Cofferdam mining destroys several West Coast surf spots, more coastline under threat
Protect the West Coast (PTWC) has learned that three great surf breaks on the Namaqualand coast near the Orange River Mouth at Alexander Bay in the Northern Cape have been destroyed forever, apparently by rock-based cofferdams used in the mining industry to extract diamonds from inshore zones, with no signs of them stopping soon.
Words by Miles Masterson.
Ducks, “a solid barrelling left” was one of the premiere surf spots near Alexander Bay, world-class on its day. Emphasis on was as it no longer breaks due to the reef beneath it apparently being permanently altered by cofferdams. Image: Jacque Smit.
Cofferdam mining is a controversial method used in shoreline mining. In this case, it involved closing off sections of the shore by building dam walls with rocks and debris so that the nearshore seabed could be dredged for diamonds.
So contentious is the issue that this very cofferdam mining is currently the subject of legal action between the South African Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) and state-owned mining company Alexkor, who hold the mining rights in the affected area.
The legalities aside, for surfers, losing these surf spots due to this kind of mining is the worst crime imaginable – an egregious affront to those who love the sport. For everyone else who lives on or loves the West Coast, this revelation serves as solid evidence that unchecked and illegal mining poses a grave threat to this fragile coastal environment.
PTWC was recently notified by a regular visitor to the area – a long-time surfer who does not wish to be identified – who says that these three surf spots, in the mining concession area known as Block 60, have been permanently destroyed. These waves include two regularly surfed breaks, ‘Hotdogs’ “a fun, rippable righthander” and ‘Ducks’ “a solid barrelling left”.
A still from drone footage of the area in question shot a few years ago with rock cofferdams visible in the foreground. Image: Gavin Craythorne.
“They have destroyed these waves; they are gone,” he tells PTWC. “They were all mechanical spots, if the swell was clean they would be cooking. Unfortunately, the mining companies and their cofferdams have killed them, never to be surfed again.”
PTWC’s source also alleges these rock-based cofferdams were built illegally beyond the low water mark, which is why these surf spots were destroyed. For the record, mining companies are allowed to build certain types of sea walls below the low water mark – the legal debate centres on what materials are used and whether these contravene the conditions of mining.
“They built cofferdams across Block 60, which have eroded over time, but remain in place,” he adds. “They blasted shale and pushed walls out to sea… rocks and sediment settled on the reef and sand channel on the southern side. The area has not been rehabilitated at all, although the evidence of the extent of the damage caused by these dams is now only fully visible at low tide.”
This loss of surf spots and the resultant permanent alteration of the adjacent coastline has been substantiated by Gavin Craythorne. Gavin is an outspoken local independent diamond diver who has been campaigning against the large-scale diamond industry for employing these, and what he calls other, patently illegal and environmentally damaging practices, on this mineral-rich stretch of coast for decades, often at great personal cost.
“You don’t see anything at high tide,” says Gavin, “but the minute the tide is low, you can see exactly what kak they have thrown there in the sea. They’ve messed it up on an epic scale and it’s a highly sensitive area that’s right next to a Ramsar site.”
“It’s madness,” he adds. “The problem with those cofferdams is that the scale of them is just so massive. And the fact that they use quarried rock instead of sand, the sea can never rehabilitate rock-based cofferdams. It just doesn’t have the power to erode it. It’s a huge ecological habitat that’s been destroyed there.”
“Consider that the stone-based fish traps at Stilbaai,” continues Gavin, “which are handmade cofferdams, are believed to have survived for as long as 300 years, with some even surviving from prehistoric times.”
Warning Calls
For decades, environmental experts and activists have highlighted the dire consequences of rock-based cofferdam construction – especially where the use of non-native rock material is used in their construction.
Sand-based cofferdams can be more easily rehabilitated and broken down by natural wave and sand erosion. Rock cofferdams are more permanent, alter the shoreline, cannot be remediated by wave action and are a threat to the immediate environment and ecosystems.
Regardless, any alteration of the beach profile, excavation of minerals and impacts on beaches and intertidal fauna by the mining industry should be actively discouraged.
Environment reports have consistently warned of potentially irreparable damage to dunes and beaches, cliff collapses, the loss of natural vegetation and changes in inshore currents and turbidity, and the permanent alteration of fragile marine ecosystems caused by unnaturally occurring silting.
