According to interviews and reviewed literature, AMD is unjust in that it distributes the costs of mining to the poorer, black part of SA's population; and becomes doubly unjust in that little or no restitution seems imminent. There is administrative injustice around AMD in that decision-making about mining and AMD has always been top down and expert based, excluding communities from participative decision-making. Since, AMD also infringes on people's basic rights (see our Bill of Rights), and thus their dignity, therefore AMD also infringes on the rights of future generations to live a decent life. According to Confucius (551-479B.C.E.) it is morally wrong to impose on others what you yourself do not desire (Allinson, 1992). The same is clear from a Kantian perspective in which the so called reversibility test can be used to determine the ethical acceptability of actions or decisions. Besides the emphasis placed by Kant on human dignity and respect for persons as non-negotiable principles, utilitarian ethics clearly state that imposing harm on others is morally unacceptable.
This implies that government, mining houses, and BEE billionaires have a duty to prevent water pollution from occurring and have an obligation to take responsibility of cleaning up in an event of AMD occurrence without burdening the taxpayers and the affected communities. The mantras of ethics are clear: what is unacceptable to you, do not do to your neighbour, and: don’t impose harm. If mining is going to result in hurting other people by way of contamination of water bodies and negative impact on human health, it is unethical to continue with the project and rather it must be abandoned irrespective of the economic value of the project. The bottom line is that some harm may be irreversible, and thus the degradation may be indefinite. Thus it is my contention that the golden rule and the harm principle of ethics should be used as a basis of environmental decision-making which is well articulated in the precautionary principle.
Mining is by its nature inherently unsustainable, is destructive to the biophysical environment and its contributions to human well-being are uneven and often overwhelmed by the damage it inevitably inflicts (http://ensia.com/articles/mine-over-matter/). How such a devastating project like mining can be allowed to continue is always a moot point. Given the devastation in terms of damage to the ecosystems and possibly human health it has become necessary to review mining practices and steering them towards drastically scaling back; restricting them, not expanding; and where it cannot be avoided it must be carried out carefully and responsibly. These proactive steps will help policy- makers to evaluate their environmental approach to mining for the sake of future generations. In recognising our obligations to future generations, we are acknowledging and affirming a responsibility
to people who remain incapable of actively representing their own interests. Thus, the manifestation of AMD technically takes away that right.
Mining is also a generational episode which affects present and future generations. Though mining provides benefits, it also bestows burdens. Every non-renewable natural resource that we consume now leaves less for future generations. According to former Vice President of the USA, Al Gore, when we deplete the earth’s natural resources and live unsustainable lives “the future whispers while the
present shouts” (Al Gore, 1992). While mining is widely welcome, it does not necessarily have to
translate into paralysis and adversely affects humans and non-human species, rather we need to promote caring about tomorrow by acting responsibly today.
Thus we have ethical obligations to protect people separated by the boundaries of time and space. When we protect the present and future generations from the scourge of AMD, we are basically appealing to social justice which is intergenerational justice. It is thus paramount that strict regulations and enforcement are robustly applied to protect our current and future water supplies as well as aquatic ecosystems from unethical and unsustainable mining practices. It is less costly to prevent contamination from surface mining than it is to attempt to correct the contamination through remediation and reclamation.
I therefore posit that the precautionary principle as a decision-making tool can be used in conjunction with other decision-making tools to take on board the concerns of all stakeholders. Wingspread Statement on Precautionary principle (1998) says, “When an activity raises threats of harm to human
health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action."
My conclusion is that if policy-makers and those interested in the resolution of AMD can honestly answer the ethical questions raised above, the solution to AMD proliferation should not be too far off. I further propose that a tool like the PP can be used in parallel to several other eco-conception tools that employ a preventative approach. The PP entails a methodology that is reflective, exploratory, and prudent (Vigneron et al., 2003), and the resolution of AMD actually hinges on that approach, i.e. it calls for responsibility by those undertaking a mining project. The PP furthermore calls for solidarity and participation which are the hallmark of democratic decision-making. In conclusion, Confucius posited that: “one who rules by moral force may be compared to the North Star — it occupies its place
and all the stars pay homage to It” (Tu, 1979). As I see it, South Africa needs a well-ordered world that possesses aesthetic, moral and social programmes that protects both the environment and its citizens and this I believe can be provided by taking the power and promise of the precautionary principle seriously in government and business decision-making.
