKRANZ |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Khulile-Mines-Witkranz.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsndkhulile, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{KHULILE MINES - WITKRANZ}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Khulile-Mines-Witkranz.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated