Mining companies must be more transparent about rehabilitation funding: report

Latest report calls for mining companies to be be more transparent about rehabilitation funding.
Latest report calls for mining companies to be be more transparent about rehabilitation funding.

Neither the law nor the accounting standards governing company disclosures ensure that mining companies are transparent about financial provision set aside to rehabilitate environmental damage.

This is the key finding of the latest report in the Centre for Environmental Rights’ (CER’s) Full Disclosure series.

The study looked at what mining companies were doing to ensure that there was clarity on what money had been set aside to rehabilitate mines after the end of their operating life.

The law requires mining companies to set aside and ring-fence enough money to fix mines. If a mining company fails to rehabilitate‚ the state is supposed to be able to access that money and carry out the rehabilitation itself.

While there are presumably companies which fully comply with their legal obligations to rehabilitate‚ it is difficult to ascertain whether this is the case for any given mining operation.

This is because it is not easy to tell how much money is held for rehabilitation‚ where and how it is held‚ who administers it‚ who has access to it‚ how it is spent‚ who calculates it and how it is calculated

For its study titled “Full Disclosure: the Truth about Mining Rehabilitation in South Africa”‚ Intellidex assessed the annual financial disclosures of 11 JSE-listed coal and platinum mining companies in relation to their financial provision for environmental rehabilitation.

“We found that the information provided about the costs of rehabilitation‚ and the companies’ ability to cover these costs‚ is inconsistent‚ unclear‚ in some cases unreliable‚ and not comparable between companies‚” CER attorney Christine Reddell said.

She said this meant it was impossible to check whether the estimated costs of rehabilitation given by mining companies were accurate‚ whether enough money had been set aside to pay for it‚ and whether rehabilitation was actually being carried out.

“In other words‚ it is impossible for shareholders or taxpayers to hold companies or regulators to account‚” Reddell said.

Atlatsa Resources and Exxaro were ranked first in terms of the usefulness and clarity of their public disclosures on financial provision for environmental rehabilitation.

Impala Platinum Holdings and Wescoal Holdings were ranked second.

Anglo American Platinum‚ Eastern Platinum‚ Northam Platinum and Royal Bafokeng Platinum were ranked third. The report said Atlatsa Resources provided detailed disclosures in relation to its financial provision for environmental rehabilitation in its annual information form.

The information provided included the estimated figures for environmental rehabilitation obligations‚ and the funds and guarantees available to meet those obligations and detailed explanation of how the environmental rehabilitation costs had been calculated.

“While this disclosure could be more detailed‚ it is much more in line with our recommendations and provides clear‚ understandable information about the type and extent of environmental damage caused by Atlatsa’s mining operations‚” the report said.

In its recommendations‚ the report said companies should clearly describe and distinguish the roles of management and independent experts in carrying out the specialist assessments which determine the costs of environmental rehabilitation.

It said companies should provide a narrative description of the type and extent of damage caused by their operations.

To read the full report here.

Would you like to comment on this article or view other readers' comments? Register (it’s quick and free) or sign in now.

Speech Bubbles

Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.