6.7 Conclusion
There is no doubt from the interviews conducted as well as the literature interrogated in this chapter that AMD is the most mismanaged crisis in contemporary history in South Africa. In addition, AMD has proven to be an albatross around the neck of policy-makers whose response to this disaster has been lethargic. From the above discussion it is very clear that government's efforts to finally act on this scourge are compromised by numerous issues that tend to take the focus away from this challenge. Firstly, environmental legislation that can enable action to address the AMD problem has been found to be inadequate in terms of enforcement. The focus seems to be on making profit rather than resolving this pertinent issue. The question of enforcement appears to be compromised by government collusion with mining houses wherein government is seen as shareholders in the mines by proxy, instead of its governors.
Lack of government commitment, coupled with denial and scepticism, has also made the case of managing AMD very difficult. It appears from my overview as if the extent of AMD is being downplayed in government circles, creating the perception that government doesn’t want to scare foreign investors away. The bottom line from the discussion above is that government has placed profit before protection of the environment and affected communities. In this sense, government is perceived as shooting itself in the foot by failing to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens as enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
The tensions that seem to exist within the different government departments charged with managing water resources and the question of AMD are intricate. The Department of Water Affairs and Department of Mineral Resources are seen to be playing a blaming game with no one willing to take responsibility. The aftermath of the lack of synergy between different departments has failed the communities affected by the onslaught of AMD, who are left to count the costs of this indecision. Besides politics, I have also demonstrated in this chapter that the marginalisation and discreditation of non-scientific communities in decision-making has taken centre stage, the one reinforcing the other as part of the many reasons why the problem of AMD has gotten out of hand. All the challenges identified are thus so serious that they need to be addressed immediately to obviate more serious
damage to the environment and the communities residing within and without where the AMD saga is playing itself out.
This is confirmed by the general thrust of the argument in this thesis, namely that science alone is not in the position to address environmentally related challenges, owing to its inherent nature of being uncertain as a tool, and its inability to deal and handle complex environmental challenges. Science as a tool of decision-making sometimes or most times is conservative, because in the absence of precise scientific knowledge it relies on traditional decision rules by choosing options that includes a margin of safety that is adequate to avoid bad effects or outcomes, thereby creating the possibility of endangering the health of ecosystems and communities alike. All these owe their origins to the history of science that has always been uncertain when addressing environmental matters in particular. It is also very clear from the interviews conducted that the challenge posed by acid mine drainage has become politicised amid claims of its impact being underplayed by certain sectors in government, industry and science. It is also very clear from my discussion that economic gains have been placed above the interest of the environments, as seen by the proliferation of AMD, with the blame game assuming centre stage. My conclusion from this chapter is that ecosystems have been eroded by neglect fuelled by greed and nepotism with no concern for future persons, so I have demonstrated that these have no concern for future persons. In the same breath, I have demonstrated that the policies that govern mining and water usage are flawed and subject to abuse by those who are politically connected. It is also clear that BEE is wreaking havoc by virtue of being abused by the beneficiaries that government has appointed, with cries of cronyism on the ground. This implies, in essence, that there is no political will to address the question of AMD. It is also abundantly clear that the government is in cahoots with certain contracted66 scientists. Since government has an interest in mining by virtue of being a shareholder in it, it thus is not in a position to enforce mining and water legislations seriously and effectively.
In Chapter 7 I will elucidate recommendations based on the case study and my discussion of the precautionary principle preceding that. I will also make general recommendations that emerged from what I argue is a better, in-depth understanding of the AMD challenge. The recommendations so proposed will be informed by the precautionary principle. I am also of the belief that the current forms in which the PP is defined should be put into perspective by suggesting a definition that will be more
universal, unlike the current one which has been designed to meet the requirements of the rich nations, whilst excluding the developing and underdeveloped nations.