BIOTRACE – OBJECTION

Your letter dated 10/07/02 refers.

1. We confirm that we still require a hearing. It is respectfully pointed out that your role as the grantor of the Record of Decision is a quasi-judicial one, with administrative and legal obligations. We are not requesting a casual meeting with you, where you can hear and ignore what is being said. We have lodged a formal objection, informing you that we will be presenting evidence and calling witnesses to support our objection. Accordingly we expect a formal hearing to be convened.
2. You had five (5) weeks to respond to our request for a hearing. We are unable to secure our witnesses on one weeks notice. We indicated to you that our witnesses are from out of Durban, are professionals with busy schedules and that we required adequate notice of the hearing. Further we are volunteers who attend to these matters after work and oneweeks notice is inadequate. Also to arrange a suitable venue on such short notice is very difficult. We suggest that you contact the writer to agree a mutually suitable date for the hearing.
3. Kindly indicate who would be chairing the hearing and that persons involvement with Biotrace.
4. It is the responsibility of the DAEA as the adjudicator to record the proceedings, especially where this is requested by the applicant and would be required in future review proceedings. We re-iterate that request. Further the community does not have the resources to record the proceedings.
5. Kindly inform us as to the status of the application challenging the DAEA’s unilateral decision to waive the EIA PROCESS and regard a peer review as sufficient as this materially affects our objection hearing.
6. With regard to para 2 & 3, we dispute your understanding that there was a disagreement of the terms of reference. Both the community and Biotrace negotiated and agreed the terms of reference. We question your adjudication of the terms of reference as you were not involved in it. We further question your conclusion that the specialist review is sufficient. How could you come to a conclusion without hearing the other side? The terms of reference were not circumscribed by the needs of DAEA but by the needs of both parties. It is for this reason that the agreed technical expert, Dr Eugene Caincross, a chemical engineer from Cape Town, should be called to clarify whether there was any ‘disagreement’ on the terms of reference or whether Biotrace chose a course that frustrated the terms of reference and the agreement with the community.
7. With regard to para 1, we are not in a position to comment on the the latest reports because Biotrace has frustrated the appointment of the agreed technical expert and has breached the agreed approach that the technical expert would study the reports, advise the community and empower the community to make meaningful response. DAEA would be advocating token consultation to request a community of lay people to analyse, critique and comment on technical reports compiled by specialists with doctorates.
8. With regard to para 4 & 5, DAEA would be committing a violation of the rights of the community, the EIA process and the relevant environmental legislation to regard the “agreed informal meetings” as part of the formal scoping exercise. It was expressly agreed that those meetings were outside the scoping process and the issues raised and ensuing discussion were not to be used in the formal process. Your staff were present when that agreement was reached. Should DAEA use such information in arriving at its decision it would be highly irregular and a gross manipulation of the community.

Yours Faithfully

SDCEA
BACK