6.1 - Historical and Legal Background
6.1.1 - Legal Responsibility of Mining Companies
6.1.2 - Government Action
6.1.3 - Additional Legislation Pertaining to Rehabilitation
6.1.4 - The National Asbestos Summit Initiated by the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee of the Department of Environment and Tourism
6.1.5 - Since the Summit6.2 - Findings
6.2.1 - The Dumps: The Scope of the Problem
6.2.2 - Current Efforts to Rehabilitate Mines and Dumps6.2.2.1 - Government Funding
6.2.2.2 - Rehabilitation by Mining Companies6.2.3 - Rehabilitation Methodology
6.2.3.1 - Choice of Consultants
6.2.3.2 - Encapsulation Process
6.2.3.3 - Dump Prioritisation
6.2.3.4 - Concerns
6.2.3.5 - Possible Alternatives to Current Methodology6.2.4 - Secondary Pollution
6.2.4.1 - The Scope of the Problem
6.2.4.2 - Local Concerns Regarding Secondary Asbestos Pollution
6.2.4.3 - Current Community and Government Action to Address Secondary Pollution6.2.5 - Local Involvement
6.2.5.1 - Goals
6.2.5.2 - Rehabilitation Outreach Efforts
6.2.5.3 - Outreach Efforts in the Greater Kuruman Region
6.2.5.4 - Employment of Local People
6.2.5.5 - Health and Safety of Workers
6.2.5.6 - Local Involvement in the Monitoring of Rehabilitated Areas
6.2.5.7 - The Role of Community Groups6.2.6 - Sustainable Development and Environmental Rehabilitation
6.3 - Conclusion
6.4 - Recommendations
6.0 COMMISSION 1 : REHABILITATION OF ASBESTOS TAILINGS, DUMPS, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6.1 Historical
and Legal Background
South Africa's amphibole asbestos industry has left a legacy of pollution that
continues to poison South African former mining areas. In many of these areas,
asbestos contamination has extended far beyond the mines and dumps, polluting
the school yards, playing fields, roads, gardens, and homes of residents.
6.1.1 Legal
Responsibility of Mining Companies
Since the passage of the 1965 Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act, South African
law has included provisions requiring companies to minimise the dispersion of
hazardous dusts, both during operations and after mining has ceased. However,
the act restricts the enforcement of these dust suppression measures to officially
declared "dust control areas." Furthermore, it does not directly mandate
rehabilitation of mining areas(50).
Given the history of weak regulation in asbestos mining, it is not surprising
that until recently, government rarely, if ever, applied these standards to
asbestos mines. According to researcher Marianne Felix, as late as the 1980s,
the Director General of the DME did not know that certain large mining areas
existed(51). The government began researching
methods to rehabilitate mine dumps, including asbestos dumps, as early as the
1950s(52). But many of the asbestos
companies that closed before the mid-1990s were never required to undertake
any rehabilitation at all. People from affected villages state that when companies
did perform some voluntary rehabilitation, they usually did no more than throw
a thin layer of dirt onto ungraded, steeply sloped heaps. Inevitably, such coverings
have weathered, re-exposing asbestos fibres to the air.
After the passage of the 1991 Minerals Act, government stipulated that, in the future, all companies must both plan and pay for the rehabilitation of mines and dumps(53). Gefco, who by 1981 had bought the vast majority of existing amphibole asbestos mines in South Africa, began to rehabilitate some of its own mining areas around 1985. According to the DME, officials did not require nor expect these measures. Gefco was hailed for its generosity, and later was relieved of any further financial responsibility for rehabilitation. Consistent with the relevant legislation, officials from the concerned departments may, if they deem it fair, relieve mine owners of part or all of their financial responsibility for dust control and rehabilitation of their holdings. According to the DME, it was under these provisions that the government treasury, together with the Director General of the DME and officials from departments including the DoH, decided that Gefco need contribute only 5% of the total costs of rehabilitating mining areas that they had stopped working before 1991. Once Gefco had spent more than this estimated amount, the state declared that they had fulfilled their duty(54). From our interviews, it appears that government has yet to require companies such as Gefco to finance even partial rehabilitation of areas outside designated mining areas, such as roads and villages, which have been extensively polluted by nearby mines and dumps.
6.1.2 Government
Action
Over the last half century, many mine companies have ceased legal existence,
abandoned their mines, and thus circumventing all legal responsibility. In many
cases, tributary asbestos mining was so informal that no legal owner was ever
identified. As a result, the reclamation of asbestos-contaminated areas has
largely fallen on the shoulders of an already overburdened government. Although
accounts differ slightly, it appears that the first government-funded rehabilitation
programme began in 1985 with a pilot project at Bewaarskloof (Bevaarkloof).
Efforts increased further following a media exposé of the former mining
village of Mafefe(55). According to
the DME, little research existed on how to rehabilitate asbestos mining areas.
The government contracted the Reclamation Ecology Unit at Potchefstroom University
(since 1997 a private company, Eko Rehab) to develop a cost effective method
of restoring such areas to ecological sustainability. This is the method that
the government currently employs.
In accordance with the mandate of the 1991 Minerals Act, the DME assumes prime responsibility for the cleanup of asbestos pollution falling within mine boundaries(56). The DME says that responsibility for the extensive asbestos pollution occurring outside these boundaries has been delegated to other departments and remediating action has been much slower.
6.1.3 Additional
Legislation Pertaining to Rehabilitation
According to an informal calculation by an employee of Eko Rehab, there are
over 30 pieces of legislation with the potential to affect the rehabilitation
of asbestos-polluted areas. Although time restraints prevented us from analysing
all of these documents, several stand out as particularly important. Perhaps
the most fundamental of these is a clause in the South African Bill of Rights
which guarantees all South African citizens the right "to an environment
that is not harmful to their health or well-being." According to the provisions
of South Africa's Constitution, citizens have the right to take legal action
against their government if it fails to uphold this basic right(57).
The Environmental Monitoring Act of 1998 strengthens the requirements stipulated in the 1991 Minerals Act that mines must have environmental management plans, which include provisions for environmental rehabilitation. Under this act, in the absence of another legally responsible party, the Department of Environment and Tourism (DEAT) is charged with general responsibility for addressing all pollution. As a result, this department has been identified as the best suited to deal with asbestos pollution occurring outside of mine boundaries. The Act also emphasises the importance of involving all affected parties in environmental governance, such as rehabilitation(58).
The DME has recently released the Mineral Development Draft Bill, which will replace the 1991 Minerals Act. Its provisions strengthen requirements that polluters pay for environmental rehabilitation, including areas which they contaminated before the passage of the bill. The Draft Bill also stipulates that title deeds must indicate the presence of any rehabilitated mining areas or structures and include instructions protecting the integrity of those areas(59). Although this Bill is not yet an approved piece of legislation, DME representatives believe that it will likely be adopted in its current form.
6.1.4 The
National Asbestos Summit initiated by the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee
of the Department of Environment and Tourism
Participants at the 1998 National Asbestos Summit discussed industrial contamination
of the environment extensively and charged a commission with addressing the
issue. At the conclusion of the Summit, participants made several recommendations
for improving the current approaches to the problem. Specifically, participants
called for:
- A re-examination of the DME's current approach to prioritising, rehabilitating and monitoring derelict asbestos dumps.
- Greater co-ordination and communication among different departments, affected people and NGOs.
- Stronger political and financial commitments from government to address the problem. In particular, participants expressed concern over the lack of action to clean up secondary asbestos pollution.
- Adoption of a more holistic approach to environmental rehabilitation, which aims at "rehabilitating communities, not only dumps." To achieve this, participants believed laws such as the Minerals Act needed to be altered to better "enable whole solutions." They also called for greater efforts to make rehabilitation projects "a starting point for other community economic development"(60).
- More efforts to benefit historically disadvantaged individuals, companies and institutions through the process of rehabilitation, both economically and in terms of skills and information transfer.
- Greater involvement of local people in rehabilitation projects, to be achieved through increased consultation, education and employment of members of affected communities, as well as through aiding local organisations to initiate action around asbestos pollution(61).
6.1.5 Since
the Summit
While the government had already started to take some action regarding industrial
asbestos contamination of the environment, the 1998 National Asbestos Summit
marked the first collective effort to bring all stakeholders together to discuss
their concerns and opinions about the problem. The challenge now is how to implement
those recommendations. Many people we spoke with feel that more needs to be
done to improve communication around the problem, specifically among different
government departments and between government and concerned people. Many officials
and citizens are frustrated by their own lack of knowledge about the exact scope
of asbestos pollution. They would also like to know what actions are being taken
to address the problem. This section aims to give readers a broad overview of
what has been done since the Asbestos Summit, and of how affected parties have
perceived these actions. This section will focus primarily on the Kuruman region
of the Northern Cape Province, referring only briefly to work that has occurred
in other areas.
6.2 Findings
In accordance with the mandates of the 1991 Minerals Act and the 1998 Environmental
Management Act, the government has addressed the problem of derelict asbestos
mines separately from that of secondary pollution. This report will therefore
examine these two issues individually.
6.2.1 The
Dumps: The Scope of the Problem
"It's years since we are talking about unrehabilitated dumps and still
nothing is done. Each time we meet with someone, that one sends me to the next
one, to Kimberley, to Pretoria, and still nothing is done."- Man from
Ncweng
Defunct asbestos companies were said to have left a total of 121 unrehabilitated mine complexes in South Africa. According to people from villages around Kuruman, this number underestimates the true scope of unrehabilitated areas.
Current legislation charges the DME with prime responsibility for cleaning up asbestos pollution within mine boundaries (See Section 6.1.2). Recently, the DME reported that of the 72 asbestos mine complexes in the Northern Cape Province, 5 had been partially, and 21 completely, rehabilitated. They report that 36 of the 43 mine complexes in the Northern Province have been completely rehabilitated, while 1 of 14 in Mpumalanga, 0 of 1 in Gauteng, and 0 of 2 mines in the North-West Province have been addressed(62). Much of this work has been done by the government and, until recently, has largely focused on the Northern Province. The DME has just recently started work in the Northern Cape, where they have partially rehabilitated the Koegas mine complex, located near Prieska, and the Whitebank (Witbank) mine complex, near Kuruman(63). According to the DME, most mines in the North-West Province have already been rehabilitated. However, we saw large unreclaimed areas in the North-West Province.
The primary purpose of asbestos mine and dump rehabilitation, according to the DME's 1999 guidelines, is to permanently eliminate the dispersion of asbestos fibres into the environment from within mining borders. The method used in eliminating this dispersion must lead to a self-sustaining, low-maintenance and cost-effective solution to the problem. In addition, rehabilitation aims to return former mining areas to ecological stability(64).
6.2.2 Current Efforts to Rehabilitate Mines and Dumps
6.2.2.1
Government Funding
Since 1993, rehabilitation funding has come primarily from the DME, although
the Department of Environment and Tourism (DEAT) has also consistently contributed
a small percentage of the annual budget. This year, the DME has increased its
budget for asbestos mine rehabilitation to about R14,3 million. For the past
several years, the DEAT has allocated R 340 000 to the rehabilitation work.
The DME says that they believe that this amount is too small. DME officials
project that, given current budgets, it will take another 10-15 years to rehabilitate
all of South Africa's asbestos mines and dumps. In total, they expect that the
effort will have cost the government around R195 million.
6.2.2.2
Rehabilitation by Mining Companies
As previously noted, the responsibility for rehabilitating South Africa's asbestos
mines and dumps has largely fallen to the current government. Some mining companies
such as Gefco have rehabilitated a number of their own holdings. In the Kuruman
region, these have included Coretsi, Riries, Merencor and Engeland mines. A
member of the Eko Rehab team said that the companies had received their closure
certificates for most of these mines(65).
Many people from the greater Kuruman region, however, believe that these areas
have not been properly rehabilitated and report that they continue to contribute
to the secondary pollution in their villages. The visit of the research team
to one of these mine dumps, partially rehabilitated by the company, confirmed
this view as extensive environmental contamination of clearly visible crocidolite
fibres were evident. There were no warning signs indicating the hazard to health
or the need to prevent exposure.