“‘Hotdogs’ “a fun, rippable righthander” – gone for good, “never to be surfed again.”
The dumping of foreign material used in cofferdams that has been quarried elsewhere – ‘mafic’ rock with angular edges that wedge together and form a permanent, impenetrable barrier, solidified by the fine dust that gathers between them into a hard cement-like paste – can permanently change local ecosystems, never for the better.
Microscopic particulates high in iron and magnesium contained in these materials are also phytotoxic to marine flora and fauna, which is one of the reasons these types of cofferdams are banned in many countries.
The practice can also suffocate the coves and kelp beds home to a wide array of marine life that can have serious repercussions on fish, lobster and abalone populations that local communities traditionally rely on for sustenance and income.
Though these rock cofferdams can technically be rehabilitated, the cost runs into tens of millions of rands and there does not seem to be much evidence of this, nor any appetite or motivation for the mining companies to do so.
In addition, cofferdamming affects the small-scale independent diamond diving industry, which is affected by changes to the coastal morphology and poor visibility caused by excessive silting. However, many divers fear speaking out as they rely on concessions provided by large mining rights holders to ply their trade.
Those who do suffer the consequences, such as Gavin, who says he has lost tens of millions of rands due to his vocal stance against big mining, which included testifying at a Zondo Commission inquiry against Alexkor’s alleged flouting of environmental requirements to build rock-based cofferdams.
A photo of the area taken on PTWC’s recent aerial reconnaissance mission in June 2024, with fragile wetlands in the foreground. Most of the evidence of the remains of these offending cofferdams is now only visible at low tide. Image: Jacque Smit.
Indeed, the issue of the apparent illegal use of these cofferdams, allegedly by big mining houses such as Alexkor, Trans Hex and others, and their subsidiaries and subcontractors, has long dogged the large-scale diamond mining industry on the Namaqualand seaboard and other parts of the West Coast.
The practice has been under scrutiny by the Zondo Commission and an investigation by the Green Scorpions, which should be lauded for finally taking a hard line with Alexkor. The DFFE and the government-owned mining company are in a legal dispute over the matter. (Conspicuous in its absence, however, is the DMRE, which appears unable or unwilling to play its statutorily mandated oversight role.)
Alexkor is alleged to have failed to comply with environmental requirements and went ahead with constructing rock-based cofferdams on the edge of the Orange River estuary and other parts of the Namaqualand coast, including Block 60. The DFFE has filed a criminal complaint against Alexkor with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), which the mining company is disputing in court.
As environment journalist John Yeld recently wrote on the website GroundUp: “Alexkor is challenging a DFFE July 2021 decision to issue it with a Compliance Notice in terms of the Integrated Coastal Management Act, one of a suite of acts under the umbrella National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) that are administered by the department.”
The situation, which is not focused on environmental concerns but rather legal arguments and pits two government entities against one another, centres on a list of technicalities about the awarding of environmental approvals; outdated environmental assessments; conflict of environmental laws; lack of proper dumping permits; mining rights; legal jurisdictions; and more.
It is a complex tale too detailed and complicated to unpack here. The matter is ongoing, so watch this space.*
The saga is also linked to the controversial Richtersveld Pooling and Sharing Joint Venture (PSJV) between Alexkor and the communities of the Richtersveld. This was recently highlighted on the PTWC website by South African !Ama leader and newly-appointed advisory board member Martinus Fredericks, who has lodged a dispute against the board of the Richtersveld Communal Property Association (CPA) in connection with alleged state capture connected to the PSJV.
Long-term effects
While the loss of a couple of surf spots pales into insignificance in the larger environmental and social context, it draws a sharp focus on the long-term devastation caused by cofferdams on the ecology, coastal morphology, livelihoods and beauty of the West Coast.
One of the three great surf spots near Alexander Bay that according to PTWC’s source no longer exist due to rock cofferdams built along this stretch of coast by diamond mining companies.
The damage to the environment caused by cofferdams can arguably completely ruin any future potential there might be in a post-mining world of sustainable surfing, eco- or adventure tourism or ocean-based nature-based solutions, let alone to any frugal living small-scale divers and fishers might be able to eke from the area.
When all beaches have been mined out, and the miners have packed up and gone – and they have left behind barren, sterile moon- and seascapes, what then?
