Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
21 September 2022 | Story Dr Olivia Kunguma. | Photo Supplied
Dr Olivia Kunguma
Dr Olivia Kunguma, left, and Dr Mmaphaka Tau from DiMTEC.

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

Message of appreciation from the UFS acting Vice-Chancellor and Rector: Prof Nicky Morgan
2017-01-04

Dear Colleagues, Students, Parents/Guardians, Alumni, and Friends of the university

The University of the Free State (UFS) successfully completed the 2016 academic year, with the official examination ending on 14 December 2016.  We have also completed the last of our graduation ceremonies, and are now preparing to accommodate the additional and ad hoc examinations in the coming weeks.
 
This comes after the university has successfully readjusted its academic programme in October 2016, subsequent to the disruption of activities and programmes for almost a month. All of this could not have happened without the extraordinary support and dedication of the staff and majority of the students at the UFS.
 
I would like to thank all our staff, parents/guardians, alumni, and friends of the UFS for the role they played during these challenging months in order to ensure that we could end the academic year successfully. If it was not for your understanding and uncompromising support, we would not have been able to complete the curricula, continue with the exams, and end the year in this way.
 
However, we all know that this was not an easy task. The sheer dedication and drive of our academic staff to adapt the mode of teaching and assessment of modules must be applauded, as it took courage and perseverance. Not only did they manage to complete the curricula, they also managed to do the assessment almost completely online. The incredible role of our administrative and support staff – including our security personnel – should also be acknowledged with deep appreciation.
 
This has been a learning experience for all, which has provided us with a solid base for academic recovery in the future.
 
During its quarterly meeting on 2 December 2016, the UFS Council expressed appreciation to all staff, students, and the university management for the successful completion of the 2016 academic year.
 
To all our alumni and donors who continued to support the UFS this year – thank you for your commitment, loyalty, and continued contribution.
 
Looking forward to 2017
The UFS announced on 7 December 2016 that it will be increasing tuition and housing and residence fees for 2017 by 8%. The approved increase in fees is in line with the recommendations by the Minister of Higher Education and Training, Dr Blade Nzimande, on 19 September 2016. The increases were approved by the UFS Council on 2 December 2016, with the understanding that it would be paid by the Department of Higher Education and Training by means of the fee adjustment grant for qualifying students with a combined family income of not more than R600 000 per annum.

The university management is aware of the economic realities in South Africa, as well as the financial pressure households are experiencing. The long-term financial sustainability of the UFS, as well as the financial constraints which impact teaching and learning, research, and community service, continues to remain of utmost importance to the Council and to the senior leadership of the UFS.
 
The university management stated its pro-poor approach to student funding on several occasions; that academically deserving students from poor and working class families should receive substantial financial support. For this reason – also because it does not place a burden on poor and working-class families – an increase in tuition fees aligned with the DHET proposal was submitted to Council for approval. The presidents of the Bloemfontein and Qwaqwa Campus Student Representative Councils were present and participated in the discussion on fees – also when Council approved the increase.
 
I am thankful to report that more applications for admission were received for 2017 (42 568) in comparison to 2016 (29 284), and we are excited to welcome first-year students to our campuses in January 2017. See 2017 calendar of events and information.
 
The necessary safety measures have been taken and contingency plans are in place when students return in 2017. The university management will continue to work with the South African Police Service to ensure stability on the campuses and the uninterrupted continuance of the Academic Project.
 
In conclusion, I would like to wish you a restful and safe Festive Season. Thank you once again for your crucial role in making the University of the Free State still one of the universities of choice in the country.
 
Best regards
 
Prof Nicky Morgan
Acting Vice-Chancellor and Rector
University of the Free State

 

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