Many people with whom we spoke are very angry at the former companies, believing that they have done far too little to rehabilitate their mines. Likewise, many people are furious over the government's decision to allow Gefco to pay only 5% of the costs of rehabilitating the mines it operated and closed before the passage of the 1991 Minerals Act (See Section 6.1.1). One person from Ncweng asked, "Why does the government agree that Gefco pays 5% of covering the dumps, while the government itself is so much in need that it can't even give compensation to people? Maybe by requiring Gefco to pay more than 5%, the government would be able to keep people from living with the financial burden that they have now." Although the implied recommendation may be legally unfeasible, this statement expresses the general sense of frustration, which we observed in villages struggling with asbestos pollution and ARDs. These individuals say that, at the very least, they would like government to explain the reasons behind their policy.
The DME says that the department is currently considering prosecuting companies like Cape Plc. to recover the past and future costs of rehabilitating dumps which the companies abandoned. They acknowledge, however, that it will be some time before such measures are taken, if they are taken at all.
6.2.3 Rehabilitation Methodology
6.2.3.1
Choice of Consultants
Since the government first addressed the problem in the mid-1980s, Eko Rehab
has been the only company involved in rehabilitating asbestos mines. In 2000,
the DME put the job of managing asbestos mine rehabilitation out on open tender,
but in the end decided to extend its contract with Eko Rehab through 2003. According
to DME officials, Eko Rehab has consistently offered the lowest prices for their
work and carries the best reputation in the rehabilitation industry.
Some officials and people from affected areas criticise the government's exclusive use of Eko Rehab. Although they are now a private company, the composition of Eko Rehab's workforce has changed little from when it was a unit at Potchefstroom University. At the Asbestos Summit, one Northern Cape representative commented, "We don't need the white Potchefstroom university to rehabilitate these dumps alone," thereby calling for more involvement of historically disadvantaged institutions and individuals(66). A former DME official in the Northern Cape Province echoes this criticism, suggesting that the government employ historically disadvantaged institutions as consultants in conjunction with the more experienced Eko Rehab; this solution would ensure that the quality of the work is maintained, while better promoting skills and knowledge transfer.
6.2.3.2
Encapsulation Process
Eko Rehab currently rehabilitates asbestos mines by encapsulating the area of
asbestos contamination. This method has three main phases:
- Phase one: Employ an earthworks sub-contractor to reshape the dump to an acceptable gradient and cover it with 300 mm of clean soil. The contractor must often build access roads in order to transport the earthmoving equipment to the site. The government's first priority is to finish this stage as quickly as possible, because the grading process inevitably increases the amount of free fibre dispersed into the environment.
- Phase two: Minimise erosion pressures on the rehabilitated areas. The dumps are planted with locally harvested, indigenous plants. To discourage animal or human traffic, these are often inedible species. Other erosion control measures, such as systems of water diversion and retaining walls, are also installed. Often, Eko Rehab decides to fence off the area as well.
- Phase three: Eko Rehab visually monitors a dump until they believe the area is adequately stabilised by vegetation. This phase normally lasts 3-5 years, at the end of which the DME performs a final visual evaluation. After this time, local people inherit prime responsibility for preventing the rehabilitated area from being disturbed. Eko Rehab and the DME will re-evaluate and re-adjust rehabilitated sites only when residents call upon them to do so. However, Eko Rehab does not have a budget to enable local communities to monitor the dumps. (See Section 6.2.5.6 for a description of Eko Rehab's programme to educate local people about dump monitoring)
6.2.3.3
Dump Prioritisation
From 1986 until 1996, the government decided which dumps to rehabilitate based
on its knowledge of the types of processes which had generated the pollution.
This information, it believed, corresponded with the amount of easily dispersed
or "free" fibre content of a dump. Accordingly, the government first
rehabilitated asbestos tailings deposits and slime dumps, generated from milling
processes. It then attended to deposits of fine rock, which had been produced
from hand cobbing. The government rarely, if ever, rehabilitated areas containing
rock that had been too coarse for processing or deposits of material which had
been extracted to create mine shafts.
According to an Eko Rehab representative, this approach had many pitfalls. It was often not methodically applied, as the time of the year and the state of the rehabilitation budget often influenced how Eko Rehab categorised a particular dump. As Eko Rehab experts later learned, this system of prioritisation correlated very poorly with a dump's actual potential to disperse asbestos fibre. Moreover, while this initial system of prioritisation took into account factors such as the proximity of dumps to human habitation, the chances of a dump eroding and the presence of dangerously steep walls or uncovered shafts, it did not weigh these factors in any systematic fashion.
In recognition of these drawbacks, officials reasoned that a computerised database capable of calculating a standardised Rehabilitation Priority Index (RPI) would be an improvement on the first selection procedure. In 1997, Eko Rehab completed such a database, which it believes contains all of South Africa's asbestos mines and dumps. This database takes into consideration much of the same information as the original methodology, but weighs and averages each factor systematically. It also now considers actual free fibre count measures, rather than estimates based on historical mining processes(67).
6.2.3.4
Concerns
"We would like to know that they are doing something that works, because
we don't want to see any more asbestos in these places." - Man from
Seven Miles
Many Kuruman area residents are concerned that the DME's current measures to rehabilitate asbestos dumps might not be permanent, or might even increase pollution. This is especially true in Seven Miles, where villagers report that recent government work, contracted to Eko Rehab, to rehabilitate the road to Whitebank "has made things worse" by kicking up dust and increasing the amount of airborne fibre. Based on their knowledge that asbestos fibre can travel very far once disturbed, people from other villages also worry that rehabilitation might aggravate pollution problems in their areas. People from Ncweng suggest that during rehabilitation and in areas not yet rehabilitated, wind breaks are needed to stop dust from blowing into their towns. (See Section A.1 for more on local concerns).