According to PTWC’s sources, the returns are so lucrative that many in the large-scale diamond mining industry seem unperturbed by required environmental legislation. More rock-based cofferdams are apparently being built or planned for the West Coast, including around Kleinzee further south.
“Cofferdams smother square kilometres of the coastal environment and habitats permanently, forever. It’s lost, it’s gone, it’s messed up,” says Gavin.
Somehow this must stop. PTWC is investigating further.
Donate to protect
PTWC is the only environmental organisation in the country working solely toward saving this fragile part of our coast from the loss and damage caused by cofferdams and all other forms of illegal mining.
Please consider donating to our cause. You can now ‘Buy us a coffee’ (or two or three) every month as a recurring contribution, or make a larger recurring or one-off donation.
Your contribution will ensure we can maintain pressure on mining companies and government – and force them to do the right thing for the environment and communities of the West Coast.
In July 2021, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) issued Alexkor a directive (in other words, a Compliance Notice) in accordance with Section 79(1)(d) of the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act 24 of 2008 (NEMICMA). Section 79(1)(d) of NEMICMA provides that a person is guilty of a category one offence if that person dumps any waste at sea without a dumping permit.
According to the DFFE, not only does the use of mafic rock for cofferdam construction constitute dumping at sea, but as the act of dumping rocks during cofferdam construction constitutes a ‘listed activity’ in accordance with NEMICMA (see Listing Notice 1: List of Activities and Competent Authorities Identified in Terms of Sections 24(2) and 24D of NEMICMA in R 983 GG 38282 of 4 December 2014), the DFFE is therefore the only competent authority that can issue environmental authorisations in this regard.
Thus, the DFFE, acting under the aforementioned authority, issued the above directive to Alexkor that required the mining company to desist from using rocks to build cofferdams without a dumping permit. While Alexkor objected to this directive on the grounds that the DFFE has no jurisdiction and authority in this matter, their objection was dismissed late last year (2023) by former DFFE minister, Barbara Creecy (now Minister of Transport).
However, Alexkor has recently opened a review application under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA) in the hopes that it will overturn the decision of the Minister. This matter is ongoing.
What this means is that it is not the issue of whether the use of rocks in the construction of cofferdams that is being argued, but rather whether the DFFE is the competent authority and has jurisdiction to issue a directive under NEMICAMA to prevent Alexkor from continuing to construct cofferdams that utilising mafic rocks.
Put simply, from an environmentalist perspective, the core issue – that is, the use of rocks in cofferdam construction – is not the focus of the debate, but whether the DFFE has the required jurisdiction to prevent Alexkor from constructing cofferdams that make use of rocks.
According to the DFFE, they are indeed the competent authority and therefore have the necessary jurisdiction in this matter to determine that the use of rocks in cofferdam construction requires a dumping permit and that construction without such a permit therefore constitutes a prohibited act.
Primary Sources
Statutes
Listing Notice 1: List of Activities and Competent Authorities Identified in Terms of Sections 24(2) and 24D of NEMICMA in R 983 GG 38282 of 4 December 2014.
National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act 24 of 2008.
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000.
Secondary Sources
Reddy, M ‘Shortcomings of SA laws exposed through controversial shoreline mining on west coast’ Mail & Guardian 6 December 2017, available at https://mg.co.za/article/2017-12-06-shortcomings-of-sa-laws-exposed-through-controversial-shoreline-mining-on-west-coast/, accessed 18 June 2024.
Yeld, J ‘Alexkor facing criminal charges over Northern Cape mining operations’ GroundUp 19 January 2022, available at:
Critical flaws in the initial Public Participation Process (PPP) for a Prospecting Right by Richwill Diamonds (Pty) Ltd on a 412 hectare portion of the farm Karoetjes Kop (No.150) near Koekenaap have led the authorities to mandate the reopening of the application for public comment. Protect the West Coast (PTWC) has also observed several other shortcomings in the application documentation. PTWC urges you to sign up as an Interested and Affected Party (I&AP) to comment on and object to this application at www.ripl.co.za by 19 May.
Protect the West Coast (PTWC) has published its Annual Impact Report 2024, outlining the organisation’s achievements in 2024 and its strategic goals for the coming year. In the four years of its existence, PTWC has consolidated its role as a vital oversight organisation that unites stakeholders to hold to account the West Coast mining industry and the government entities that are meant to regulate them.
