Kirsten Hund On Sustainability And Mining In South Africa
Introduction:
Kirsten Hund is a Senior Scientist in the Sustainability Unit of SRK Consulting in Johannesburg, South Africa. This statement was part of a larger email correspondence in the Madison Dialogue. It brings another perspective to a recent theme on this blog: ActionAid’s critique on Anglo Platinum, Anglo’s Response, and Estelle Levin’s post on business models and sustainability. ~ Marc
Mining has the potential to bring economic development. But I am not always sure if the positive impacts outweigh the negative ones once we start looking at people’s livelihoods at large.
This is probably less so an issue for the diamond industry (although massive alluvial mining operations can of course create great destruction of land as well as river diversions, etc.) But if we look, for example, to the impact of platinum mining in South Africa, the industry has no doubt brought economic development to a large area.
At the same time, in areas around platinum mines and smelters, more than half of the population is suffering from respiratory diseases, not to mention the impact on ground and surface water. The mining companies active in the area deny their individual responsibility, because it is the cumulative impact of all the different smelters and mines that causes the pollution.
South Africa is only now starting to realize the consequences of decades and decades of gold mining on it’s drinking water for the long term.
I find it a bit worrying that, especially where Africa is concerned, there is such a strong focus on the (possible) positive socio-economic impacts of mining that there is a tendency to neglect or deny the environmental impact. I am not so much talking birds and trees here, but people and their livelihoods.
Governments have a major role to play here in terms creating and enforcing legislation, but of course it is a responsibility of companies as well. Stakeholder engagement is key here. The fact that, for example, Anglo Platinum in its most recent sustainability report failed to mention communities as a stakeholder, is a worrying example of how far we still have to go in this respect before we’ll get to ‘4th generation thinking’.
This discussion is closely linked to the other one on the list, on philanthropy, versus ‘ ethical enterprising’ . A lot of good can be done and is being done, but I think that the ‘do no harm’ principle needs to be taken into account every step of the way.