People from Ncweng believe that a former Gefco manager worked for the government on the Whitebank rehabilitation project. As these people feel very angry towards Gefco, this observation has made them suspicious of government rehabilitation efforts. They also worry that the government may not know of all the dumps in their area and that the current methodology of covering dumps with dirt might not be permanent. While some of these concerns may point to real problems in Eko Rehab's methodology, others may simply be the result of lack of information and communication between local residents and those carrying out rehabilitation projects. There are also deep concerns among that graveyards may be unknowingly covered in the process of rehabilitation and underscores the importance of local participation in the rehabilitation process from the start.
Some officials and researchers have concerns as well. These include the permanency of the current method's outcome, quality and extent of employment and involvement of local people, and the funding of projects. They also suggest that the visual evaluation performed by the DME does not provide an accurate measure of the integrity of the rehabilitation project; in their minds, there is a need for more independent, thorough evaluation of Eko Rehab's work.
"You can't be the referee and the player at the same time." - Former DME official, Northern Cape Province
6.2.3.5
Possible Alternatives to Current Methodology
While the DME is not actively investigating possible alternatives to its current
method of rehabilitation at the moment, the department says that it remains
open to other options if presented with them. However, feasible alternatives
are scarce, since other asbestos mining countries appear either not to have
addressed the issue of mine rehabilitation or to have very different climatic
conditions which call for different rehabilitation methods.
Some officials and local people question whether the resources that would be
needed to investigate alternative measures of rehabilitation could be better
spent implementing the DME and Eko Rehab's current solution to the problem.
Solutions are only cost effective if they are sustainable. Eko Rehab has presented
convincing evidence that their methodology is sustainable in the short-term.
However, it has not been in their interest to actively seek out alternative,
and perhaps more sustainable methodologies. In their own words, they are doing
the only thing that they know how to do, which is to return contaminated areas
to a sustainable ecological state. One former official from the Northern Cape
provincial DME criticises this failure to test alternative rehabilitation methods,
suggesting that there should be greater efforts to invite other companies to
challenge Eko Rehab's approach. (See Section 6.2.3.1).
The DME and its consultants say that burying the asbestos deposit is costly and, because it requires moving the entire mass of asbestos waste, causes extensive fibre dispersion. For this reason, they consider it as an option only in areas where topography makes it impossible to implement the standard protocol. However, when queried for possible alternatives, researchers from the Peninsula Technikon and the NCOH suggest moving asbestos waste into excavated trenches and covering it over with soil and vegetation or with cement. IHRG members also suggest that in areas where dumps are close to mine shafts it may be possible to transfer tailings back into mine shafts, which could then be sealed. They hypothesise that these might be more permanent solutions, not subject to the same problems of erosion faced by the current methods.
6.2.4 Secondary
Pollution
"Everyone is affected by asbestos, as it is in the air. There is no
way for us to protect ourselves." - Person from Ncweng
"Each and everything that is asbestos is dangerous." - CPAA Leader
6.2.4.1
The Scope of the Problem
While most of the people from former mining areas that we spoke to favour addressing
the primary sources of asbestos pollution in their area, they understand that
these measures will not remove the extensive, already existing, asbestos contamination
of their houses, gardens and water sources. Many of the dumps in the Kuruman
area are located a few kilometres, or in several cases, a few meters from settlements.
According to Eko Rehab's study of prevailing wind speeds in the area, unsafe
levels of airborne asbestos particles also make their way into areas of human
habitation from dumps located up to several hundred kilometres away. In the
greater Kuruman region, some asbestos dumps are located near rivers which, according
to one researcher, are the greatest culprits in the spreading of secondary asbestos
pollution. Once washed into the water, fibres tend to clump along the banks
and in dried out river beds, creating countless satellite sources of asbestos
pollution. Asbestos fibres will also stick to anything washed in the contaminated
water and once dry, become airborne(68).
6.2.4.2
Local Concerns Regarding Secondary Asbestos Pollution
"I know that death awaits me, but maybe I can still do something for
my children." - Woman from Ga-Mopedi
People from affected areas worry about asbestos exposure from a number of sources:
- Gardens: Their main concern is for their children, who play in their gardens. One woman from Seven Miles comments that asbestos is so prevalent in her garden that "sometimes children come in chewing it." A woman from Ga-Mopedi reports that her children return from playing "wearing asbestos in their hair." Like most of the older residents with whom we spoke, this woman says that she has accepted the fact that "death awaits me" from asbestos; however, she is not yet ready to let go of the hope that "maybe I can still do something for my children."
- Water: While there is no definitive evidence that asbestos in drinking water poses a health threat, people we interviewed are concerned about the possibility. Some say they believe that people in their villages have already fallen ill as a result of drinking asbestos-contaminated water.
- Handmade bricks used in schools and houses: These generally contain 10-15% asbestos and, unlike commercially processed materials that contain asbestos, tend to crumble easily, exposing fibres. Unfortunately, because of lack of education around asbestos in the rural villages, some people continue to use asbestos in their building materials. One person from Ga-Mopedi reports that, currently, people there are building a church with asbestos-containing bricks.
- Road contamination: Ex-mineworker representatives from Kuruman recall how, during their days of working on the mines, bags of asbestos often slipped off transport vehicles and had their spilled contents simply integrated into the road surface or shoulder. Many of the villagers with whom we spoke are concerned about this extensive road contamination. In each place we visited, people illustrated the enormity of the problem by handing us fibres which they had picked up off the roadside. People are also worried that asbestos pollution on the ground was shortening the lives of their livestock. (See Appendix A.2 for more on local concerns).
6.2.4.3
Current Community and Government Action to Address Secondary Pollution
"Some of us have tried to sweep the asbestos out of our gardens or throw
soil on it. But then the rains and winds come and it is no good."-
Woman from Sedibeng
"We have gone several times with this issue to the Department of Health, but they are not so interested in talking about it. They have even gone so far as discouraging our committees from working with others because they say that it lowers our dignity to do so."- Members of the Ncweng Asbestos Committee
Although the DME addresses the issue of secondary pollution in their 1999 Guidelines, the 1991 Minerals Act and the Minerals Development Draft Bill charges them only with responsibility for rehabilitating those secondarily polluted areas that happen to fall within the boundaries of a mining area. While these boundaries may be debated, the DME says they have been interpreted to exclude most roads, waterways and villages that have been polluted by asbestos, through natural or human forces of dispersion.
