Case Decision - 199791

The CHIA has been submitted as part of this ESIA. There are errors in some of the information about the archaeological aspects in the report, such as on page 37, where it notes that the wreck of São José (1794) was discovered in 2015 – when it had been discovered in the 1980’s and research starting in 2010 revealed that it was the wreck of the São José (1794). It must be further noted that the CHIA is not fully adhering to section 38(3) requirements of the NHRA in terms of:

There not being a map of the area surveyed and an indication of the location of the consulted communities;
The assessment of impacts to maritime tangible heritage is insufficient (although the mitigation measures as part of the FSR account for this); and
The details of whether there are communities that are opposed to the proposed activity and the reason for their opposition is not provided.

However, the CHIA sufficiently identifies the following ICH receptors as having potential negative impacts with the overall pre-mitigation sensitivity under normal operations being low to medium:

Ancestry/Spirituality through disturbing the ‘living waters’ and the pollution of seawater for emetic and/or ritual practices (low to medium sensitivity);
Archaeology/tangible heritage as some of these sites may change and the ICH associated therewith might diminish (medium to low sensitivity);
Livelihoods, in particular to small scale fisheries (SSF) (medium sensitivity);
Natural heritage through ecological alterations affecting socio-ecological relationships with nature such as sports, tourism, and leisure (high sensitivity); and
Health, in relation to use of the sea for resources (e.g., seawater) and/or access for mental health (medium sensitivity);

The CHIA further suggests mitigation and control measures on page 57 and 58, which involve consultations, the implementation of rituals, establishing a grievance mechanism, and adjusting the well locations for shipwrecks. In sum, the residual impact would then be considered low.
For unplanned events, the impacts would be considered high pre-mitigation and would be medium after the proposed mitigation measures which include implementing an emergency plan for oil spills and that there is sufficient insurance cover to rehabilitate affected socio-economic aspects. The CHIA further recommends that frequent and regularly sustained public participation should be undertaken.
These mitigation measures proposed in the CHIA report appear satisfactory in attempting to reduce impact to ICH. As such, the SAHRA currently has no objection for the development to proceed. However, it must be noted that other potential impacts to ICH may only emerge with further community consultation, and these must then be adequately addressed before the development may proceed.
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.