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 details a legal appeal by landowners of the farm Elandskloof against a coal prospecting right granted to Trollope Mining Services 2000 (Pty) Ltd. The document highlights systemic failures in the consultation process, the inadequacy of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP), and the failure of the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) to ensure procedural and substantive compliance with the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA).

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
  • The consultation process conducted by the mining consultant, Geovicon CC, was characterized by a lack of procedural fairness and timeliness. The consultant attempted to contact landowners only 0 to 3 days before the consultation period expired, and the required public notice was reportedly kept in a drawer at the Belfast Magistrate's Court rather than being properly displayed. No public participation meetings were held.
  • Landowners faced significant obstacles in accessing information regarding the prospecting application. Requests for information were refused by Geovicon CC, and subsequent requests made to the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) under the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA) were only partially granted without provided reasons or internal appeal procedures. One landowner received the EMP on 24 April 2007, approximately six months after its submission to the DME.
  • The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) approved by the DME on 19 October 2006 was allegedly inadequate and based on generic desk-top studies rather than site-specific research. Specific omissions included the failure to mention sensitive wetland ecosystems, the impact on red data species of wetland birds, rare plant species, and historical sites. The EMP also failed to specify water sources for the required 1,000 to 10,000 litres of water per day or provide a bank guarantee for the R47,580 rehabilitation provision.
  • The Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) is cited for failing to identify flaws in the EMP's substance and procedure. The DME granted the prospecting right on 13 April 2007, but landowners only became aware of this grant around 16 May 2007 when the consultant sought land access. The DME also ignored requests for urgent meetings to resolve consultation issues and failed to respond to requests for the suspension of activities pending an appeal.

Cite the original document

APA
Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). TROLLOPE MINING SERVICES - ELANDSKLOOF. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Trollope-Mining-Services-Elandskloof.pdf?x21779
Chicago
Centre for Environmental Rights. TROLLOPE MINING SERVICES - ELANDSKLOOF. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Trollope-Mining-Services-Elandskloof.pdf?x21779.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=TROLLOPE MINING SERVICES - ELANDSKLOOF |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Trollope-Mining-Services-Elandskloof.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsndtrollope, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{TROLLOPE MINING SERVICES - ELANDSKLOOF}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Trollope-Mining-Services-Elandskloof.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated