Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Jagersfontein dam burst: Understanding the disaster-declaration process

21 September 2022 | Story Dr Olivia Kunguma. | Photo Supplied

Opinion article by Dr Olivia Kunguma, Disaster Management Training and Education Centre for Africa, University of the Free State, and Dr Mmaphaka Tau, Managing Director: Resilience 4 Development Institute (Pty) Ltd.

On 11 September 2022 a tailings dam wall collapsed at the abandoned Jagersfontein diamond mine in the Free State’s Kopanong Local Municipality, unleashing a thick grey sludge.

The mine is in the Xhariep District Municipality, which is home to about 5 800 people. Following the dam burst, more than 400 people were affected, 51 houses were destroyed, and critical infrastructure was affected.

The dam burst at the mine, which was established in the 1800s and to date has been owned by several mine moguls, led to serious devastation in the community. Within hours of the event the media had already dubbed it the “Jagersfontein disaster”.

But the media cannot loosely report it as a “disaster”. It is not the appropriate classification according to the Disaster Management Act. There is a need for governing institutions and their legislation to be respected and recognised, as this will improve on governance. South Africa has good policies, but implementation is, in certain areas, lacking. Hereunder, we note that there is inappropriate use of terminology, which depicts the inadequate understanding of the disaster risk management function.

What is a disaster?

The DMA defines a “disaster” as a progressive, sudden, widespread, natural, or man-made occurrence that causes or threatens to cause death, disease or injury, damage to the environment, and disruption of life. According to the Act, it is of a magnitude that “exceeds the ability of those affected by the disaster to cope with its effects using only their resources”. At the international level, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) developed a terminology guide that aims to promote a common understanding and usage of disaster management concepts. It assists the authorities and the public (in this case, by “public” we refer mainly to the media) in educating the populace.

For the dam burst to be termed a “disaster”, several steps must be adhered to within South African jurisprudence:

The National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC) must first assess the magnitude and severity of the event, and then classify it as a local, provincial, or national disaster. This assessment also considers the provisions of Section 2 (1)(b) of the DMA, stating that the Act does not apply to an occurrence that can be dealt with in terms of other legislation. The rationale of the above is that the National Disaster Management Framework of 2005 (NDMF) provides that disaster management plans must be developed by relevant organs of states and other entities, who are the custodians of certain hazards or activities to manage disaster risks in their areas of legislative responsibility. For example, mining-related activities are the responsibility of the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy. This department’s mission is clear: to regulate, transform and promote the mineral and energy sectors.

Since the event or incident occurred in a local sphere of government (Kopanong Local Municipality), it can then be classified as a local disaster subject to the satisfaction of the provisions of Section 2(1)(b). According to Section 23(4) of the DMA, an event can be classified as a “local disaster” if it affects a single local metropole, district, or municipality, and that entity can deal with the event effectively. The district municipality and the local municipality are responsible for the coordination and management of the local disaster.

If the event has not been declared as a local state of disaster, other existing legislation, contingency arrangements, or by-laws can guide the management of the event in line with the appropriate contingency arrangements. Other government spheres and state organs can still assist with the management of the event in line with the applicable disaster risk management plans called for under the National Disaster Management Frameworks.

Dr Mmaphaka Tau

Of critical importance and aligned to the thrust of the District Development Model is the provision of Section 54 (4) of the DMA, which asserts that “irrespective of whether a local state of disaster has been declared in terms of section 55, a national or provincial organ of state, or another municipality or municipal organs of state are not precluded from providing assistance to a municipality to deal with a local disaster and its consequences”.

In the same way, and on the strength of section 23 of the DMA, suppose the event has been classified as a local disaster: there are added benefits to dealing with the occurrence, especially in the face of a lack of robust disaster risk management plans and the dearth of disaster risk management implementation capacity both for coordination (by Disaster Management Centres) and mainstreaming (by relevant organs of state and other entities). In that case, the municipal council may declare a local state of disaster by notice in the provincial gazette (See Section 55 of the DMA).

The disaster declaration will then provide for measures such as, but not limited to:

• Available resources such as facilities, vehicles, and funding are released;

• Personnel of the organs of the state are released to render emergency services;

• Evacuation of the affected population to temporary shelters;

• The regulation of movement;

• The dissemination of information;

• The maintenance and/or installation of temporary lines of communication; and

• The suspension of or limiting of alcohol in disaster-stricken areas.

•Therefore, until all the above processes have been followed, the Jagersfontein dam burst can only be termed a “disaster” without the ability to apply the above measures.

