Case Decision - 199106

Of these three activities, the latter two will physically disturb the benthic environment, and by extension possible heritage resources. The core sampling will have a relatively small impact on the benthic environment as the volume of sediment being disturbed is quite small. Before exploration drilling would commence, there would be a survey stage, and potentially affected heritage resources can thus be avoided, as detailed on page 7-141, under section 7.10.1 of the DSR. However, this section, along with the mitigation measures briefly mentioned on page 2-9, under section 2.2.8, must be updated from mentioning only 'ship wrecks' to instead mentioning 'heritage resources', with the most likely type of heritage resources being encountered in this case being archaeological ship wrecks and fossil clusters. The information on page 7-141, under section 7.10.1 should also be updated as follows:

The text mentions “The National Heritage Resources Agency” as being responsible for the protection of archaeological wrecks. This must be updated to say that this agency is SAHRA.
The statement, “All known shipwrecks off the coast of South Africa occur in waters shallower than 100 m within 50 km of the coast.” is outdated, with there being several known ship wrecks much deeper than 100 m and often further than 50 km from the coast. The statement must be updated to state “Most known shipwrecks…” instead of “All known shipwrecks…”.
The communication with SAHRA that is cited in the text is older than 10 years, and the current number of known wrecks, that are all lying in waters shallower than 100 m, around Robben Island as well as between Milnerton and Saldanha Bay (excluding those around Dassen Island and within the Langebaan Lagoon) is 101. As this communication is outdated, it must be removed, and there is no need to replace it, as the text reads fine with it omitted.   

On page 7-142, under section 7.10.2, a brief summary of the intangible cultural heritage (ICH) associated with the ocean is provided. It further states that the commissioned Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) will detail the affected ICH more thoroughly. The applicant provided a CHIA as part of an EA application for exploration drilling in Blocks 5/6/7 and this CHIA also included interviews with communities along the coastline closest to Block DWOB. SAHRA recommended several changes to be made to this CHIA, and if this same CHIA is submitted as part of this EA application for Block DWOB, then SAHRA insists that the updated version of the CHIA must be submitted. On Page 2-14, in Table 2-4, the DSR mentions ratified international legislation. Archaeology and cultural heritage related legislation are given as items 25-30. An addition must be made here noting that South Africa is not currently a signatory to item 26, the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the ICH, 2003, but that a process is underway. Moreover, the title for item 30 is a duplicate of item 26 and speaks to information from the World Heritage Convention Act, No. 49 of 1999 as well as item 26. This information can be moved to the description of item 26 instead.Once the above-mentioned changes are implemented, SAHRA would be satisfied with the mitigation measures for tangible heritage resources, as detailed on page 7-141, under section 7.10.1, and on page 8-12/13 under Table 8-4, and as such, there would be no need for a Maritime Heritage Impact Assessment (MHIA). On page 9-7, the DSR states that the mitigation measures for ICH will emerge as part of the CHIA, and as such, none are provided in the DSR. These mitigation measures will therefore be assessed when SAHRA receives the updated CHIA.Please note that all updates and/or changes to the project, supporting documentation, correspondence, reports, or any other work relating to the project must be uploaded to the case on SAHRIS to provide SAHRA with the opportunity to comment. SAHRA does not accept emailed documents or hard-copy documents received via post.