JOHANNESBURG (miningweekly.com) - On a continent blessed with a wealth of mineral resources, these riches also carry an underlying tone of blackness fraught with pollution, land degradation and health and safety risks. With over a century of mining history in South Africa, the debate continues as to whether government has allocated sufficient funds for mine rehabilitation, as well as for policing efforts to rehabilitate – an argument that government and environmentalists will continue to wrangle over beyond the life of the country’s mines.

But the message from government seems to be rather clear – the polluter will pay, there is no room for sidestepping the law, and perpetrators must clean up their mess. The only snag is that many of the worst polluters are long gone. Coupled with these tough economic times, when some miners may find themselves cash-strapped, such a message is critical.

Department of Mineral Resources deputy director-general Jacinto Rocha tells Mining Weekly that government is sending out a strong message that it will only step in on issues of rehabilitation “when it has to do so and not when someone is not doing their job”.

He argues that those who do not follow through with compliance of rehabilitation “will have to face the strong arm of the law”, which requires mining companies to carry out rehabilitation in line with their environmental management programme (EMP). Rocha says that, if there are a few bad apples, these are not representative of the mining industry in its entirety. “If, however, companies do not comply with the law, it does not mean we will cast a blind eye,” he adds.

The state of the global economy is no excuse for any miner to shy away from responsibilities, as, by law, money has to be set aside for purposes of rehabilitation. “If mining companies are feeling the strain of the recession, it is not the State’s responsibility to rehabilitate. It is not an excuse and government stepping in on any rehabilitation challenges will purely undermine the ‘polluter pays’ principle (PPP),” he asserts.

But nongovernmental organisation Public Environmental Arbiters CEO Mariette Liefferink says that evidence and testimonies by affected communities have produced overwhelming evidence that government is not making sufficient progress with rehabilitation.

She makes reference to acid mine drainage (AMD) being 800 m from the environmental critical level in the Central basin in the Witwatersrand, and that there has been no decision taken by government to deal with AMD in the West Rand basin, the Central basin and the Eastern basin. “Partial liability for the AMD in the Central and Eastern basins rests with government,” she adds.

She also points to the 270 tailing dams in the Witwatersrand basin, which covers about 400 km2. These dams are mostly unlined and many are not vegetated, providing a source of extensive dust, as well as soil and water pollution. Now, though government is not responsible for this rehabilitation, given that it falls in gold-miners AngloGold Ashanti, DRD Gold, Harmony Gold and Gold Field’s domain, the underlying question is why this situation has been allowed to develop.

Rocha, however, says: “We are not denying that there is AMD, but what is needed are solutions and technologies to deal with this challenge. Pollution will always be there, but what is needed is a joint effort by all stakeholders to find a solution to dealing with the issue.”

Diamond-miner De Beers safety, hygiene and environmental management lead Jaco Houman agrees: “The land use assigned to the area to be rehabilitated needs to be clear. If no such plans are formalised, stakeholder input is essential to determine the future use of land. Future land use is one of the key factors influencing the rehabilitation standard that needs to be accomplished in a specific area.” He adds that regular engagement with stakeholders is critical to ensure that sign-off is obtained on the principles, methodology and ecological stability of the rehabilitated areas.

Rocha also points out that there are always challenges in rehabilitation enforcement. “This does not mean there is no [applicable] law, and that people do not abide by the law. It is a rare occurrence that companies do not abide by the law. One cannot regulate law based on the PPP. If the principle applies, then, by all means, we will enforce the law, but there is a huge difference between the application of a principle and the enforceability of the law.”

Government started rehabilitation of ownerless and derelict mines in 1992, with much of the rehabilitation entailing asbestos cleanups. In this financial year, government has allocated R68-million for the rehabilitation of ownerless and derelict mines.

“Does this allocation of money address the need? No – however, we have identified 300 mines that require rehabilitation, and while we will not be able to deal with all of these mines this year, we will, to the best of our ability, [do so] in time. It remains a high priority on the agenda of the department,” Rocha avers.

He adds that the responsibility for the rehabilitation of historical legacies lies with government and, in the case of existing mining companies, they will do what is required by law.

CHEAPLY OUTSOURCED

Liefferink claims that the monitoring and compliance of EMPs have been cheaply outsourced to civil society and activists. “Most of the mining companies do not comply with [the demands of] EMPs. Rehabilitation is not done concurrently with mining; most of the tailings storage facilities remain unvegetated, which results in significant dust fallout and rain runoff,” she says.