Villagers whom we interviewed feel that they need help, in terms of both resources and direction, before they can effectively tackle the problem of secondary asbestos pollution in their villages. In several villages, women have tried to cover over or sweep away the asbestos in their gardens, but it reappears. One frustrated woman from Ga-Mopedi requests that someone tell her "what type of covering could be done so it won't erode again." As hardly anyone in these areas is employed, most feel that it would be appropriate if a specialist came, identified problem areas with them, and then gave them the resources and some wages to deal with the problem. While people think that, in some cases, the work would probably have to be left to experts (such as the demolition of a school containing asbestos), they feel that, in most cases, they could do a large part of the manual labour of secondary rehabilitation themselves. For example, people from Ncweng request that government provide them with the funds and materials to plaster over walls made from asbestos-containing bricks.
Most villagers with whom we spoke feel angry that those companies originally responsible for secondary pollution (many of which are no longer in legal existence) were never made to prevent or decrease the contamination of their living spaces. They felt strongly that, as one of the few remaining companies responsible for generating asbestos pollution, Gefco should help to finance asbestos abatement of their roads and in their villages. An employee from Kgalagadi District said that this was an idea that is currently being considered, but one which Gefco has not welcomed warmly.
According to DME officials, one of the most important outcomes of the 1998 Asbestos Summit was the identification of government bodies potentially responsible for addressing secondary asbestos pollution. The 1998 National Environmental Management Act mandates that, while many departments should contribute to the remediation of industrial contamination of the environment, the DEAT should take a leading role in funding and directing the work(69). Unfortunately we were not able to meet with the administrative officials in the national DEAT to hear a detailed account of the department's current efforts to clean up secondary asbestos pollution. According to Eko Rehab representatives, the DEAT did recently try to commission the job of quantifying the asbestos pollution resulting from asbestos-containing roads and homes in the country. However, according to Eko Rehab, the terms of the contract were unrealistic and did not, in the company's opinion, represent a concerted effort to address the problem. Indeed, many of the people with whom we spoke share the opinion that the DEAT needs to make a greater political and financial commitment to addressing the problem. Asbestos researchers from the NCOH, as well as DME officials and Eko Rehab representatives with whom we spoke hope that concerned citizens will increase their own efforts to lobby responsible departments to take action.
Some researchers and Eko Rehab employees with whom we spoke offer an alternative recommendation: to alter the legislation and change the DME's mandate to include responsibility for rehabilitating secondary as well as primary asbestos pollution. This solution would avoid the fragmentation of duties, a problem which appears to have hindered efforts until now. Also, it might be a cost-effective way of addressing the problem. The DME already has the expertise and knowledge to lead such an undertaking. This is a provision that should perhaps be considered when making final adjustments to the Draft Minerals Bill, currently under review.
In our research in the Northern Cape and North-West provinces, we learned of a few instances in which government has taken steps to address secondary asbestos pollution. These actions resulted in part because of lobbying from local people. In Prieska, the CPAA community group has successfully lobbied the provincial Department of Housing to finance the removal of all asbestos roofs on homes. Additionally, the Kgalagadi District, under contract from the Northern Cape provincial Department of Transport, has begun work preparing for the rehabilitation of asbestos- contaminated roads in the Northern Cape Province.
People from asbestos-polluted villages complain that, in most other cases, they have been unsuccessful in their pleas for government assistance to address the problem of secondary asbestos pollution. In Prieska, the CPAA has lobbied the local authority to help them plaster the walls of houses made with asbestos-containing bricks. They say that this request has been rejected. The CPAA representatives also say that representatives from the DoH came to their town last year to do a survey of asbestos fibre content in the air, and from this study, concluded that the town of Prieska was "safe." However, people told us that they believe that the fibre samples used in the study were not representative of the true levels of air pollution in their village. People from Ncweng reiterate a similar complaint, declaring that the North-West provincial DoH declared their water free of asbestos based on unrepresentative samples. However, these functions would not normally fall under the jurisdiction of the DoH. We were unable to clarify this issue with the DoH, given time constraints.
Fragmentation of responsibility has proved to be a particularly large problem in addressing secondary asbestos pollution in the greater Kuruman region. As noted previously, this area straddles two provinces, and while pollution from the asbestos dumps freely crosses these provincial borders, government responsibility for its abatement, in many cases, does not. For example, we found that although the entire Kuruman region falls within the jurisdiction of the Kgalagadi District Council, the organisation has a mandate and budget only from the Northern Cape Province to address the issue of asbestos-containing roads. As a result, the District is just now finishing an extensive study of the problem of road pollution in the Northern Cape Province, but has no power to look at the equally polluted roads of the North-West Province, which lie just over the border. Indeed, in our discussion with them, representatives from the District were generally unaware of the extensive pollution on North-West roads. The interviewed representative agrees that there is a need for better communication between the two provinces and more efforts to centralise duties, like road pollution abatement. This sort of effort at centralisation seems to be particularly important, given the fact that the area is still very racially segregated along provincial lines, with the majority of historically disadvantaged individuals residing on the North-West side.
In some of the areas we visited, the contamination is so extensive that some officials have suggested it might be easier and faster to relocate people to clean land than to rehabilitate their existing villages. Given South Africa's history of forced removals and the fact that, naturally, people feel rooted to their land, the people we interviewed did not embrace this option. Obviously, any relocation scheme would require ample funding to provide people with new infrastructure and improved housing. If it is to occur, it must be to areas where economic activity, such as sustainable agriculture, is possible. However, we did not pursue the issue in great depth.
