1. Introduction and overview This report is aimed at encouraging and supporting democratic decision making about water in the Limpopo catchment of South Africa. It argues that in the absence of water governance for this catchment, as mandated by the Water Act of 1998, a vacuum is created in which high risk ideas such as the EMSEZ and the Musina Dam can and do flourish. The insistence that water will be found for a late mega fossil fuel project in defiance of climate change requirements to sharply ramp down coal use, and to find that water in a closed catchment – that is a catchment in which all water resources are already allocated (Muller 2011) - are both the results of typical mega project planning that ignores local conditions and strives to overcome natural constraints by bending nature to the developers’ will (Flyvbjerg 2013; 2014). It also argues that the current initiatives of the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) to create an extensive catchment management area which will combine the rivers of the Limpopo North catchment with the Olifants and its tributaries, create challenging but exciting possibilities. A formal and inclusive catchment management process can harness the energies of a broad range of actors in the area who felt compelled to object to the EMSEZ plans – if it is done with active and supported citizens’ participation. This report builds on the May 2020 report on water risks of coal driven mega projects in Limpopo3, summarised in the next section below. Since its publication, a number of important developments took place. On 1 September 2020, interested and affected parties were informed that the draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report for the proposed Musina-Makhado SEZ site clearance and township development was available for public review, for a period of 50 days (until 22 October 2020). The main EIA report on the website of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP), DeltaBEC, came to around 800 pages with 20 specialist reports accounting for another 8000 pages. A large number of organisations lodged objections, both against the substance and the process, and actively campaigned against the EMSEZ. This report brings the EMSEZ saga up to date by discussing these developments and what they revealed about the project and the opposition to it. The provision of enough water for a water-hungry Electro-Mineral complex, estimated at around 80 mega cubic metres per year in an officially acknowledged water scarce area (see DWS 2016) was a major point of debate, criticism and worry. Appendix U of the report dealt
3
https://www.fes-southafrica.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Water_research_Limpopo_Catchment.pdf
9
