New report on old mines’ issues should have included industry
Who is responsible for thousands of derelict, abandoned and ownerless mines that dot the landscape? The answer is not at all clear, as zama zamas run amok and poor local communities suffer. By
Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR), an activist NGO, has just released a report that assesses the impact of improper mine closures in South Africa, which pose environmental, social, health and economic risks to mostly poor communities. Examples include open and unsealed pits and discarded tailings dumps.
The report provides a platform for the voices of such communities, who are allegedly often excluded from consultation processes. But a failure to get feedback from the government and the industry – notably publicly listed companies subject to a high level of scrutiny – detract from the report’s findings, and some of its assertions are questionable.
The report says it has “uncovered several clear reasons as to why ineffective mine closure has become a defining characteristic of the industry in South Africa”.
These reasons are: “... lack of recognition of communities as stakeholders; political power and influence of mining corporations; lack of free, prior, and informed consent; and poor planning and implementation of mine closures.”
Much of the blame for this mess rests with the dysfunctional Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE). Auditor-General Tsakani Maluleke found in March that the DMRE has been mismanaging its responsibilities for rehabilitation of derelict and ownerless mines (D&O mines) that dot South Africa’s landscape.
“Citing capacity issues, DMRE effectively allows companies to not comply with environmental and socioeconomic expectations and agreements,” the report says.
The report’s findings are in large part derived from over 300 consultations with communities and other activist NGOs.
Among the many challenges the report says it unearthed is the issue of mines placed “on care and maintenance” – which means productive operations have ceased, usually because they have become unprofitable. The report says this state of affairs should not exceed five years by law.
“Following the five-year period, the approval of care and maintenance must be reviewed by the minister... Many mining operations are, however, under care and maintenance for a period much longer than five years. The mines in Limpopo and North West provinces, where a part of our community consultations took place, had mostly been under care and maintenance for a period exceeding five years,” it says.
It also notes that zama zamas often move into such sites to ply their illicit and dangerous trade. “Zama zamas ... typically strip the mine’s infrastructure of metals of any remaining value. Mining companies often use this as an excuse to completely abdicate their responsibilities despite not having formally closed the mine,” it says.
There are indeed numerous examples of zamas zamas invading operations on care and maintenance – not a surprise; the illegal miners use bribery and intimidation to gain access to operating assets.
Sibanye-Stillwater’s mothballed Cooke operations on the West Rand are a hive of such activity and were the scene of a shootout with scores of heavily armed illegal miners in July in which an electrician was shot dead. It is suspected zamas zamas cut power at a substation to facilitate nocturnal activity.
The gambit appears to have had an unintended consequence. Sibanye CEO Neal Froneman told Business Maverick recently that, as a result of the incident, Sibanye is no longer able to pump water from its Cooke 2 shaft, which is now slowly filling up.
“It’s beyond our control and it was caused by illegal mining. We couldn’t restore the power to the pumps,” he said.
This highlights the challenges the industry faces and that publicly listed companies are transparent on this front, or certainly more so than the unlisted companies that are responsible for many of the failed or shoddy mine closures. A mining licence now requires a rehabilitation plan with funds set aside and ring-fenced for that purpose.
The report glaringly has no input from the industry, or from the Minerals Council SA, or from the DMRE.
Mametlwe Sebei, an attorney with LHR, told the DMRE had said it was now willing to make submissions. The NGO would also welcome input from the Minerals Council and its members as the document was a “living report” that will be updated.
The report makes some questionable assertions. It refers to “oligarchic corporate monopolies”, but the sun has long set on the Randlords. Publicly listed companies with shareholders that include pension funds are not “oligarchic”. The report also speaks of 6,100 “ownerless and derelict mines”, which the Auditor-General flagged in March, but that number requires context.
“There are not 6,100 ownerless and derelict mines in South Africa,” says Paul Miller, director of mining consultancy AmaranthCX. “The country has never had that many major commercial mines. There are probably 6,100 assorted shafts, adits, diamond diggings, sand and clay mines, borrow pits and quarries – many of which are obviously dangerous – as in you could fall into a shaft, or drown in a flooded pit. But only a small proportion are toxic. And it is correct that those must be prioritised and cleaned up.”
Miller also makes the point that the Act that governs the sector, in its intent of nationalising mineral rights, had a blind spot – owners of depleted mines.
“They were never going to go to the effort and expense of converting their rights. Now abandoned and derelict mines are also in the custodianship of the state, just like all other mineral rights.
“It would probably be illegal for previous owners to undertake rehabilitation activities without a new-order mining right – and why would they apply for one?”
This is an important issue. But a wider net needs to be cast in order to capture its full complexity.