[Debate] (Fwd) Right2Know about mining ecodisasters? Nope, not if you ask the Pretoria regime

[Patrick Bond]

*Secrecy over environment information*

April 16 2012 at 09:15am
By Tony Carnie

Several government departments and private companies still think 
information and documents on the state of SA's environment are "state 
secrets", and they often refuse to release even the most routine data to 
citizens.

The worst offender, according to a report published last week, is the 
Mineral Resources Department -- which told citizens to take a hike in 97 
percent of cases where they sought information on environmental health 
and protection issues.

This "culture of secrecy" extended to serious cases where groundwater 
might have been polluted by acids and poisons, and to less controversial 
requests on what plans were in place to rehabilitate environmental 
damage when mines closed down.

There was also evidence that some officials seemed more concerned with 
protecting the financial interests of mining companies than they were 
with safeguarding the interests of neighbouring communities and civil 
society organisations.

This is according to a report by a national law clinic which provides 
legal services to people and groups concerned with environmental justice 
issues.

Titled "Unlock the Doors", the report charges that the Promotion of 
Access to Information Act (Paia) has become a convenient tool for some 
government bodies to avoid, delay or refuse to release information which 
should be freely available to the public.

Melissa Fourie, the former head of the government's Green Scorpions 
environmental inspectorate, who now directs the Centre for Environmental 
Rights, said she and her colleagues were "astonished" by the extent to 
which government and private groups concealed information.

Feedback

"In some cases, private bodies appear to be aided by public bodies in 
concealing basic information like licence conditions from the public... 
Moreover, Paia is increasingly being used to exclude civil society from 
basic feedback on governance and information that should be freely 
available.

The report is based on a two-year project to analyse the success of 
civil society to access information which would enable people to hold 
the government and companies to account for their impacts on the 
environment.

The analysis is based on more than 104 formal requests under Paia and 42 
requests (not using Paia) for access to information submitted to 17 
public and 35 private bodies over the past 18 months.

Centre attorney Dina Townsend and her colleagues also kept records of 
hundreds of telephone calls and e-mail reminders during the project, 
which culminated in two high court cases and two formal complaints to 
the public protector against government officials.

"In the course of submitting over 100 requests for information, the 
centre encountered reluctance, resistance and suspicion from both public 
and private bodies. We were frequently interrogated about our and our 
clients' motives, use and need for the information. We were told that 
key documents like copies of licences were confidential commercial 
documents not appropriate for public disclosure," said Townsend.

For example, the centre requested a copy of an environmental management 
programme from a mining company which had abandoned a coal mine without 
doing any rehabilitation work.

The requests were sent to an official identified only as "Mr D", who was 
responsible for handling all requests under Paia at one of the mining 
department's busiest regional offices.

"Mr D failed to respond to any of our e-mails or telephone calls," says 
the report, noting that the official appeared to be the only person 
authorised to release certain information.

"We phoned Mr D every day for a week. To date Mr D has not answered or 
returned these calls and we still do not have the requested information. 
The centre eventually reported Mr D to the public protector."

The report also criticised the power of such indivi- duals within the 
mining depart-ment to "radically under- mine the right to access to 
information".

Overall, the mining department's compliance with Paia was consistently poor.

Of the 41 requests sent to this department, only seven were acknowledged.

The department failed, without exception, to respond to requests within 
the legislated 30-day deadline. Nor did it request an extension for 
another 30 days.

Instead, most requests were greeted with a standard letter denying 
access to the information sought.

In one case, the department's national office granted partial access to 
information, but centre lawyers battled for months to extract this 
information through the Gauteng regional office.

In another case, officials claimed they were unable to copy documents -- 
and if the staff from the centre wanted to make copies themselves they 
would be liable to a fine of at least R500 000 if any documents were 
damaged or lost.

"This fine has no basis under the Promotion of Access to Information Act 
and is clearly intended to intimidate the centre into abandoning its 
requests."

Centre officials were often sent from pillar to post, seeking access to 
information from government officials and companies.

Some information officers also seemed to be untrained or unfamiliar with 
the act's requirements and were threatened with legal action by two 
private companies.

Ignored

The department had also largely ignored statutory requirements to report 
whether it was complying with Paia. However, the department's latest 
report showed that it received 607 requests for in- formation during 
2010/11. It granted access to information in just 14 cases.

"This high percentage of refusals indicates a significant lack of 
transparency."

Private companies also seemed reluctant to release information.

In one case, Gold Fields Limited executive vice-president (general 
counsel) Michael Fleishcher wrote to Fourie acknowledging that most, if 
not all, the documents requested were public, but noted: "We release 
information to stakeholders in a controlled fashion and reduce the risk 
of information being misused."

Responding to a similar request to release information voluntarily on 
its website, Harmony Gold Mines CEO Graham Briggs said his company was 
committed to "dialogue and transparency" and that documents requested 
were public. However, the centre should rather get the information from 
the government, Briggs said.

Sentula mining company, however, said it would be only too happy to 
release information.

Mining department spokeswoman Zingaphi Jakuja did not respond to 
requests for comment.

l The full Centre for Environmental Rights report can be viewed at:

http://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Unlock-the-Doors.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fahamu.org/pipermail/debate-list/attachments/20120416/0954ddb0/attachment.htm