6.2.5.1
Goals
"We know that we can't rehabilitate successfully without community involvement,
and since day one of the DME's involvement in rehabilitation, we invited the
community to participate. But we still have a problem of getting all parties
on board." - Senior DME Official
In order to benefit as much as possible from these projects, people living with asbestos have demanded that they be involved in directing and carrying out rehabilitation efforts. The Asbestos Summit recommendations and the people with whom we spoke reiterate this demand. In 1999, the DME integrated the goal of participatory involvement into their standard dump rehabilitation protocol. In general, these parties seem to envision local involvement as a multifaceted process, consisting primarily of public education, consultation, motivation and employment. While communities have an important role to play in addressing issues of secondary asbestos pollution in their villages, most action around asbestos pollution has concentrated on dump rehabilitation. (See Section 6.2.4.3). Therefore, this section will focus primarily on how people living in contaminated villages have been involved in that process.
6.2.5.2
Rehabilitation Outreach Efforts
According to Eko Rehab, the DME has made extensive efforts to educate and communicate
with the people living in the areas surrounding rehabilitation sites. This has
included holding local liaison and project meetings two or three times over
the course of a rehabilitation project. These meetings are advertised in local
newspapers and are meant to provide an opportunity for residents to receive
and give information and to ask questions.
DME officials and Eko Rehab representatives say that they have felt generally frustrated in these attempts. Eko Rehab representatives complain that, when they give their presentation to affected villages, less than 10% understand or are interested in the information. They believe that lack of education is a huge barrier to successful implementation of rehabilitation projects. One Eko Rehab representative says that if they could improve the dissemination of information, their problems with local co-operation would probably decrease by 50%. Eko Rehab representatives feel that they are not the best equipped party to carry out the necessary education and outreach and believe that other departments or organisations who are better experienced in communication should take on the bulk of these efforts. (See Section 7.3 for description of education efforts by other parties around asbestos-related issues).
6.2.5.3
Outreach Efforts in the Greater Kuruman Region
"We were not informed at all and that made us cross because we didn't
know what was going on. It would be helpful [to have been informed] because
then we could have a word with them when we think something is not good."-Man
from Seven Miles
"When someone comes to look at our dumps, that person must not use a helicopter or a plane - he must rather come be a part of us ."-People from Ncweng
At the time that we performed our interviews, we found almost no evidence of communication between local people and government around the problem of asbestos pollution in the greater Kuruman region. At that time, only one village, Ncweng, had attempted to contact a government official or other responsible party about the extensive asbestos pollution in their area. The people we spoke with in Ncweng say that their multiple attempts were unsuccessful.
Eko Rehab uses a number of different strategies to communicate with affected people. In the Northern Province, it has worked with the Department of Health to integrate education about rehabilitation and dump maintenance into the Nurses' Training programme at Groothoek Hospital, which sends educators to run information sessions in nearby villages. However, there is no similar programme in the Northern Cape and North-West provinces as yet. (See Section 7.1.2.5 for more on Nurses' Training Programmes). If people request it, Eko Rehab representatives say they will also give a presentation on the ecology, engineering and financing of rehabilitation projects. Eko Rehab says it has attempted to use the local language of the region in some of these education and outreach efforts.
Representatives from Eko Rehab say that they have made several outreach attempts in the greater Kuruman region. They held several meetings in Kuruman regarding the rehabilitation work at Whitebank. These efforts seem to have consisted of one or two meetings held in Kuruman town. DME and Eko Rehab representatives are frustrated that, despite advertising them in a number of local newspapers, these meetings were very poorly attended.
None of the Kuruman region residents with whom we spoke had heard of these meetings, and most did not even know that the government was currently rehabilitating Whitebank. Those people who did know of rehabilitation projects have gathered their information solely from personal observation. At Seven Miles, one of the closest settlements to the Whitebank complex, one community leader comments, "We were not informed at all and that made us cross because we didn't know what was going on. It would be helpful [to have been informed] because then we could have a word with them when we think something is not good."
It appears that the DME/Eko Rehab's outreach efforts face several challenges in the greater Kuruman region, including the lack of access to media and the high English and Afrikaans illiteracy rates among residents, as well as the language, format and venues in which the DME has advertised its meetings. It may be that, as long as the DME continues to advertise these meetings about rehabilitation through the print media and hold them in Kuruman -- a long distance over poor roads from many affected villages -- most people will be either unable or unwilling to attend. Other barriers may include distrust of government, as well as a lack of support from other departments. Eko Rehab says that it has invited several other government departments to its public liaison meetings, but only the Department of Health and the Department of Welfare have attended regularly.
In 1998, representatives from Ncweng wrote a letter to various government departments detailing their concerns about asbestos, in particular the open dump located on a hillside only a few meters from their elementary school. The DME, the DoL and the DEAT, according to Ncweng, all responded. However, at the time of our interviews, people were frustrated that no department had taken any action to address the problem or to contact them again. Recently the Ncweng Asbestos Committee succeeded in contacting Eko Rehab, who came to that village to discuss their programme and hear local concerns. We believe that this discussion is a promising first step to bettering communication among stakeholders. However, there are still many villages in the Kuruman region who have not yet established this sort of contact. If given the tools, the Ncweng Asbestos Committee could help to promote increased communication between other villages and government officials. At the same time, the DME must receive more aid from other departments and/ or resources to improve their community liaison efforts.
6.2.5.4
Employment of Local People
The Asbestos Summit called for rehabilitation projects to include employment
and skill development of local people. DME officials say that this recommendation
was already in place at the time of the Summit. While the first earthmoving
phase of rehabilitation is too dangerous for the involvement of anyone other
than highly trained workers, the department says it has always employed local
workers to perform the second, safer phase of rehabilitation. Secondary rehabilitation
jobs normally last for only a few months and employ 30-50 people. The DME works
through local community structures to recruit these workers.
According to their official guidelines, the DME tries to make this manual phase
of rehabilitation as labour intensive as possible in order to generate a greater
number of jobs for local people. Although the specific nature of the work varies
from place to place, it often involves gathering and planting vegetation, fencing
the rehabilitated area if necessary and building retaining walls. DME officials
state that this measure aims to contribute to the government's goals of poverty
alleviation, job creation and skills transfer.
