GESTIÓN EN PREVENCIÓN DE RIESGOS LABORALES

The greatest challenge that impedes AMD resolution and management is by far denialism and scepticism that play out in the public arena and political environment. For instance, the annoucement by former minister Buyelwa Sonjica48 _{that the problem of acid mine drainage is exaggerated, is indeed} a great concern, for such statements are open to misinterpretation, and place a big question mark behind government's commitment to resolve this issue (I-Net Bridge, 2010). Furthermore, the outburst by past Planning Minister Trevor Manuel in parliament49 _{did not help the cause of AMD either} in that he accused an unspecified private sector interest of meddling and portraying a false picture to the world of the extent of the AMD issue in South Africa. The Minister perceived this so called interference as vindication that certain sectors did not serve the interest of the country but have a hidden agenda of trying to undermine government's sincere efforts to redress the question of AMD. Politicians like Trevor Manuel therefore insinuate that certain sectors and some people want to dominate the agenda on AMD (SAPA, 2010; De Lange 2010a; De Lange 2010b: 6-8). This state of affairs

48 _{Minister Buyelwa Sonjica, responding to the opposition in Parliament regarding the crisis of AMD in Gauteng} on the 10 August 2010 responded thus: “The exaggeration of this problem is un-called for and I would like to urge all interested and affected individuals and organizations to refrain from making alarmist statements in relation to this issue”, Sonjica said, adding that the financial interests of the private sector are also to a large degree playing a role in fuelling some of the hype around AMD. “Government views the matter of the Acid Mine Drainage in a serious light and a series of engagements with my counterparts in the government have taken place on this urgent matter”. (19 August 2010, in the South African Parliament)

49 _{In response to a statement on 10 August 2010 made by Independent Democrat MP Lance Greyling that} decisive government action was necessary on the question of acid mine drainage, Manuel responded: “What we need is a rational discussion … informed by an empirical basis, because the idea that there will be acid mine drainage running through the streets of Johannesburg next week, and that we should all walk around in gum boots, is completely ridiculous.” (SAPA, 2010).

is a clear red flag that the government is failing to intervene decisively in order to respond adequately to the urgency of the problem after years of neglect, hence the blame game that does not add value to the resolution of AMD.

According to McCarthy, (2010: 6) Government has for decades been paying pumping subsidies to mines to cover the cost of pumping inflow from defunct, adjacent mines as it is; and he notes that “Government is invariably the largest single beneficiary of mining ventures through the state share of

profits formulae, taxation of company profits and taxation of salaries paid to workers”.

In the same breath, Maslin (2009), has argued that in human behaviour, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. O’Shea (2008: 20) also stated that denialism is “the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an

essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event”. It has been

proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists (Diethelm & McKee, 2010).

Several motivations and causes for denialism have been proposed, including religious beliefs, self- interest, or as a psychological defense mechanism against disturbing ideas (Hambling, 2009; Monbiot, 2006). It is in this sense that the phrases "Holocaust denialism" and "AIDS denialism" have been used (Kim, 2007; Cohen, 2007; Smith & Novella, 2007), and similarly the phrase "climate change denialism" have been applied to those who argue against the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that human activity is its primary cause (Colquhoun, 2009; Goodman, 2007). The concept "denialism" has thus become a widely used label for a highly undesirable set of ideas or practices, and as can be understood, this usage has been criticised as a polemical propaganda tool to suppress non- mainstream views (Fitzpatrick, 2009).

Individuals, organisations, businesses and politicians who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists (i.e. denialists) typically make use of certain rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actual fact they engage in nothing of that sort but rather in ideological posturing (Hoofnagle, 2007). Then there are those who engage in denialist tactics because they are protecting some ‘agenda’ or ‘overvalued idea’ which is critical to their identity. Since legitimate dialogue is not a valid option for those who are interested in protecting unreasonable ideas from scientific scrutiny, their only recourse is to use these types of rhetorical tactics (Stoff, 2007).

Accordingly, Edwin Cameron, a senior South African judge who is also an AIDS activist has posited how Aids denialists typically use the same tactics as those who deny the Holocaust. He states: “For

denialists, the facts are unacceptable. They engage in radical controversy, for ideological purposes, of facts that, by and large, are accepted by almost all experts and lay persons as having been established on the basis of overwhelming evidence” (Mail & Guardian, 17 April, 2003). To do this they employ

“distortions, half-truths, misrepresentations of their opponents’ positions and expedient shifts of

premises and logic" (Mail & Guardian, 17 April, 2003). According to Cameron, the tactic used by

denialists is to “make great play of the inescapable indeterminacy of figures and statistics" (Ibid), as scientific studies of many areas rely on probability analysis of sets of data, and in historical studies the precise numbers of victims and other facts may not be available in the primary source.

