Dam ‘disaster’ not the appropriate word
ON SEPTEMBER 11, a tailings dam wall collapsed at the abandoned Jagersfontein diamond mine in the Free State’s Kopanong Local Municipality, unleashing a thick grey sludge. The mine is in the Xhariep District Municipality, home to about 5 800 people.
Following the dam burst, more than 400 people were affected, 51 houses were destroyed, and critical infrastructure was affected.
Within hours of the event, the media had already dubbed it the “Jagersfontein disaster”.
But the media cannot loosely report it as a “disaster”. It is not the appropriate classification according to the Disaster Management Act (DMA).
There is a need for governing institutions and their legislation to be respected and recognised, as this will improve on governance. South Africa has good policies, but implementation is, in certain areas, lacking.
Hereunder, we note that there is inappropriate use of terminology, which depicts the inadequate understanding of the disaster risk management function.
The DMA defines a “disaster” as a progressive, sudden, widespread, natural, or man-made occurrence that causes or threatens to cause death, disease or injury, damage to the environment, and disruption of life.
According to the Act, it is of a magnitude that “exceeds the ability of those affected by the disaster to cope with its effects using only their resources”.
At the international level, the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction developed a terminology guide that aims to promote a common understanding and usage of disaster management concepts.
The rationale is that the National Disaster Management Framework of 2005 provides that disaster management plans must be developed by relevant organs of state and other entities, who are the custodians of certain hazards or activities to manage disaster risks in their areas of legislative responsibility. For example, mining-related activities are the responsibility of the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy.
Since the event or incident occurred in a local sphere of government (Kopanong Local Municipality), it can then be classified as a local disaster subject to the satisfaction of the provisions of Section 2(1)(b).
Of critical importance and aligned to the thrust of the District Development Model is the provision of Section 54 (4) of the DMA, which asserts that “irrespective of whether a local state of disaster has been declared in terms of Section 55, a national or provincial organ of state, or another municipality or municipal organs of state are not precluded from providing assistance to a municipality to deal with a local disaster and its consequences”.
The Jagersfontein case study is a classic case of an ignored Risk Informed Development approach.
The limited understanding of the stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities, and the misinterpretation of important terminology, call for capacity development programmes driven by the National Disaster Management Centre with Provincial and Municipal Disaster Management Centres.