While the DME stands behind this policy, they do not believe that it creates any lasting empowerment of local people. The work lasts at most six months, pays little, and does not involves much skills transfer. In an effort to increase the possibility for skills transfer during the rehabilitation process, the department has recently adopted a policy of subcontracting the management of second phase rehabilitation to companies comprised of members of historically disadvantaged communities. So far, the DME says it has only implemented this new policy once, during its work on the Koegas mine complex, near Prieska. However, within the coming year, DME officials hope to find a Kuruman-area subcontractor to direct second phase rehabilitation of dumps at the Whitebank complex.
Members of Eko Rehab comment that although this new policy is necessary, it greatly increases the cost and length of rehabilitation. According to Eko Rehab, a large part of the problem is that most historically disadvantaged companies lack the capital necessary to adequately finance the work. Banks and the government normally refuse to advance them funds to secure equipment and pay employees. For the Koegas project, Eko Rehab had to finance the subcontractors themselves, which they say both slowed down the work and strained their own company's funding capabilities. According to Eko Rehab, the subcontractor's lack of experience in personnel management also created problems of labour productivity. Because of these difficulties, the Koegas project was stopped in February, 2001, and will not be resumed until the next financial year(70).
This new effort to transfer skills to historically disadvantaged companies in the second phase of rehabilitation is a step in the right direction. However, some officials and community groups, such as the CPAA, point out that second phase rehabilitation work is not nearly as profitable as the earthmoving phase (which consumes about 60-80% of the total rehabilitation budget). They suggest that more effort should be made to allow historically disadvantaged subcontractors to tender this first phase of the work as well. Eko Rehab and the DME maintain that, given the dangerous, polluting nature of first phase of work, they must hire the fastest, most experienced earthmoving contractors available. In their experience, historically disadvantaged companies have either not had this experience or bid higher than the more established contractors. In light of this concern, Eko Rehab representatives suggest that, in the future, it might be possible to issue joint contracts, in which experienced companies would work with historically disadvantaged subcontractors, thus promoting wealth and skills redistribution while ensuring that high standards of work and safety are maintained. (See Section 6.2.3.1 for a discussion of a similar idea regarding subcontracting of the whole project).
Government is now preparing to begin work on the second phase of rehabilitation at some of the dumps in the Whitebank complex. Generally, people with whom we spoke feel that while they need guidance and expertise to deal with the problem of open asbestos dumps, they would like to be involved at all stages of the process as much as possible. Most hope that this involvement would provide them with jobs. But people from Ncweng also feel that the government should strike a balance between getting the dumps covered quickly and creating employment in the area; in the case of a trade-off, some of our informants say that the former concern should take priority over the latter.
6.2.5.5
Health and Safety of Workers
"We issue PPE and demand that workers wear it. But from our experience
on Koegas, it has been a hell of a battle to make people wear PPE. Our policy
is to allow the subcontractor to run the work, but we find that unfortunately,
as soon as we leave the site, the PPE comes off and they never put it back on
again." - Eko Rehab Employee
According to the Mine Health and Safety Act, any work taking place within official mine borders must protect worker health, both during the first earthmoving phase of rehabilitation and during the second phase of work performed by local people. Throughout the rehabilitation process, employer and employee share the responsibility of maintaining a healthy and safe working environment by following the necessary precautions.
For each phase of work, Eko Rehab's chosen subcontractor must employ a qualified physician to perform pre-employment medical surveillance examinations. Worker health legislation mandates that the subcontractor hire only those candidates declared fit to work. At the end of a project, employees must also be given post-employment medical examinations. According to an Eko Rehab representative, so far no one has ever contracted a compensable occupational disease from work on one of their asbestos mine rehabilitation projects. However, given the long latency period of ARDs, this remains a possibility.
Subcontractors are also responsible for determining the fibre hazard at each work site. Eko Rehab contracts an occupational health hygienist to take air samples before and during each phase of rehabilitation work. During first phase of the work at Whitebank, air sampling showed that levels of airborne asbestos exposure (<0,2 f/ml) were low enough to pose minimal danger as long as workers were wearing their issued personal protection equipment (PPE) (71).
In accordance with the Mine Health and Safety Act, Eko Rehab trains and educates all rehabilitation workers on the dangers of asbestos, necessary dust suppression measures and the proper usage of PPE. Equipment issued to workers includes dust masks, hearing plugs, overalls and safety goggles. Eko Rehab says that, in order to prevent workers from spreading asbestos dust beyond the work site, the company now requires everyone on the rehabilitation site to pass through a mobile decontamination unit.
Subcontractors have the responsibility of both issuing and ensuring the consistent and proper use of this protective equipment(72). However, according to Eko Rehab, there is a large gap between what they can practically implement and what is required by South African legislation. For example, they say that lack of resources has made it impossible always to keep asbestos deposits completely wetted down during work. Implementing all health and safety measures with second-phase employment of local people has proved especially difficult. A member of the CPAA in Prieska complains that until their organisation stepped in, the subcontractor of second-phase work at Koegas did not provide employees with the appropriate protective equipment, such as masks or gloves, or with enough clean drinking water. At the same time, Eko Rehab representatives say that even once the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was issued, people refused to wear it because it was hot and uncomfortable. This remained a problem even after efforts were made to accommodate employees by scheduling work during the coolest hours of the day.
We were not able to speak with former Koegas rehabilitation workers to hear their thoughts on why these health and safety problems occurred. According to Eko Rehab and CPAA members, some possible explanations were inadequate worker education, poor worker motivation, uncomfortable protective equipment, the under-funding and inexperience of historically disadvantaged subcontractors and a lack of efforts by Eko Rehab to make their subcontractors enforce health and safety precautions.
6.2.5.6
Local Involvement in the Monitoring of Rehabilitated Areas
Eko Rehab asserts that their method of encapsulation is a permanent solution
to the problem of asbestos contamination, so long as the area is not disturbed.
After a dump is fully covered with vegetation and considered stable, the DME
says that it leaves it up to local residents to monitor and maintain the rehabilitated
areas and to inform the department or Eko Rehab if any breaches or other problems
occur. (See Section 6.2.3.2). According to the DME, one of the main goals of
participatory involvement in the rehabilitation process is to inspire a sense
of responsibility towards preventing activity that would create erosion at the
dumpsite. There was no mention of where people with already very limited resources
might get the additional funds to maintain the rehabilitated sites.
Although work in Kuruman has not yet reached that stage, in the past, residents
of rehabilitated areas have complained about Eko Rehab's erosion control policy.
In some cases, rehabilitated areas are very large and people often live on very
poor land. In some areas in the Northern Province, people have even destroyed
fences around rehabilitated areas. People have requested that, instead, they
be allowed to use the areas for economic activities such as livestock grazing.
Eko Rehab says it remains open to considering such requests, and in several
cases, they say that they have tried to accommodate them. However, they say
that, in all but one case, they could not secure a commitment from local people
to take responsibility for preventing overuse and erosion of the area. Without
this assurance, Eko Rehab says they feel they have no choice but to make the
rehabilitated areas unsuitable for grazing or other human use.
During project and community liaison meetings, the DME and Eko Rehab attempt to educate local residents about proper dump maintenance. In the Prieska area, Eko Rehab distributed pamphlets in Setswana, English and Afrikaans to inform people of the importance of not working and playing on the dumps. However, in areas such as Prieska and the Northern Province, these measures do not seem to be adequately informing or motivating local people. Eko Rehab representatives complain, that in several instances, dumps have been breached by construction projects. IHRG members suggest that some of these problems might be resolved if people are remunerated for taking on the responsibility of monitoring rehabilitated areas.
6.2.5.7
The Role of Community Groups
"Our job is to keep the environment clean. Otherwise, at the end of
the day, no one will be alive in Prieska."- CPAA leader
Although they face countless obstacles in their work, it appears that community groups concerned with asbestos have been the most effective parties in pushing for meaningful involvement of local people in the rehabilitation process. In Prieska, such a group, the CPAA, has been working for several years. Despite lack of funds, the CPAA has successfully lobbied for the removal of all asbestos roofs in the town, as well as for more employment of local people in the rehabilitation process and better health and safety conditions for those workers. The Prieska group is currently trying to expand to the greater Kuruman region and asbestos committees have formed in Sedibeng and Ncweng. (See Sections 7.3.2.1 and 8.2.3.1 for more on community organisations).
6.2.6 Sustainable
Development and Environmental Rehabilitation
Since the last amphibole asbestos mines closed in 1997, many younger workers
have moved from former asbestos mining areas, leaving these villages disproportionately
comprised of the old and the sick. Those able to work often complain that they
cannot find jobs. The fear of massive health bills and other repercussions has
made many South African employers reluctant to hire former asbestos workers.
Many people also feel that their areas have been economically blacklisted because
of the pollution that plagues them. Indeed, when asked to list the negative
impacts of asbestos on their lives, people we talked to from one village named
unemployment as the second most important, after ARDs.
Many participants at the Asbestos Summit hoped that greater involvement of local residents in the rehabilitation process could help to spur sustainable development in affected regions. As mentioned in Section 6.2.5.4, one hope was that rehabilitation projects could provide a source of jobs for the region's residents. By addressing industrial contamination and unemployment together, the National Asbestos Summit recognised that both the causes and the possible solutions to these problems are closely linked. Suggested integrated solutions included using local labour for the clean-up and maintenance crews of contaminated sites, and using rehabilitated areas for economic activities, such as tourism and livestock grazing(73).
However, rehabilitation jobs, no matter how inclusive of local labour, will not likely become a sustainable source of income for historically disadvantaged communities in the greater Kuruman region. Even if they did, clearly the problem of unemployment in this area, as in most of South Africa, will not be solved by altering the protocol of one program, such as asbestos rehabilitation. However, by generating skills and at least a temporary source of resources, an increasingly inclusive environmental rehabilitation programme may prove to be an important, if small step towards economic development. (See Section 7.3 for other efforts towards sustainable development in the Kuruman area).
There is also the possibility that, once the burden of industrial contamination is lifted, the Kuruman region will become more attractive to other industries. Nevertheless, regardless of asbestos, the Northern Cape and North-West provinces are poor and under-populated areas and asbestos clean-up certainly does not imply that a flood of investment or jobs will follow.
A participant at the 1998 summit made the suggestion that the DME could also link asbestos mine and dump rehabilitation to sustainable development by making rehabilitated areas usable for grazing or other agricultural purposes. However, as discussed above, these activities pose the threat of erosion, and thus, in most cases, the DME has chosen to stick with its policy of planting inedible vegetation or fencing off rehabilitated areas.
6.3 Conclusion
Asbestos is an ever-present, airborne danger in the areas we visited, and without
any ability to protect themselves, people feel that this pollution threatens
the lives of all exposed. The pervasiveness of the industrial contamination,
combined with incomplete information on ARDs has left people in these villages
extremely concerned and anxious about their health and especially the health
of their children. The vast majority of people we spoke with overwhelmingly
indicate that rehabilitation of asbestos contaminated areas is of major priority.
Since it first recognised the problem in 1986, the South African government has made impressive strides in rehabilitating areas of primary asbestos pollution. However, despite this progress, much remains to be done. Residents of contaminated villages, officials and academics with whom we spoke raise questions regarding the DME's current method of dump rehabilitation, including the durability of its outcome, the safety of its implementation, the choice of contractors, the quality and independence of the current monitoring process of rehabilitated areas, and the quality and frequency of outreach to and education of residents of affected villages. At the time of this study, most of people in the greater Kuruman region indicated that they were generally uninformed and distrustful of current government efforts to rehabilitate dumps in their area. Recently, people from Ncweng made contact and communicated with Eko Rehab representatives. This is an exciting development which needs to be followed up with more vigorous efforts to educate and consult residents of other villages in the Kuruman area, especially those residing in the more remote, hard-to-access settlements in the North-West Province.
Because of poor communication between rural people and government officials, awkwardly drawn provincial boundaries, and fragmentation among government departments mandated to deal with the problem of asbestos, secondary asbestos pollution of villages and roads in the greater Kuruman region remains largely unaddressed.
6.4 Recommendations
"Little has happened since the Asbestos Summit. If those recommendations
are followed up, our concerns will be addressed." - CPAA leader