As in all scientific endeavours, certainty and consensus go hand in hand with uncertainty and debate, thus providing denialists ample "material" for their efforts to destroy or discredit scientific investigation and consensus building on a certain issue. The history of HIV/AIDS correlation is no exception to this rule, nor the question of acid mine drainage.

Like AIDS denialiam, the scale of AMD denialism is also profound in South Africa and characterised by the rhetorical tactics sketched above. For example the South African government, specifically the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry appointed an imminent water specialist, Helgard Muller who later became Chief Director in the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs to advise them on the impact of AMD. This was sequel to the number of scientific findings and arguments that were submitted to the South African parliament regarding the reality associated with AMD that was underplayed by both the erstwhile government and the present ruling party, the African National Congress. The sole aim of his appointment was to lend supporting evidence or credibility to the government's position that the challenges of AMD are exaggerated. The two well-known AMD denialists in the government of Thabo Mbeki were Trevor Manuel and Bulelwa Sonjica (Mining Weekly, 2011; Cloete, 2010). To support this view, Helgard Muller made special references in his own statements to anomalous critical papers that supported his views on AMD while staying silent on those articles that differs from his views (Mining Weekly, 2011). He denied, for instance, any suggestion that there was a water crisis owing to rampant AMD proliferation in the country (Mining Weekly, 2011). Instead, he saw business opportunities emerging as a result of this purported ‘AMD disaster’, and he foresaw the GDP increasing with the prospects of job creation and poverty alleviation. In the same breath it was not surprising that a number of respondents interviewed also questioned the veracity of certain environmentalists who have argued that AMD is undermining the quality of life of the people of South Africa by denying them good quality of water.

According to Liefferink (2010) AMD is not taken seriously by government, motivating her view by stating that the Minister of Water Affairs, Edna Molewa, has allocated a paltry R433 million towards the AMD issue, but deemed it fit to announce the building of a new head office for the Ministry for R8 Billion. Mariette Liefferink (Foundation for Sustainable Development) posits that AMD has been denied and downplayed even before the dawn of democracy in 1994 in South Africa. For instance, she laments the fact that the question of AMD has not been properly acknowledged: “Acid mine

drainage is not a uniquely South African problem. What is unique — is that it is denied, it is suppressed, it is minimised — and not addressed” (Liefferink, 2010: 34). On the other hand Melissa Fourie,

executive director of the Centre for Environmental Rights (2012/2013), argues that “the response has

been small because government officials are paralysed by the enormity of the problem. The big things like liability have been difficult to deal with. It’s difficult to change the status quo, it’s difficult to challenge the mining companies. But it has to be done”.

From what has been discussed above, it is clear that the notion of denialism is and has always been part of the discourse in the environmental arena where economic interests are at stake. The fact that the impact of AMD has been downplayed and even denied by government and mining houses is disappointing to say the least. It appears that the only groups that see the danger associated with AMD are environmentalists, the print and electronic media, and to an extent communities who bore the brunt of this environmental onslaught (Scott, 1995; McCarthy, 2011; Liefferink, 2010). The devastation of ecological systems and the well-being of affected communities as a result of the aftermath of mining, particularly with the AMD scourge, are well documented (Rawat, 1982; Berghorn & Hunzeka, 2001; Gray, 1997; Gaikward & Gupta, 2008; Alder & Rascher, 2007).

It is therefore my contention that when we deny the seriousness of AMD, it will not necessary make it go away. Rather acknowledging the ramifications of AMD will enjoin policy-makers to formulate appropriate responses to this scourge (McCarthy, 2010; Liefferink, 2010). We also need to accept that AMD is the result of a century and more of environmental damage, and importantly so hundreds of mining companies have long closed down — so which companies must be held accountable for a century of pollution? Mines in many affected areas are no longer operational, making it difficult to enforce compliance. But if indeed we must accept McCarthy’s point, how then must government ensure that companies currently mining are not allowed to sidestep culpability for the destruction of the environment because some of their predecessors are not around to foot the current bill? Again, an integrated and balanced solution lies with the state and existing mining houses to contribute towards AMD resolution.

Given the challenges associated with denialism, and importantly where the discourse on AMD tend to play out in the political and business realm, and notably in the face of the exclusion of community members affected by AMD in decision-making, the following paragraph will further give credence as to why solutions that exclude community members are likely to fail. The following paragraph below will also attempt to demonstrate why policy-making and implementation fall flat when people who matter most are excluded in decision-making, particularly in the context of environmental decision- making surrounding the questions of AMD.