[miningmx.com] — THE statistics on safety-related stoppages at Anglo
American Platinum (Amplats), and for the mining industry in general, make for
uneasy reading. In the case of Amplats, there were 32 safety-related stoppages at
its mines in the fourth quarter of the calendar year. That means that every third
day, one of the company’s shafts lay idle. Unbelievable.
Either the company’s mines are inordinately unsafe, or bureaucratic intervention has
gone into zealous overdrive. Let’s hope the answer is between, otherwise there’s no
knowing how a task team consisting of Government, labour and industry is going
to forge a compromise between profitable mining and regulation. Right now, it’s either
death by rock or death by paper.
Section 54 is a provision contained in the Health and Safety Amendment Act that
gives the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) the power to bring a mine to a halt
while it investigates the problem, or remedial action is taken on the mine. Why the
surge in these mandatory Section 54 stoppages?
According to David Msiza, the DMR’s Chief Inspector of Mines, a Section 54 is
often served for reasons other than fatalities. For instance, repeat unsafe practices
underground can be penalised with a stoppage; but so can “an incident’. Perhaps
there’s grounds for compromise here if the DMR can promise not to be so trigger-
happy with incidents.
But it’s not easy, especially when lives are at risk.
“Our objective is to attract investment,’ says Msiza. “But if you can’t mine safely,
you shouldn’t mine at all,’ he says, capturing the difficulty of the compromise.
What’s needed is a human touch in assessing culpability for an incident or fatality.
Did the company take all measures to protect a “victim’ of an underground incident or
fatality? At what point does the responsibility lie with the individual? No matter how
well framed the legislation may be, answering that question has to have cogent,
sentient, judgment behind it.
As in the acrimonious court case involving Kumba Iron Ore and ArcelorMittal SA,
much can be solved by communication; in this case, between the DMR and industry,
which is why it sounds right that the task team operate under the aegis of MIGDETT.
MIGDETT ultimately sets down economic answers to the various ills of South Africa’s
mining industry, and these would be a good basis for a new agreement on safety.
From an industry perspective, investing in mining safety more urgently would go a
long way with the DMR. Msiza says that with respect to accidents involving LHDs or
locos or hoppers, technology exists that gives drivers the proximity of miners. “Some
mines are applying it,’ says Msiza. “But others are dragging their feet because of the
cost implications.’
Msiza’s position has the support of moral force. He’s trying to save lives and doesn’t
have profits on his mind the way mining companies do. But his conceptions need
adjustment too. Says Msiza: “About 80% of fatalities happen at the big mines even
though they have the most resources’. I wouldn’t have thought it’s as simple as
that.
The voice of organised labour is, of course, a crucial vote in finding a sensible
solution to the spate of stoppages on our mines; after all, jobs are at stake. One
important issue is that miners are chasing productivity targets that may lead them to
unsafe practices and cut corners; the kind of incentive that NUM agrees to in wage
talks.
The task team is faced with brokering, once again, the tectonic divide in South
African mining of human rights versus profits. Good luck to it.