Who is responsible, and how can we move forward?

Jagersfontein Developments (Pty) Ltd owns the mine, implying that it should be their primary responsibility, as the asset owner, to actively contribute to the management of the occurrence of an incident. Even the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, Gwede Mantashe, rightfully stated that the responsibility of compensating affected individuals would be placed on the mine owners. According to the Mine Health and Safety Act 29 of 1996 and its regulations, “the employer must take reasonable measures to ensure that no person is injured as a result of the failure of any dam wall”. It was reported that the company was warned of the tailings exceeding the authorised waste volumes. But the company did not attend to the warning. It is also assumed that the company is aware of the policies, legislation and standards they should adhere to, such as the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM), which strives to achieve the goals of zero harm to people and the environment, mine safety, and to mitigate catastrophic failure through tailings management. Fortunately, the company has taken full responsibility and has accepted liability. They have also refrained from calling Jagersfontein a ‘mine’, opting to call it a “processing facility”. Perhaps this also has legal implications.

Nonetheless, besides the company taking full responsibility, the government must also play its part and make sure that policies, legislation, standards, etc. are implemented, and that there is full compliance.

They cannot wait for a catastrophic event to occur and then start pointing fingers. This scenario calls for an embracing of the principles and practices of risk-informed development, which calls for an understanding of development that considers multi-faceted, dynamic, interdependent, transboundary, simultaneous, and systemic risks. It thus describes a shift in mindset – across sectors and stakeholders – from managing single hazards to incorporating existing and future risks in all development processes from the outset, and therefore choosing development pathways that prevent the creation of risks. The Jagersfontein case study is a classic case of an ignored Risk Informed Development (RID) approach, which is gravely regrettable.

The limited understanding of the various stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities, and the misinterpretation of important terminology, call for robust capacity development programmes driven by the National Disaster Management Centre in collaboration with Provincial and Municipal Disaster Management Centres. There is also a palpable need for a firm implementation of Priority 1 (Understanding Disaster Risk) of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (SFDRR), which states that policies and practices for disaster management should be based on an understanding of risks in all dimensions of vulnerability, capacity, exposure of persons and assets, hazard characteristics, and the environment.

News Archive

Questions about racial integration in residences answered

2007-07-31

Answers to frequently asked questions about the racial integration of student residences at the UFS

1. Why does the UFS want to change the current situation in the student residences?

There are many reasons why a new approach to placement in the student residences is necessary. However, the main reason is of an educational nature. As a university, the UFS should create an environment in its residences where students can learn to appreciate and respect the rich diversity that is on offer at the university. A university accommodates students from many different backgrounds in terms of race, language, religion, economic status, culture and other aspects. If a student can learn to appreciate the value in this rich diversity at university, he or she will also be able to appreciate the value of this diversity in the workplace and broader society.

The current situation of predominantly white and predominantly black residences has not been able to cultivate such an appreciation for diversity and respect for one another as human beings, and will not equip students with the knowledge and skills required to manage diversity.

Besides this, there are many other areas of life in the residences that need attention. For one, we need to urgently establish a human rights culture in the residences so that the rights of all students can be respected. We need to address the abuse of alcohol, provide disabled students with their rightful place, and last but not least, really entrench a culture of learning in student residences.

Let us make the residences places we can be proud of – places of learning, of diversity, of respect; places of growth and development. This is the ideal we should all strive to achieve.

2. Why does the management want to force us to integrate?

It is a false argument to debate the issue in terms of “force”. Any decision by a University, or any other organisation, regarding matters of policy, rules and regulations implies a restriction on the choice of an individual and an obligation to comply. What we should focus on is whether this decision of the Council is in the best interests of our students.

The management of the university believes that it has a responsibility to give students the best education possible, not only in terms of what you learn in the lecture rooms, but especially in the residences as well. The residences can be very powerful places of learning about matters of great importance, both academic and non-academic.

The parallel-medium language policy separates students into largely white/Afrikaans and black/English classes. Efforts are being made to bridge this divide in the classroom, but we can also try to eliminate it in the residences.

The university is committed to building a new culture for the entire institution that is based on values and principles – such as an academic culture, non-racialism, respect for human rights and diversity – among staff and students.

In the context of student residences, the application of these values and principles still allows substantial room for the voluntary exercising of choice by individuals as well as by Residence Committees, notably with regard to the placement of students (they can still place 50 percent of first-year students), as well as the determination of the future character and traditions of a diverse residence.

Furthermore, students can still choose their residences (subject to availability of places), can choose a roommate, and so forth.