Other reasons for her claim include that pollution control dams are unlined and toe paddocks are not regularly cleaned; tailings storage facilities are not fenced and warning signs are not put in place; and most of the EMPs deal with the protection of red data species, but many mining companies allow the use of hunting dogs on their properties, resulting in the destruction of many rare and endangered fauna.

Further, in terms of EMPs, tailings spillages must be manually removed with spades daily, but, she says, this is not done, and irreplaceable sites such as the West Driefontein Cave, which is the deepest cave in the world, have been used for the disposal of uranic tailings and remain unremediated.

She believes that it is a reality that there are many mines that base their EMPs on minimum compliance and not on an independent risk assessment. Further, there are, unfortunately, situations where risks and impacts not explicitly covered by minimum compliance requirements are then ignored and not communicated to external stakeholders in the hope that these will simply disappear.

GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION?

However, mining giant Anglo American paints a different picture. Anglo American media relations manager Dr Pranill Ramchander tells Mining Weekly that mine closure is taken into account from the earliest project phase, which includes exploration activities. “This is done so that mine layout, activities and developments take place to mitigate environmental impact, reduce potential legal and financial liabilities and ensure the sustainable future use of the land after mining. This is achieved through the implementation of our internationally recognised mine closure toolbox,” he says.

The company is also quick to highlight that, as mining has a limited tenure on land owing to the finite nature of resources, rehabilitation of areas disturbed by operations is a critical issue. “Typically, rehabilitation has meant the physical restoration of disturbed areas. Within Anglo American, we have standards and procedures in place to address the pure rehabilitation requirements both during and after mining operations. However, in recent years, the term ‘rehabilitation’ has been loosely used as a generic term for closure preparations. As such, rehabilitation is seen from an environmental, social, legal, financial, closure and, ultimately, sustainability perspective,” says Ramchander.

Houman agrees: “Rehabilitation is an integral part of environmental management associated with mining and forms a tangible measure of corporate responsibility towards sustainable development. A good understanding of rehabilitation tasks and requirements, as well as the legal and regulatory frameworks governing rehabilitation and environmental managements, is thus required.”

He adds that rehabilitation of the environment is a priority for De Beers, evidenced by the large-scale concurrent rehabilitation at many of its operations. The major cost component of rehabilitation for the company’s operations is the cost associated with earthmoving activities. De Beers allocates funding to concurrent rehabilitation, as well as to rehabilitation associated with historical mining activities. The magnitude of the funding is driven by the commitments made in the EMP to reduce the scheduled closure costs year-on-year and to ensure alternative land uses are enabled.

Another giant, diversified miner BHP Billiton, which owns, manages or leases about six-million hectares of land, excluding exploration and development projects, tells Mining Weekly that it has a five-year target of a 10% improvement in its land rehabilitation index by 2012. This index is based on a ratio of land rehabilitated compared with BHP Billiton’s land footprint. In the 2009 financial year, the index decreased by 3% owing to the development of new operations in Australia and Chile.

CLEANING UP THE MESS

Rocha does not shy away from the fact that there are challenges in terms of rehabilitating South Africa’s ownerless and derelict mines dating before 1992. He categorises these challenges as the identification of mines, the allocation of money and the process of rehabilitation. “The next question is: How does one then spend the money on rehabilitation?” he queries.

But Liefferink says there are more serious challenges that require attention. She calls for more community involvement in the agreements regarding the future land use of affected areas and in the decision regarding the establishment of aims for such land use, as well as in discussing the alternatives for engineering interventions.

“There remains a corporate culture where effective water and environmental management is viewed as a negotiable element of mine decision-making. Failure by the regulators to rigorously enforce the requirements of the EMP and to apply punitive measures has resulted in noncompliance with the requirements of EMPs,” she explains.

She also points out that many of the older mines were subjected to amalgamations and changes in ownership and, in many instances, the surface infrastructure, including some tailings and rock dumps, were sold to third parties. Many of the current mine EMP docu-ments, she believes, exclude infrastructure that has been sold, and it is not clear if the new owners are required to deal with ground-water contamination and if it is, in fact, being done.

What is clear is that, regardless of the criticism of government from some environmentalists, organisations or other stakeholders, and the significant threats posed to communities or natural resources, it is incorrect to presuppose that all mining companies are guilty of a crime purely because of an inherent legacy. However, such a view does not seek to undervalue the enormity of rehabilitation issues or the responsibilities of guilty parties in South Africa. While viewpoints will always differ on this issue, it is also clear that what is lacking, and seriously required, is transparency and a combined effort by all relevant stakeholders to tackle this issue.