3. What about freedom of association?

The rights we enjoy in a democracy must be balanced against other rights, as well as the laws of the country. This means that the right to freedom of association must be balanced against laws that make it illegal to discriminate against other people on the basis of race, language or religion, for instance.

Freedom of association pertains to the right of individuals to form voluntary organisations such as clubs or private boarding houses, or their right to join or not join existing organisations. You exercise that right when you decide to become a student of the UFS, and again when you choose to live in one of its residences.

However, once you have decided to join an organisation voluntarily, you cannot subsequently demand that that organisation should provide a “club” or residence to your liking where, for instance, you only associate with your choice of co-members. You must accept the policies of that organisation.

In any case, how would that right of yours be balanced against the right of another individual who wishes to associate with a different set of co-members? (For instance – what about the freedom of a student to associate with students NOT from his own background, but indeed from another language, cultural, racial or economic background?)

The constitutional right to freedom of association can, in any case, not be used to exclude or discriminate on the basis of race or religion (Section 18 of the Bill of Rights).

Besides, the new policy guidelines will still make provision for freedom of association. This right can be exercised freely within a diverse residence with regard to friendships, joint academic work, socialising, sport, etc.

4. Will residences not lose their traditions?

The University appreciates that there are many valuable elements of tradition in residences. However, we must bear in mind that the traditions and character of student residences have evolved and changed over time, and they will continue to evolve and to change. In addition, we do not need to accept all aspects of residence life purely on the basis of tradition, including the unacceptably high level of alcohol abuse and unsavoury, humiliating and discriminatory orientation practices. The new approach to integrated residences provides the opportunity to retain the positive aspects of the current traditions and character, but also to develop new traditions and give residences a new character.

We can now establish a tradition and a character for each residence that are reconcilable with the values of the University as a place of scholarship and are aligned with the human rights approach of our country’s Constitution, the laws of our country and the strengths and diversity of the students in a particular residence.

5. Have students been involved in this process? Is there a role for them to play after the decision has been taken by the Council of the UFS?

In the first semester of 2007, during two rounds of consultations, the primes, SRC and student organisations were consulted about the proposed new placement policy to increase diversity in residences. Some residences also made written submissions on the matter (such as Madelief, Soetdoring, Wag-'n-bietjie, Vergeet-my-nie, Emily Hobhouse). Other residences requested and were granted more time, but did not make any submissions in the end (such as Reitz and Armentum).

Management also had several meetings with the above-mentioned structures to hear first-hand from students their concerns and solutions regarding possible challenges presented by integration in residences.

During these interactions, several excellent ideas and proposals were put forward by students. These views had a definite impact on the eventual proposal that was taken to the University Council, in particular regarding the minimum level of diversity (30%) in junior residences and the fact that residences still want to have a say in the placement of students, rather than the placement decision being left in the hands of Management alone (hence the 50% placement portion of residences). Management values the effort that was put into the process by the primes and residence committees, and thanks them for their contributions.

However, it should be stressed that consultation should not be understood as a process of negotiation, nor does it imply that consensus must be reached. What it means is that Management must take a considered decision after hearing the views of stakeholders.

Management would like students to continue to provide input and ideas regarding the implementation details of the policy guidelines. Task teams have been established and students will be informed about how they can interact with the task teams on an ongoing basis.

6. But integration in the residences was tried in the past (in the late 1990s), and then it failed. Why will it work now?

Yes, the University of the Free State did integrate its residences as far back as 1993, and for a few years it worked. The UFS did it at that time and is now doing so again, because it is the right thing to do. Yet it is important to understand why the previous attempt at racial integration in residences was not successful.

Firstly, both black and white students were much polarised because of the apartheid past. Secondly, there was insufficient management support for students in the residences, the student leaders generally as well as residence heads, in terms of dealing with diversity and related issues. Thirdly, the institutional culture of the UFS and the residences in particular was not addressed as part of broader transformation and integration in residences, whereas it is now being addressed.

In addition, the current decision to integrate residences has the benefit of being implemented after several more years of integration in schooling, sport, workplaces and other aspects of life.

This decision is also based on Management’s commitment to give all the possible support it can to this process.

This is a very important initiative that the UFS is undertaking. Management, in co-operation with students, must ensure that it succeeds. Integrated residences that produce high-quality graduates equipped to deal with the challenges of the workplace and our society is a worthwhile ideal we should all strive to achieve.

If you would like to make a proposal regarding the implementation and practical aspects of the new policy, please send it to the following email address: rector@ufs.ac.za

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept