ESKOM and the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa) have been granted the right to intervene in the Competition Tribunal’s hearings next week on the merger of the world’s largest commodity trader, Glencore, and mining group Xstrata.
Eskom has proposed that the tribunal impose conditions on the merger that could include measures such as ensuring the ratio of exports to domestic coal supply be kept constant after the merger, and that the merging parties agree to negotiate in good faith on long-term coal-supply contracts as these expire.
The utility says it does not want to stand in the way of the merger, but has to raise its concern about the future supply of coal for the domestic market.
Public hearings on the merger start on Monday.
The company says it has a public mandate to supply electricity to the entire country and is dependent on the right grade of coal at the appropriate time and at an affordable price to be able to deliver on its mandate.
In the absence of industrial policy that provides for the security of domestic supply before exports, the merger highlights Eskom’s vulnerability.
Eskom spokeswoman Hilary Joffe says: “The merged entity would account for approximately 15% of Eskom’s coal supply, with Glencore and Xstrata accounting for the bulk of the supply to the Majuba and Hendrina power stations and supplying smaller quantities to Duvha, Komati, Arnot and Matla power stations.”
Although it has secured the majority of its supply needs until 2018, Ms Joffe says Eskom needs to raise its concern about supply security beyond that.
Eskom indicated that it would propose additional conditions if necessary.
Xstrata is the world’s largest exporter of the type of coal used by power stations, and all of its mines and plants are in South Africa.
Glencore holds almost 34% of Xstrata and after this transaction — valued at $80bn — is approved, the miner will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Glencore.
It currently produces 27.4-million tons of saleable coal a year in South Africa, of which almost 30% is exported.
Source: Business Day
Showing posts with label Minerals Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Minerals Rights. Show all posts
Friday, December 7, 2012
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Davis ‘may lead exodus’ after Xstrata bonus snub
XSTRATA CEO Mick Davis might lead an exodus of the company’s top executives after its shareholders on Tuesday approved a $31bn merger with Glencore, but rejected a £144m management retention scheme that the miner’s directors had proposed.
The shareholder vote on the deal will bring the 10-month saga one step closer to its conclusion, uniting Xstrata’s output of copper, coal and nickel with Glencore’s marketing and trading expertise.
But the snubbing of the retention scheme prompted Xstrata chairman John Bond, who will be chairman of the combined group, to announce yesterday that he would step down once a replacement is found.
Mr Davis, who with his management team has grown Xstrata to a multibillion-dollar company from one worth just $500m in a decade, is expected to step down in six months in favour of Glencore’s Ivan Glasenberg.
Mr Davis has been tipped to replace outgoing Anglo American CEO Cynthia Carroll. He was asked during yesterday’s shareholder meeting in Zug, Switzerland, whether he would be starting another business or retiring.
"I have not yet decided what my future plans will be but certainly retirement will not be part of them," Mr Davis said.
The controversial management retention scheme for 70 top Xstrata managers was rejected by 78.4% of Xstrata shareholders voting on Tuesday.
Glencore Xstrata International, the new name for the company, will have interests in about 35 coal mines in Colombia, Africa and Australia, and account for about 10% of global seaborne exports of the fuel. It will be the world’s third-biggest producer of mined copper, the largest zinc miner and the biggest exporter of coal burnt by power stations.
The group will have about 11% of the 13-million-ton global zinc market and about 40% of the 1.9-million tons of the metal produced in Europe.
One large Xstrata shareholder, asset manager Knight Vinke, said at the meeting yesterday that it had no confidence in the "independence and robustness" of the board and had voted against the deal. "We are extremely concerned with regard to the ability of the board of the newly merged company to represent our interests," said David Trenchard, vice-chairman of Knight Vinke.
"Good governance must now take centre stage and we intend to broaden our discussions with fellow shareholders to ensure that this is the case."
But most Glencore shareholders backed the merger. At the meeting in Zug, which lasted just 12 minutes, over 99% of voting shareholders backed the deal.
The deal, announced in February, has already had more than its fair share of twists, with the original terms panned by shareholders — some of whom also took exception to retention payments for Xstrata executives.
Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund and Xstrata’s second-largest shareholder after Glencore said last week it would back the deal unreservedly. But the fund, which played a pivotal role, did not approve the controversial packages proposed for Xstrata’s key team.
In negotiations with Qatar, Mr Glasenberg insisted he become CE of the combined company rather than Mr Davis, who is expected to leave six months after the deal closes but can depart earlier if he wishes.
Glencore must also overcome European Commission concerns about potential competition problems the deal poses.
The trader has offered to sell Xstrata’s German zinc smelter, after its first solution was deemed insufficient by regulators.
Source: Business Day
The shareholder vote on the deal will bring the 10-month saga one step closer to its conclusion, uniting Xstrata’s output of copper, coal and nickel with Glencore’s marketing and trading expertise.
But the snubbing of the retention scheme prompted Xstrata chairman John Bond, who will be chairman of the combined group, to announce yesterday that he would step down once a replacement is found.
Mr Davis, who with his management team has grown Xstrata to a multibillion-dollar company from one worth just $500m in a decade, is expected to step down in six months in favour of Glencore’s Ivan Glasenberg.
Mr Davis has been tipped to replace outgoing Anglo American CEO Cynthia Carroll. He was asked during yesterday’s shareholder meeting in Zug, Switzerland, whether he would be starting another business or retiring.
"I have not yet decided what my future plans will be but certainly retirement will not be part of them," Mr Davis said.
The controversial management retention scheme for 70 top Xstrata managers was rejected by 78.4% of Xstrata shareholders voting on Tuesday.
Glencore Xstrata International, the new name for the company, will have interests in about 35 coal mines in Colombia, Africa and Australia, and account for about 10% of global seaborne exports of the fuel. It will be the world’s third-biggest producer of mined copper, the largest zinc miner and the biggest exporter of coal burnt by power stations.
The group will have about 11% of the 13-million-ton global zinc market and about 40% of the 1.9-million tons of the metal produced in Europe.
One large Xstrata shareholder, asset manager Knight Vinke, said at the meeting yesterday that it had no confidence in the "independence and robustness" of the board and had voted against the deal. "We are extremely concerned with regard to the ability of the board of the newly merged company to represent our interests," said David Trenchard, vice-chairman of Knight Vinke.
"Good governance must now take centre stage and we intend to broaden our discussions with fellow shareholders to ensure that this is the case."
But most Glencore shareholders backed the merger. At the meeting in Zug, which lasted just 12 minutes, over 99% of voting shareholders backed the deal.
The deal, announced in February, has already had more than its fair share of twists, with the original terms panned by shareholders — some of whom also took exception to retention payments for Xstrata executives.
Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund and Xstrata’s second-largest shareholder after Glencore said last week it would back the deal unreservedly. But the fund, which played a pivotal role, did not approve the controversial packages proposed for Xstrata’s key team.
In negotiations with Qatar, Mr Glasenberg insisted he become CE of the combined company rather than Mr Davis, who is expected to leave six months after the deal closes but can depart earlier if he wishes.
Glencore must also overcome European Commission concerns about potential competition problems the deal poses.
The trader has offered to sell Xstrata’s German zinc smelter, after its first solution was deemed insufficient by regulators.
Source: Business Day
Thursday, September 6, 2012
South Africa: NPA still wrong in Lonmin matter
Despite the withdrawal of the charges on Sunday by South Africa’s National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to charge 270 arrested mine workers for the killings of their colleagues, the initial decision to charge them in respect of the doctrine of common purpose is a perverse application of the law and that may have had the consequence of exacerbating tensions at Lonmin Mine in Marikana, North Western Province.
The tragic scenes of August 16, 2012, when police opened fire and killed 34 miners who were part of a group protesting against low wages, sent shockwaves throughout the world. Many reacted with horror at a display of police force that was reminiscent of apartheid South Africa.
Irrespective of what the Judicial Commission of Inquiry - established by President Zuma to investigate the killings and those responsible - may find once it conducts its investigation, there can be no doubt that the actions of the police can at best be described as extremely heavy handed.
While police may have overreacted, what happened in Marikana was a result of a Molotov cocktail of extremely angry miners (many of whom were armed with machetes and spears), a recalcitrant employer that seemed reluctant to negotiate to resolve the labour dispute, and an absent political and union leadership.
As a result of the killings and cognizant of the broader context in which the killings occurred, Human Rights Watch called on the South African government to ensure that the Commission is established speedily and for its terms of reference to include a fact-finding mission on the background and underlying events leading to the violence in Marikana.
It is a perversion of the doctrine to suggest that whatever common crime it is alleged the miners were pursuing, that the killing of their colleagues by the police was a foreseeable outcome on their part of achieving that goal.
The creation of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry and the appointment of retired Judge Farlam to head it, is therefore a welcome step. Farlam is a highly respected judge who served many years on the Supreme Court of Appeal. The Commission will have four months in which to conduct its investigation and to submit its final report a month thereafter.
However, the actions by the NPA to add the doctrine of common purpose to the initial charge of public violence could have undone all the good efforts to address the situation. According to the doctrine, where two or more people agree to commit a crime or actively associate in a joint unlawful enterprise, each will be responsible for specific criminal conduct committed by one of their number which falls within their common design.
In other words, there was a common purpose to commit a crime. It is a perversion of the doctrine to suggest that whatever common crime it is alleged the miners were pursuing, that the killing of their colleagues by the police was a foreseeable outcome on their part of achieving that goal.
This nonsensical decision by the NPA to charge the miners in this manner may have led many to conclude that these charges were politically motivated and an attempt to prevent further protests.
The terms of reference of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry include an investigation of all the parties involved and mandate the Commission to refer any matter regarding the conduct of any person or group for prosecution. In addition, the South Africa’s Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) has also initiated an investigation into the conduct of the police that led to the tragedy.
It is therefore very worrisome that there is very little complementarity between these investigations. As the Judicial Commission of Inquiry has been specifically established to conduct an independent and impartial investigation, it is more prudent for entities to work collaboratively with the Commission.
The decision by the NPA to charge the miners in terms of the doctrine of common purpose seems shortsighted for at least three reasons: Firstly, in the context of the establishment of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry, it should await the results and recommendations of the investigation before deciding the appropriate course of action.
Secondly, the requirement of active association upon which it seems to rely is a misapplication of the doctrine which could lead to the unintended consequence of limiting human rights in other contexts. Lastly, its decision could have exacerbated the already tense situation and set off another Molotov cocktail.
Cameron Jacobs is the South Africa Director at Human Rights Watch
Source: Human Rights Watch
The tragic scenes of August 16, 2012, when police opened fire and killed 34 miners who were part of a group protesting against low wages, sent shockwaves throughout the world. Many reacted with horror at a display of police force that was reminiscent of apartheid South Africa.
Irrespective of what the Judicial Commission of Inquiry - established by President Zuma to investigate the killings and those responsible - may find once it conducts its investigation, there can be no doubt that the actions of the police can at best be described as extremely heavy handed.
While police may have overreacted, what happened in Marikana was a result of a Molotov cocktail of extremely angry miners (many of whom were armed with machetes and spears), a recalcitrant employer that seemed reluctant to negotiate to resolve the labour dispute, and an absent political and union leadership.
As a result of the killings and cognizant of the broader context in which the killings occurred, Human Rights Watch called on the South African government to ensure that the Commission is established speedily and for its terms of reference to include a fact-finding mission on the background and underlying events leading to the violence in Marikana.
It is a perversion of the doctrine to suggest that whatever common crime it is alleged the miners were pursuing, that the killing of their colleagues by the police was a foreseeable outcome on their part of achieving that goal.
The creation of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry and the appointment of retired Judge Farlam to head it, is therefore a welcome step. Farlam is a highly respected judge who served many years on the Supreme Court of Appeal. The Commission will have four months in which to conduct its investigation and to submit its final report a month thereafter.
However, the actions by the NPA to add the doctrine of common purpose to the initial charge of public violence could have undone all the good efforts to address the situation. According to the doctrine, where two or more people agree to commit a crime or actively associate in a joint unlawful enterprise, each will be responsible for specific criminal conduct committed by one of their number which falls within their common design.
In other words, there was a common purpose to commit a crime. It is a perversion of the doctrine to suggest that whatever common crime it is alleged the miners were pursuing, that the killing of their colleagues by the police was a foreseeable outcome on their part of achieving that goal.
This nonsensical decision by the NPA to charge the miners in this manner may have led many to conclude that these charges were politically motivated and an attempt to prevent further protests.
The terms of reference of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry include an investigation of all the parties involved and mandate the Commission to refer any matter regarding the conduct of any person or group for prosecution. In addition, the South Africa’s Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) has also initiated an investigation into the conduct of the police that led to the tragedy.
It is therefore very worrisome that there is very little complementarity between these investigations. As the Judicial Commission of Inquiry has been specifically established to conduct an independent and impartial investigation, it is more prudent for entities to work collaboratively with the Commission.
The decision by the NPA to charge the miners in terms of the doctrine of common purpose seems shortsighted for at least three reasons: Firstly, in the context of the establishment of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry, it should await the results and recommendations of the investigation before deciding the appropriate course of action.
Secondly, the requirement of active association upon which it seems to rely is a misapplication of the doctrine which could lead to the unintended consequence of limiting human rights in other contexts. Lastly, its decision could have exacerbated the already tense situation and set off another Molotov cocktail.
Cameron Jacobs is the South Africa Director at Human Rights Watch
Source: Human Rights Watch
Monday, September 3, 2012
If Blair were PM in 1986, would he have invaded SA?
The question of a humanitarian war is an interesting one. Can a war ever be fought on moral grounds? I don’t think so – not unless there’s something with which the world’s great defenders can grease their palms.
Tony Blair ducked, dived and denied all responsibility of any type of wrongdoing for his decision to back the USA of their invasion of Iraq. He justified it morally, saying that even if the evidence of weapons of mass destruction was false, Saddam Hussein was a bad man who did bad things to his own people and neighbouring nations.
He claims he was justified in picking up arms, putting British soldiers at risk and ridding the world of an evil, oppressive regime. His intentions were purely moral in his mind.
As I listened to the former British Prime Minster dance his way through not answering questions at the Discovery Invest Leadership Summit held in Sandton, a couple of queries sprang to mind. There is one question in particular I would have asked if I had managed to get a mic in my hands.
If this were so, then how would he have reacted if he were in power in 1986 instead of Maggie Thatcher? What would his approach have been if the ANC had made the request for British to invade South Africa and rid us of the Apartheid menace that was oppressing black South Africans?
The Apartheid government was illegally occupying Namibia, had invaded Angola and was busy destabilising all its neighbours. It also had a banned programme of weapons of mass destruction that included nuclear devices and a chemical weapons programme it was prepared to use on its own population. Arrested journalists, banned newspapers, engaged torture, detention without trial and in political assignations – the list goes on.
It had also unleashed its security forces to crush brutally any form of popular uprising that threatened Apartheid, despite the fact that the system had been declared a crime against humanity.
I wonder if Blair the defender of human rights and democracy would have rallied to the aid of the oppressed in South Africa, or would he have opted for a more diplomatic evolutionary approach? Would he carry the courage of his convictions or duck, dive and divert any request from the ANC to help liberate black South Africans?
A cynic would suggest that it would not be enough to overthrow an oppressive government only because they were bad and horrible; that it would only be “necessary” to invade such a country if the government were bad, horrible… and happened to have extremely valuable resources that the great defender desperately needed (or just plain wanted). The jokes about gold lining South Africa’s pavements would not have been quite enough to stimulate such a high level of intervention. And besides, there would be no reason for any modern British government to invade the Apartheid state to liberate the oppressed in the eighties. Why would they, when they already did so in 1899, when they decided to liberate “uitlanders” from the oppressive regime of the Boer republics? And, of course, get their hands on the country’s tidy portion of mineral resources in the process.
There would be no reason for the British to embark on a “humanitarian” war in Apartheid South Africa, because there would be nothing to gain. Why would Blair help free black people when the Empire already helped liberate the country’s resources over a century ago?
If, on the other hand, South Africa had been ripe for the exploiting, we may have had a very different history. Both pre- and post-liberation. We may have been forced into democracy much earlier; on the other hand, there may have been so many more innocent lives lost. We may have had the much-deserved moral support of a major international power; we also may have lost our independence to that same power.
There is no way to tell whether a major military intervention would have helped or hindered South Africa. And even if such a war were helpful, there would be no way to predict whether it would not bring its own set of problems; its own set of moral dilemmas and its own lack of freedoms.
Because, sadly, there’s no such thing as a humanitarian war. There’s only a war where I help you – and then help myself to what you’ve got.
Source: Daily Maverick
Tony Blair ducked, dived and denied all responsibility of any type of wrongdoing for his decision to back the USA of their invasion of Iraq. He justified it morally, saying that even if the evidence of weapons of mass destruction was false, Saddam Hussein was a bad man who did bad things to his own people and neighbouring nations.
He claims he was justified in picking up arms, putting British soldiers at risk and ridding the world of an evil, oppressive regime. His intentions were purely moral in his mind.
As I listened to the former British Prime Minster dance his way through not answering questions at the Discovery Invest Leadership Summit held in Sandton, a couple of queries sprang to mind. There is one question in particular I would have asked if I had managed to get a mic in my hands.
If this were so, then how would he have reacted if he were in power in 1986 instead of Maggie Thatcher? What would his approach have been if the ANC had made the request for British to invade South Africa and rid us of the Apartheid menace that was oppressing black South Africans?
The Apartheid government was illegally occupying Namibia, had invaded Angola and was busy destabilising all its neighbours. It also had a banned programme of weapons of mass destruction that included nuclear devices and a chemical weapons programme it was prepared to use on its own population. Arrested journalists, banned newspapers, engaged torture, detention without trial and in political assignations – the list goes on.
It had also unleashed its security forces to crush brutally any form of popular uprising that threatened Apartheid, despite the fact that the system had been declared a crime against humanity.
I wonder if Blair the defender of human rights and democracy would have rallied to the aid of the oppressed in South Africa, or would he have opted for a more diplomatic evolutionary approach? Would he carry the courage of his convictions or duck, dive and divert any request from the ANC to help liberate black South Africans?
A cynic would suggest that it would not be enough to overthrow an oppressive government only because they were bad and horrible; that it would only be “necessary” to invade such a country if the government were bad, horrible… and happened to have extremely valuable resources that the great defender desperately needed (or just plain wanted). The jokes about gold lining South Africa’s pavements would not have been quite enough to stimulate such a high level of intervention. And besides, there would be no reason for any modern British government to invade the Apartheid state to liberate the oppressed in the eighties. Why would they, when they already did so in 1899, when they decided to liberate “uitlanders” from the oppressive regime of the Boer republics? And, of course, get their hands on the country’s tidy portion of mineral resources in the process.
There would be no reason for the British to embark on a “humanitarian” war in Apartheid South Africa, because there would be nothing to gain. Why would Blair help free black people when the Empire already helped liberate the country’s resources over a century ago?
If, on the other hand, South Africa had been ripe for the exploiting, we may have had a very different history. Both pre- and post-liberation. We may have been forced into democracy much earlier; on the other hand, there may have been so many more innocent lives lost. We may have had the much-deserved moral support of a major international power; we also may have lost our independence to that same power.
There is no way to tell whether a major military intervention would have helped or hindered South Africa. And even if such a war were helpful, there would be no way to predict whether it would not bring its own set of problems; its own set of moral dilemmas and its own lack of freedoms.
Because, sadly, there’s no such thing as a humanitarian war. There’s only a war where I help you – and then help myself to what you’ve got.
Source: Daily Maverick
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Zanu PF ministers protect diamond barons
Two senior Zanu PF politburo members, Minister of State for Presidential Affairs Didymus Mutasa and his Indigenisation counterpart Saviour Kasukuwere, have been linked to Israeli and Russian underworld gold and diamond dealers who were recently deported after a raid on their hideout in Harare’s Glen Lorne suburb. The incident helped to shed light on activities in the underworld of diamond and other precious mineral dealings, as well as the nexus between politics and dirty business. For some time there have been reports that senior Zanu PF officials, including ministers and politburo members, are minting money in criminal underworld deals involving mainly diamonds and gold. The situation deteriorated after the discovery of alluvial diamonds in Chiadzwa.
Mutasa and Kasukuwere’s alleged links to the gangland dealers were discovered during a raid last month on a hideout located at Number 57 Follyjon Crescent by crack units drawn from the police, immigration, Central Intelligence Organisation and Zimbabwe Revenue Authority. The swoop on the house — believed to be owned by Thamer Al Shanfari, the former chairman of Cayman Islands - based mining company Oryx Natural Resources (ONR) — on January 3 led to the arrest of a Russian national, Alexander Filegon alias Alexander Filatov, and an Israeli, Mike Raslan, who were said to be diamond and gold dealers. Filegon and Raslan were later deported.
It was during the raid at Number 57 Follyjon – a popular rendezvous for hardened dealers frequented by Zanu PF ministers and politburo members – that Mutasa and Kasukuwere’s names cropped up. Security agents who were part of the raid said Filegon and Raslan were unshaken by the raid despite the serious allegations levelled against them, boasting they were well-connected and nothing would happen to them.
“During the raid one of the major issues of interest was that Raslan and Filegon appeared unperturbed by the swoop by security units and the subsequent searches despite the seriousness of the allegations,” one of the security agents involved told the Zimbabwe Independent this week. “In fact, Raslan boasted that he is well-connected within the Zanu PF top hierarchy and alleged that he has been involved in a mining joint-venture with the first family in the DRC. He proceeded to show his political connections by summoning ministers Didymus Mutasa and Saviour Kasukuwere to witness the raid and the ministers came.”
Wealthy dealers in Zimbabwe of all shades often claim without producing evidence that they are working with or for the first family either to get protection or intimidate their business partners and clients. Their allegations have been denied. Security agents conducting the searches said they ignored the ministers as they proceeded to ransack the premises but a furious Mutasa sprung into action by blocking the exit gate and delayed the team’s departure after conducting the raid.
Another security agent involved in the raid said: “It was clear the ministers and those dealers were working in cahoots because Mutasa, visibly angry, even blocked the exit gate and delayed the security team’s exit from the premises after the end of the search,” the security agent said. Although no diamonds or cash were discovered at the premises, Filegon, who was accused of violating immigration laws and working in the country as a “geological consultant” at Benson mine in Mutoko on a tourist visa, and Raslan were both arrested and later deported.
Francis Mabika, an Assistant Regional Immigration Officer, yesterday confirmed the pair had been deported. Mutasa also confirmed visiting the house during the raid but denied trying to protect Filegon and Raslan. “Was there an announcement that there would be a raid? I was just visiting the place and I was unaware that there would be a raid,” he said. Mutasa said allegations that he came to the house after being called by Raslan were “absolutely nonsense” adding, “I don’t do things like that.”
Kasukuwere said he had gone to the house for a meeting with South African businessmen to explain the indigenisation policy and not to rescue Raslan and Filegon. He said he did not know the two but was there at the invitation of Shanfari, whom he said was a major investor in the country. “We were there for a separate meeting. We had a prior business meeting. I don’t interfere with the law. I don’t know the two you are talking about. I was there to see the owner of the house,” Kasukuwere said. “There were some South African businesspeople, who wanted to understand the business climate in the country and the issue of indigenisation. Some are interested in investing in Zimbabwe. By the time we got there, they were refusing to open the gate for officials and I told them to open it and cooperate.”
In 2008, Shanfari was put on the United States government sanctions list because of his links to President Robert Mugabe and ONR, but he issued a statement denying the links and said he resigned from the company in 2002. Shanfari was also mentioned in a report produced by a panel of United Nations experts titled the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and other forms of wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo, dated October 8, 2002. The report alleged that ONR represented covert Zimbabwean military financial interests in negotiations with state mining companies in the DRC. The report also alleged ONR and Shanfari were engaged in the illegal trafficking of blood diamonds from the DRC and were financing Zanu PF during elections.
The raid at the house was led by a senior immigration official, Evans Siziba, after whistle blowers revealed the two were dealing in diamonds and had stashed about US$400 000 at the premises while trading in illegal diamonds and gold. There were also allegations they had smuggled two Toyota Fortunes and a Toyota Hilux into the country without paying duty. Detectives from the Minerals and Border Control Unit impounded the vehicles on February 1.
Source: Nehanda Radio
Mutasa and Kasukuwere’s alleged links to the gangland dealers were discovered during a raid last month on a hideout located at Number 57 Follyjon Crescent by crack units drawn from the police, immigration, Central Intelligence Organisation and Zimbabwe Revenue Authority. The swoop on the house — believed to be owned by Thamer Al Shanfari, the former chairman of Cayman Islands - based mining company Oryx Natural Resources (ONR) — on January 3 led to the arrest of a Russian national, Alexander Filegon alias Alexander Filatov, and an Israeli, Mike Raslan, who were said to be diamond and gold dealers. Filegon and Raslan were later deported.
It was during the raid at Number 57 Follyjon – a popular rendezvous for hardened dealers frequented by Zanu PF ministers and politburo members – that Mutasa and Kasukuwere’s names cropped up. Security agents who were part of the raid said Filegon and Raslan were unshaken by the raid despite the serious allegations levelled against them, boasting they were well-connected and nothing would happen to them.
“During the raid one of the major issues of interest was that Raslan and Filegon appeared unperturbed by the swoop by security units and the subsequent searches despite the seriousness of the allegations,” one of the security agents involved told the Zimbabwe Independent this week. “In fact, Raslan boasted that he is well-connected within the Zanu PF top hierarchy and alleged that he has been involved in a mining joint-venture with the first family in the DRC. He proceeded to show his political connections by summoning ministers Didymus Mutasa and Saviour Kasukuwere to witness the raid and the ministers came.”
Wealthy dealers in Zimbabwe of all shades often claim without producing evidence that they are working with or for the first family either to get protection or intimidate their business partners and clients. Their allegations have been denied. Security agents conducting the searches said they ignored the ministers as they proceeded to ransack the premises but a furious Mutasa sprung into action by blocking the exit gate and delayed the team’s departure after conducting the raid.
Another security agent involved in the raid said: “It was clear the ministers and those dealers were working in cahoots because Mutasa, visibly angry, even blocked the exit gate and delayed the security team’s exit from the premises after the end of the search,” the security agent said. Although no diamonds or cash were discovered at the premises, Filegon, who was accused of violating immigration laws and working in the country as a “geological consultant” at Benson mine in Mutoko on a tourist visa, and Raslan were both arrested and later deported.
Francis Mabika, an Assistant Regional Immigration Officer, yesterday confirmed the pair had been deported. Mutasa also confirmed visiting the house during the raid but denied trying to protect Filegon and Raslan. “Was there an announcement that there would be a raid? I was just visiting the place and I was unaware that there would be a raid,” he said. Mutasa said allegations that he came to the house after being called by Raslan were “absolutely nonsense” adding, “I don’t do things like that.”
Kasukuwere said he had gone to the house for a meeting with South African businessmen to explain the indigenisation policy and not to rescue Raslan and Filegon. He said he did not know the two but was there at the invitation of Shanfari, whom he said was a major investor in the country. “We were there for a separate meeting. We had a prior business meeting. I don’t interfere with the law. I don’t know the two you are talking about. I was there to see the owner of the house,” Kasukuwere said. “There were some South African businesspeople, who wanted to understand the business climate in the country and the issue of indigenisation. Some are interested in investing in Zimbabwe. By the time we got there, they were refusing to open the gate for officials and I told them to open it and cooperate.”
In 2008, Shanfari was put on the United States government sanctions list because of his links to President Robert Mugabe and ONR, but he issued a statement denying the links and said he resigned from the company in 2002. Shanfari was also mentioned in a report produced by a panel of United Nations experts titled the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and other forms of wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo, dated October 8, 2002. The report alleged that ONR represented covert Zimbabwean military financial interests in negotiations with state mining companies in the DRC. The report also alleged ONR and Shanfari were engaged in the illegal trafficking of blood diamonds from the DRC and were financing Zanu PF during elections.
The raid at the house was led by a senior immigration official, Evans Siziba, after whistle blowers revealed the two were dealing in diamonds and had stashed about US$400 000 at the premises while trading in illegal diamonds and gold. There were also allegations they had smuggled two Toyota Fortunes and a Toyota Hilux into the country without paying duty. Detectives from the Minerals and Border Control Unit impounded the vehicles on February 1.
Source: Nehanda Radio
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Anti-Joseph Kabila protesters urge DRC boycott at Indaba
Congolese protesters opposed to the DRC's Joseph Kabila are picketing on the sidelines of the Mining Indaba in Cape Town, calling on investors to steer clear of the country's mineral resources. Congolese protesters who dispute the recent re-election of Joseph Kabila as president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) picketed on the sidelines of the Mining Indaba in Cape Town on Wednesday, calling on investors to steer clear of the country's mineral resources. They also claimed that South Africa had only endorsed Kabila's re-election because prominent South Africans had business interests in the countries' mining sector. Chanting in French and Kikongo, approximately 30 protesters cradled placards and the DRC's flags while they toyi-toyi'd along Coen Steytler avenue outside the Cape Town International Convention Centre.
"Kabila is a killer and rapist"; "Help save the DRC"; and "DRC in deep political crisis -- Illegal delegation as Indaba," read some of the placards. The protests form part of a larger campaign by DRC citizens residing in South Africa who believe the presidential elections in December were illegitimate and fixed in favour of incumbent president Joseph Kabila.
"There is no government representative of the people at the moment in the DRC. Kabila stole the elections and is stealing the wealth of our country -- he must go," Iko Ikotela from Kinshasa told the Mail & Guardian.
Most of those protesting outside the Indaba say opposition leader Etienne Tshisekedi is the rightful leader of the country and was defeated by Kabila only "through fraud". As part of their remonstrations, the protesters are encouraging investors to steer clear of the country's mineral sector, which they believe is "tainted".
"Hey! Please don't invest in the DRC -- you are supporting a murderer and a rapist and buying blood diamonds -- don't do it," shouted one Protester to a bemused looking delegate as he exited the Indaba.
Besides diamonds, other primary minerals mined in the country include cobalt, gold and copper. Despite widespread international condemnation, the South African government ratified Kabila's victory in late December. Ikotela alleges the support from the South African government is solely based on business interests in the DRC, held by prominent South African politicians.
"Your President Zuma and his cronies have mines up in DRC, that's why you are supporting Kabila," he told the M&G.
Presidential spokesperson Mac Maharaj dismissed claims of Zuma's business concerns in the DRC as "far-fetched" and would not comment any further on the matter. While there is no overt evidence to suggest President Zuma is involved in any business concerns -- mining or otherwise -- in the DRC, his nephew Khulubuse Zuma is involved in the country's mineral and energy sector. In response to the protests, the DRC's minerals and energy delegation at the Indaba have set up an emergency number for the country's representatives to contact should picketers threaten them.
"They have been a little aggressive but nothing too hectic. If I think it is bad I will use the number," Alessaine Kwatanga, a businessman in Lubumbashi told the M&G.
Indaba organisers have described the protests as "unfortunate" but say they recognise the rights of DRC citizens to protest against their government and leaders.
"The right to peaceful protest is enshrined in the South African Constitution. The Mining Indaba would like to apologise to our delegates and anyone who might have been inconvenienced," read a statement released on Wednesday.
Source: Mail & Guardian
"Kabila is a killer and rapist"; "Help save the DRC"; and "DRC in deep political crisis -- Illegal delegation as Indaba," read some of the placards. The protests form part of a larger campaign by DRC citizens residing in South Africa who believe the presidential elections in December were illegitimate and fixed in favour of incumbent president Joseph Kabila.
"There is no government representative of the people at the moment in the DRC. Kabila stole the elections and is stealing the wealth of our country -- he must go," Iko Ikotela from Kinshasa told the Mail & Guardian.
Most of those protesting outside the Indaba say opposition leader Etienne Tshisekedi is the rightful leader of the country and was defeated by Kabila only "through fraud". As part of their remonstrations, the protesters are encouraging investors to steer clear of the country's mineral sector, which they believe is "tainted".
"Hey! Please don't invest in the DRC -- you are supporting a murderer and a rapist and buying blood diamonds -- don't do it," shouted one Protester to a bemused looking delegate as he exited the Indaba.
Besides diamonds, other primary minerals mined in the country include cobalt, gold and copper. Despite widespread international condemnation, the South African government ratified Kabila's victory in late December. Ikotela alleges the support from the South African government is solely based on business interests in the DRC, held by prominent South African politicians.
"Your President Zuma and his cronies have mines up in DRC, that's why you are supporting Kabila," he told the M&G.
Presidential spokesperson Mac Maharaj dismissed claims of Zuma's business concerns in the DRC as "far-fetched" and would not comment any further on the matter. While there is no overt evidence to suggest President Zuma is involved in any business concerns -- mining or otherwise -- in the DRC, his nephew Khulubuse Zuma is involved in the country's mineral and energy sector. In response to the protests, the DRC's minerals and energy delegation at the Indaba have set up an emergency number for the country's representatives to contact should picketers threaten them.
"They have been a little aggressive but nothing too hectic. If I think it is bad I will use the number," Alessaine Kwatanga, a businessman in Lubumbashi told the M&G.
Indaba organisers have described the protests as "unfortunate" but say they recognise the rights of DRC citizens to protest against their government and leaders.
"The right to peaceful protest is enshrined in the South African Constitution. The Mining Indaba would like to apologise to our delegates and anyone who might have been inconvenienced," read a statement released on Wednesday.
Source: Mail & Guardian
DRC election protest goes viral
Congolese protesters opposed to the DRC's Joseph Kabila are picketing on the sidelines of the Mining Indaba in Cape Town, calling on investors to steer clear of the country's mineral resources. Congolese protesters who dispute the recent re-election of Joseph Kabila as president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) picketed on the sidelines of the Mining Indaba in Cape Town on Wednesday, calling on investors to steer clear of the country's mineral resources.
They also claimed that South Africa had only endorsed Kabila's re-election because prominent South Africans had business interests in the countries' mining sector. Chanting in French and Kikongo, approximately 30 protesters cradled placards and the DRC's flags while they toyi-toyi'd along Coen Steytler avenue outside the Cape Town International Convention Centre.
"Kabila is a killer and rapist"; "Help save the DRC"; and "DRC in deep political crisis -- Illegal delegation as Indaba," read some of the placards.
The protests form part of a larger campaign by DRC citizens residing in South Africa who believe the presidential elections in December were illegitimate and fixed in favour of incumbent president Joseph Kabila.
'Kabila stole the elections and is stealing the wealth'
"There is no government representative of the people at the moment in the DRC. Kabila stole the elections and is stealing the wealth of our country -- he must go," Iko Ikotela from Kinshasa told the Mail & Guardian.
Most of those protesting outside the Indaba say opposition leader Etienne Tshisekedi is the rightful leader of the country and was defeated by Kabila only "through fraud".
As part of their remonstrations, the protesters are encouraging investors to steer clear of the country's mineral sector, which they believe is "tainted".
"Hey! Please don't invest in the DRC -- you are supporting a murderer and a rapist and buying blood diamonds -- don't do it," shouted one Protester to a bemused looking delegate as he exited the Indaba.
Besides diamonds, other primary minerals mined in the country include cobalt, gold and copper.
Despite widespread international condemnation, the South African government ratified Kabila's victory in late December.
'Zuma and his cronies have mines in the DRC'
Ikotela alleges the support from the South African government is solely based on business interests in the DRC, held by prominent South African politicians.
"Your President Zuma and his cronies have mines up in DRC, that's why you are supporting Kabila," he told the M&G.
Presidential spokesperson Mac Maharaj dismissed claims of Zuma's business concerns in the DRC as "far-fetched" and would not comment any further on the matter.
While there is no overt evidence to suggest President Zuma is involved in any business concerns -- mining or otherwise -- in the DRC, his nephew Khulubuse Zuma is involved in the country's mineral and energy sector.
Emergency number
In response to the protests, the DRC's minerals and energy delegation at the Indaba have set up an emergency number for the country's representatives to contact should picketers threaten them.
"They have been a little aggressive but nothing too hectic. If I think it is bad I will use the number," Alessaine Kwatanga, a businessman in Lubumbashi told the M&G.
Indaba organisers have described the protests as "unfortunate" but say they recognise the rights of DRC citizens to protest against their government and leaders.
"The right to peaceful protest is enshrined in the South African Constitution. The Mining Indaba would like to apologise to our delegates and anyone who might have been inconvenienced," read a statement released on Wednesday.
They also claimed that South Africa had only endorsed Kabila's re-election because prominent South Africans had business interests in the countries' mining sector. Chanting in French and Kikongo, approximately 30 protesters cradled placards and the DRC's flags while they toyi-toyi'd along Coen Steytler avenue outside the Cape Town International Convention Centre.
"Kabila is a killer and rapist"; "Help save the DRC"; and "DRC in deep political crisis -- Illegal delegation as Indaba," read some of the placards.
The protests form part of a larger campaign by DRC citizens residing in South Africa who believe the presidential elections in December were illegitimate and fixed in favour of incumbent president Joseph Kabila.
'Kabila stole the elections and is stealing the wealth'
"There is no government representative of the people at the moment in the DRC. Kabila stole the elections and is stealing the wealth of our country -- he must go," Iko Ikotela from Kinshasa told the Mail & Guardian.
Most of those protesting outside the Indaba say opposition leader Etienne Tshisekedi is the rightful leader of the country and was defeated by Kabila only "through fraud".
As part of their remonstrations, the protesters are encouraging investors to steer clear of the country's mineral sector, which they believe is "tainted".
"Hey! Please don't invest in the DRC -- you are supporting a murderer and a rapist and buying blood diamonds -- don't do it," shouted one Protester to a bemused looking delegate as he exited the Indaba.
Besides diamonds, other primary minerals mined in the country include cobalt, gold and copper.
Despite widespread international condemnation, the South African government ratified Kabila's victory in late December.
'Zuma and his cronies have mines in the DRC'
Ikotela alleges the support from the South African government is solely based on business interests in the DRC, held by prominent South African politicians.
"Your President Zuma and his cronies have mines up in DRC, that's why you are supporting Kabila," he told the M&G.
Presidential spokesperson Mac Maharaj dismissed claims of Zuma's business concerns in the DRC as "far-fetched" and would not comment any further on the matter.
While there is no overt evidence to suggest President Zuma is involved in any business concerns -- mining or otherwise -- in the DRC, his nephew Khulubuse Zuma is involved in the country's mineral and energy sector.
Emergency number
In response to the protests, the DRC's minerals and energy delegation at the Indaba have set up an emergency number for the country's representatives to contact should picketers threaten them.
"They have been a little aggressive but nothing too hectic. If I think it is bad I will use the number," Alessaine Kwatanga, a businessman in Lubumbashi told the M&G.
Indaba organisers have described the protests as "unfortunate" but say they recognise the rights of DRC citizens to protest against their government and leaders.
"The right to peaceful protest is enshrined in the South African Constitution. The Mining Indaba would like to apologise to our delegates and anyone who might have been inconvenienced," read a statement released on Wednesday.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Nigeria: 400 More Children Killed by Lead Poisoning
Lead poisoning linked with illegal gold mining has killed a further 400 children in northern Nigeria since November, the National Emergency Management Agency said Monday. The latest figures suggest that the death toll from the crisis in the northern state of Zamfara is rising after the United Nations said lead poisoning in the region had killed at least 400 children between March and October last year.
Source: New York Times
Source: New York Times
Monday, September 20, 2010
Another illegal miner slain at Aurora
AN illegal miner was killed and 16 others arrested after a confrontation with security guards on Saturday night at Aurora Mine in Grootvlei, Springs.
Four Delta Blue Force security guards have been arrested and face charges of murder, attempted murder and assault. While union officials say there was another incident in which mine hostel dwellers confronted illegal miners, police could only confirm the first one.
Warrant Officer Tommy Tomlinson said security guards at one of the shafts arrested 16 illegal miners. "One illegal miner was killed by the guards during a confrontation," he said. Police arrested the 16 illegal miners and charged them with illegal mining and trespassing. "We also arrested four security guards on the scene and charged them with murder, attempted murder and assault," he said. Tomlinson said the 20 men would all appear in the Springs magistrate's court today.
National Union of Mineworkers' branch chairperson Frasy Namanyana said there had been two incidents involving security guards at the mine. "There was a confrontation between illegal miners and security guards on Saturday night in which one of the miners was killed and the others injured," he said. The two injured were taken to hospital. The Far East Rand Hospital confirmed that two assaulted mine workers came in with the police. They were treated and then released yesterday. "This morning (yesterday) mine hostel dwellers confronted illegal miners and assaulted six of them, Namanyana said. "They also assaulted security guards whom they found with stolen copper cables."
Tomlinson said he did not know about the other incident.
Source: Times Live
Four Delta Blue Force security guards have been arrested and face charges of murder, attempted murder and assault. While union officials say there was another incident in which mine hostel dwellers confronted illegal miners, police could only confirm the first one.
Warrant Officer Tommy Tomlinson said security guards at one of the shafts arrested 16 illegal miners. "One illegal miner was killed by the guards during a confrontation," he said. Police arrested the 16 illegal miners and charged them with illegal mining and trespassing. "We also arrested four security guards on the scene and charged them with murder, attempted murder and assault," he said. Tomlinson said the 20 men would all appear in the Springs magistrate's court today.
National Union of Mineworkers' branch chairperson Frasy Namanyana said there had been two incidents involving security guards at the mine. "There was a confrontation between illegal miners and security guards on Saturday night in which one of the miners was killed and the others injured," he said. The two injured were taken to hospital. The Far East Rand Hospital confirmed that two assaulted mine workers came in with the police. They were treated and then released yesterday. "This morning (yesterday) mine hostel dwellers confronted illegal miners and assaulted six of them, Namanyana said. "They also assaulted security guards whom they found with stolen copper cables."
Tomlinson said he did not know about the other incident.
Source: Times Live
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Guest Columnist BEE has evolved into a family affair: ZEE
There was cautious optimism among many leftists in the ANC that the ousting of Thabo Mbeki in Polokwane might mark a shift towards a much more egalitarian economic policy, including Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). Instead, BEE is increasingly becoming too narrow, amounting to ZEE – that is, Zuma Economic Empowerment.
The recent multibillion-rand Arcelor-Mittal BEE deal involving Duduzane, President Jacob Zuma’s son, is another example of how BEE has become too narrow. To crown it all, the president’s nephew, Khulubuse Zuma, seems to have suddenly become an African imperialist, amassing oil resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
ZEE is not only an assault on the Young Communist League and South African Communist Party (SACP) resolutions – which called for the nationalisation of monopoly industries – it amounts to a burial of the Freedom Charter. Only a few can be misled to believe that there is no link between Zuma’s rise to the presidency and his family’s rise to riches. One’s leadership position in a political party, particularly the ANC, allows one to gain and/or retain access to the institutional power that makes one the preferred candidate for white business to select to be part of its established enterprises. These politicians rely heavily on the control of organisational power to generate wealth. Access to the state provides politicians with leverage to select those who can acquire shares in white-owned firms.
South Africa’s political system is based on a multiparty electoral democracy. Access to state institutional power is achieved through elections. Consequently, many politicians are interested in party politics. Since they rely on organisational power for wealth accumulation, potential and actual entrepreneurs find it rational to contest directly or indirectly for political organisational leadership positions as an entry point to the state and its economic resources. However, not every political party matters.
Because the ANC is backed by the SACP and the Congress of South African Trade Unions – not to mention its history in the national liberation struggle – it is highly supported by the electorate and, therefore, matters. Individuals acting within and through the state have the power to decide who gets state-owned resources. However, the fact that individuals in the state have this institutional power does not mean we will know beforehand which black politicians will secure access to these resources. This is mediated by a dominant political party in government.
The BEE model is structured favourably for politically connected politicians and their proxies to enter into business through the state. The state owns key economic resources required by business that can only be accessed with state permission. The state acts as a purchaser of services from the private sector. Through its financial institutions, the state acts as a money lender. It is also a grantor of licences for, among other things, mining rights. Through privatisation, it acts as a seller of its assets.
Business can gain access to state-owned resources through a BEE criterion that requires black people to be owners and managers of enterprises. White businesses can use black people who are politically connected to gain access to these resources – and more recently, as a means to deflect ANC Youth League calls for nationalisation. This explains why certain black millionaires associated with the liberation movement have been cherry-picked by white businesses.
The BEE model has promoted competition among politicians for access to institutional power and co-option by white business. This competition finds expression in political conflicts within the ANC and the state. We are indeed on the wrong economic redistribution path. BEE has become a family affair. Children whose parents are not politicians will have to lift themselves out of poverty by their own bootstraps.
The youth’s cynical acquiescence of ZEE may find concrete expression in non-participation in political activism, including voting. After all, why vote if voting means empowering politicians to empower their children.
Source: City Press
The recent multibillion-rand Arcelor-Mittal BEE deal involving Duduzane, President Jacob Zuma’s son, is another example of how BEE has become too narrow. To crown it all, the president’s nephew, Khulubuse Zuma, seems to have suddenly become an African imperialist, amassing oil resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
ZEE is not only an assault on the Young Communist League and South African Communist Party (SACP) resolutions – which called for the nationalisation of monopoly industries – it amounts to a burial of the Freedom Charter. Only a few can be misled to believe that there is no link between Zuma’s rise to the presidency and his family’s rise to riches. One’s leadership position in a political party, particularly the ANC, allows one to gain and/or retain access to the institutional power that makes one the preferred candidate for white business to select to be part of its established enterprises. These politicians rely heavily on the control of organisational power to generate wealth. Access to the state provides politicians with leverage to select those who can acquire shares in white-owned firms.
South Africa’s political system is based on a multiparty electoral democracy. Access to state institutional power is achieved through elections. Consequently, many politicians are interested in party politics. Since they rely on organisational power for wealth accumulation, potential and actual entrepreneurs find it rational to contest directly or indirectly for political organisational leadership positions as an entry point to the state and its economic resources. However, not every political party matters.
Because the ANC is backed by the SACP and the Congress of South African Trade Unions – not to mention its history in the national liberation struggle – it is highly supported by the electorate and, therefore, matters. Individuals acting within and through the state have the power to decide who gets state-owned resources. However, the fact that individuals in the state have this institutional power does not mean we will know beforehand which black politicians will secure access to these resources. This is mediated by a dominant political party in government.
The BEE model is structured favourably for politically connected politicians and their proxies to enter into business through the state. The state owns key economic resources required by business that can only be accessed with state permission. The state acts as a purchaser of services from the private sector. Through its financial institutions, the state acts as a money lender. It is also a grantor of licences for, among other things, mining rights. Through privatisation, it acts as a seller of its assets.
Business can gain access to state-owned resources through a BEE criterion that requires black people to be owners and managers of enterprises. White businesses can use black people who are politically connected to gain access to these resources – and more recently, as a means to deflect ANC Youth League calls for nationalisation. This explains why certain black millionaires associated with the liberation movement have been cherry-picked by white businesses.
The BEE model has promoted competition among politicians for access to institutional power and co-option by white business. This competition finds expression in political conflicts within the ANC and the state. We are indeed on the wrong economic redistribution path. BEE has become a family affair. Children whose parents are not politicians will have to lift themselves out of poverty by their own bootstraps.
The youth’s cynical acquiescence of ZEE may find concrete expression in non-participation in political activism, including voting. After all, why vote if voting means empowering politicians to empower their children.
Source: City Press
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Feeding Frenzy: its a BEE feast for Zuma cronies
The controversies surrounding the Sishen and Lonrho mineral rights have raised old questions about black economic empowerment (BEE), including the undeserved enrichment of elite individuals. But now, under the Jacob Zuma regime, there is growing concern about cronyism, patronage, and the role of government officials.
This time the appearance of patronage can be traced to the top. Some individuals, including the president’s son, Duduzane Zuma, could be greatly enriched by gaining ownership of mineral rights in a questionable process. Unease about the process has become more widespread.
The National Union of Metal Workers (Numsa) has commented scathingly on what it calls “the ArcelorMittal and Imperial Crown Trading looting scheme”. Minerals & resources minister Susan Shabangu’s decision last week to place a moratorium on new awards of mineral rights demonstrates that even government has concerns.
These events raise important questions: how are BEE policies working, what are the achievements and weaknesses — and are the effects in line with government’s intentions?
In more than 16 years, BEE has achieved many successes and some failures. It started in the early 1990s with companies such as Thebe Investments, launched by senior ANC officials, and Nthato Motlana’s Corporate Africa, which gained control of New Africa Investments (Nail). Thebe remains a successful enterprise, and there are other enduring black-controlled businesses. Some have grown through strong share price gains, buoyant markets and productive investment.
Among these are Patrice Motsepe’s African Rainbow Minerals, with a R34bn market cap, and MTN (R225bn market cap) which is run by CE Phuthuma Nhleko. One of the most successful is the unlisted Royal Bafokeng Holdings, a community-based investment company . It started with royalties from Impala platinum mining . Under chairman Kgosi Leruo Molotlegi and CE Niall Carroll, a former investment banker, it has diversified into mining, financial and industrial investments. At its financial year-end last December, it had a R30bn investment portfolio and minimal debt.
Nail started as a 20% shareholder in Sanlam’s Metlife, then attempted to become a conglomerate but collapsed . Mvela Group gathered stakes in companies such as Absa and Life Healthcare, but is now being dismantled . Having made his fortune, founder Tokyo Sexwale has returned to politics as human settlements minister.
Throughout these years, there has been debate about how BEE can best be achieved, and it has worked — but also created risks and unease on many fronts. In an institutional or legal sense, rules of the game were set through the Broad- based Empowerment Act of 2003 and the publication of industry codes and charters over the next few years. These changed the way companies and other stakeholders think about the process.
In the 1990s it was mainly about deals and ownership. The codes and charters have formalised a broader approach. They use a balanced scorecard, giving only a 20% weighting to ownership. Companies also gain credit in other areas including preferential procurement, employment equity, skills development and enterprise development (see table). Management control, where influence over a business is large, gets only 10%.
However, ownership of equity in companies and access to other assets such as mineral rights still play a big role in the process. This is where some old themes and questions are constantly at play. Since the charters and new regulations came into effect , most big companies have done deals over the past few years.
In each case, there are familiar questions: how can the deal be funded when the BEE investors have limited or no capital? Should key individuals benefit from the deal, or should the shareholders be entirely broad-based? If lead individual investors are involved, what value will they add to the business? Will they assist in running the business , adding new perspectives on the board — or provide influence among cronies in high places?
The Sishen/ArcelorMittal case has attracted special attention, partly because valuable mineral rights are involved and there are individuals who have direct links to senior politicians. (See next story). In other large BEE deals announced recently, companies have opted for broad-based empowerment shareholders. That includes the Sasol, SABMiller and MTN deals.
Government and other stakeholders have backed the broad-based empowerment principle, which usually seems intuitively more beneficial. But there is still leeway for companies when designing BEE deals and choosing their partners.
The benefits of broad-based empowerment deals are not always achieved as hoped. Funding arrangements linked to the share price can unravel when product prices or financial markets weaken, as occurred two years ago. Sasol’s R30bn Inzalo deal — which gave 10% of the group’s share capital to the black public, broad-based BEE groups, trade unions, employees and the Sasol Inzalo Foundation — was announced in May 2008, when the share price rose to R490. It’s now R284. Other companies, such as Barloworld, have restructured BEE deals for similar reasons.
Jenny Cargill, founder of BEE consulting company BusinessMap, gives several examples of communities that have been disadvantaged by BEE ventures or decisions made by government officials . The Richtersveld community in the Northern Cape is one. Cargill describes the potentially negative effects on communities as BEE’s “powder keg”.
In planning BEE deals, dilemmas on issues such as funding and the shareholding structure can arise. As the Sishen/ArcelorMittal case has shown, the actual or perceived ability to influence decisions on access to those rights through special relationships can be a valuable card for black investors . For some investors, the special relationships may be their only currency .
When they do play that card, and stand to be greatly enriched , investors and other stakeholders are quick to link the decisions — by government and companies — to a culture of corruption and cronyism, though weak laws, poor transparency and inept officials may be part of the problem. That’s a risk that government cannot afford .
WHAT IT MEANS
The empowerment field is not level
ArcelorMittal deal is just plain rotten
Source: Financial Mail
This time the appearance of patronage can be traced to the top. Some individuals, including the president’s son, Duduzane Zuma, could be greatly enriched by gaining ownership of mineral rights in a questionable process. Unease about the process has become more widespread.
The National Union of Metal Workers (Numsa) has commented scathingly on what it calls “the ArcelorMittal and Imperial Crown Trading looting scheme”. Minerals & resources minister Susan Shabangu’s decision last week to place a moratorium on new awards of mineral rights demonstrates that even government has concerns.
These events raise important questions: how are BEE policies working, what are the achievements and weaknesses — and are the effects in line with government’s intentions?
In more than 16 years, BEE has achieved many successes and some failures. It started in the early 1990s with companies such as Thebe Investments, launched by senior ANC officials, and Nthato Motlana’s Corporate Africa, which gained control of New Africa Investments (Nail). Thebe remains a successful enterprise, and there are other enduring black-controlled businesses. Some have grown through strong share price gains, buoyant markets and productive investment.
Among these are Patrice Motsepe’s African Rainbow Minerals, with a R34bn market cap, and MTN (R225bn market cap) which is run by CE Phuthuma Nhleko. One of the most successful is the unlisted Royal Bafokeng Holdings, a community-based investment company . It started with royalties from Impala platinum mining . Under chairman Kgosi Leruo Molotlegi and CE Niall Carroll, a former investment banker, it has diversified into mining, financial and industrial investments. At its financial year-end last December, it had a R30bn investment portfolio and minimal debt.
Nail started as a 20% shareholder in Sanlam’s Metlife, then attempted to become a conglomerate but collapsed . Mvela Group gathered stakes in companies such as Absa and Life Healthcare, but is now being dismantled . Having made his fortune, founder Tokyo Sexwale has returned to politics as human settlements minister.
Throughout these years, there has been debate about how BEE can best be achieved, and it has worked — but also created risks and unease on many fronts. In an institutional or legal sense, rules of the game were set through the Broad- based Empowerment Act of 2003 and the publication of industry codes and charters over the next few years. These changed the way companies and other stakeholders think about the process.
In the 1990s it was mainly about deals and ownership. The codes and charters have formalised a broader approach. They use a balanced scorecard, giving only a 20% weighting to ownership. Companies also gain credit in other areas including preferential procurement, employment equity, skills development and enterprise development (see table). Management control, where influence over a business is large, gets only 10%.
However, ownership of equity in companies and access to other assets such as mineral rights still play a big role in the process. This is where some old themes and questions are constantly at play. Since the charters and new regulations came into effect , most big companies have done deals over the past few years.
In each case, there are familiar questions: how can the deal be funded when the BEE investors have limited or no capital? Should key individuals benefit from the deal, or should the shareholders be entirely broad-based? If lead individual investors are involved, what value will they add to the business? Will they assist in running the business , adding new perspectives on the board — or provide influence among cronies in high places?
The Sishen/ArcelorMittal case has attracted special attention, partly because valuable mineral rights are involved and there are individuals who have direct links to senior politicians. (See next story). In other large BEE deals announced recently, companies have opted for broad-based empowerment shareholders. That includes the Sasol, SABMiller and MTN deals.
Government and other stakeholders have backed the broad-based empowerment principle, which usually seems intuitively more beneficial. But there is still leeway for companies when designing BEE deals and choosing their partners.
The benefits of broad-based empowerment deals are not always achieved as hoped. Funding arrangements linked to the share price can unravel when product prices or financial markets weaken, as occurred two years ago. Sasol’s R30bn Inzalo deal — which gave 10% of the group’s share capital to the black public, broad-based BEE groups, trade unions, employees and the Sasol Inzalo Foundation — was announced in May 2008, when the share price rose to R490. It’s now R284. Other companies, such as Barloworld, have restructured BEE deals for similar reasons.
Jenny Cargill, founder of BEE consulting company BusinessMap, gives several examples of communities that have been disadvantaged by BEE ventures or decisions made by government officials . The Richtersveld community in the Northern Cape is one. Cargill describes the potentially negative effects on communities as BEE’s “powder keg”.
In planning BEE deals, dilemmas on issues such as funding and the shareholding structure can arise. As the Sishen/ArcelorMittal case has shown, the actual or perceived ability to influence decisions on access to those rights through special relationships can be a valuable card for black investors . For some investors, the special relationships may be their only currency .
When they do play that card, and stand to be greatly enriched , investors and other stakeholders are quick to link the decisions — by government and companies — to a culture of corruption and cronyism, though weak laws, poor transparency and inept officials may be part of the problem. That’s a risk that government cannot afford .
WHAT IT MEANS
The empowerment field is not level
ArcelorMittal deal is just plain rotten
Source: Financial Mail
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Zuma meets Hu Jintao in Beijing
South African President Jacob Zuma met his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao in Beijing on Tuesday for talks aimed at broadening the relationship between Beijing and Africa's biggest economy. The visit is seen as an opportunity for the two countries to explore ways of expanding their already sizeable trade ties -- and also a chance for two emerging powers to solidify their strategic partnership.
Zuma -- who visits Beijing and Shanghai during a three-day trip he has called "crucial" -- was welcomed by Hu at Beijing's Great Hall of the People before the two leaders went into talks. "The talks will surely take the relations between the two countries to greater heights," Zuma said in a speech to business leaders.
Among the agreements signed by the two sides was a deal to exempt diplomatic passport holders from visa requirements, China's Xinhua state news agency said. Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said the move would enhance mutual understanding, and facilitate personnel exchanges, Xinhua reported. The two sides were also due to sign cooperation deals in the areas of mineral resources, transportation and environment management, according to Zuma's office.
China National Nuclear Corporation, which runs the nation's growing nuclear energy programme, also is in talks to build a nuclear power plant in South Africa, Dow Jones Newswires quoted a company official as saying Tuesday. China's Vice Commerce Minister Gao Hucheng said Beijing would encourage domestic companies to invest in South Africa's mining and resources sectors, the agency said. It also reported South Africa's Standard Bank Group and state-run China Railway Group were to sign a memorandum of cooperation in Beijing on investments in African rail projects.
Bilateral trade -- which has been expanding since the establishment of full diplomatic relations in 1998 -- last year totalled about $16-billion, according to figures from both countries. "Trade statistics with China continue to reflect the potential that still exists for expanding the commercial relationship," the South African foreign ministry said before the visit. Zuma said on Tuesday that the expansion of foreign trade was a way for his country to "improve the quality of life of all South Africans".
China, which last year overtook the United States to become South Africa's largest export destination, mainly imports raw materials such as iron ore, as well as iron and steel, to fuel its booming economy. Beijing also has unveiled a series of major investments since ploughing $5,5-billion into Standard Bank nearly three years ago. In May, Chinese companies reached deals to build a $217-million cement plant and invest $877-million to take control of a small South African mining company and build a new platinum mine.
South African Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies on Tuesday told business leaders in Beijing that his country's exports were too dependent on primary goods and that he hoped Beijing could buy more "value-added" goods.
Zuma, who is accompanied by a number of key ministers and 350 business leaders, is due to meet Premier Wen Jiabao and other senior Chinese officials on Wednesday. He was due to visit the World Expo in Shanghai on Thursday.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Zuma -- who visits Beijing and Shanghai during a three-day trip he has called "crucial" -- was welcomed by Hu at Beijing's Great Hall of the People before the two leaders went into talks. "The talks will surely take the relations between the two countries to greater heights," Zuma said in a speech to business leaders.
Among the agreements signed by the two sides was a deal to exempt diplomatic passport holders from visa requirements, China's Xinhua state news agency said. Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said the move would enhance mutual understanding, and facilitate personnel exchanges, Xinhua reported. The two sides were also due to sign cooperation deals in the areas of mineral resources, transportation and environment management, according to Zuma's office.
China National Nuclear Corporation, which runs the nation's growing nuclear energy programme, also is in talks to build a nuclear power plant in South Africa, Dow Jones Newswires quoted a company official as saying Tuesday. China's Vice Commerce Minister Gao Hucheng said Beijing would encourage domestic companies to invest in South Africa's mining and resources sectors, the agency said. It also reported South Africa's Standard Bank Group and state-run China Railway Group were to sign a memorandum of cooperation in Beijing on investments in African rail projects.
Bilateral trade -- which has been expanding since the establishment of full diplomatic relations in 1998 -- last year totalled about $16-billion, according to figures from both countries. "Trade statistics with China continue to reflect the potential that still exists for expanding the commercial relationship," the South African foreign ministry said before the visit. Zuma said on Tuesday that the expansion of foreign trade was a way for his country to "improve the quality of life of all South Africans".
China, which last year overtook the United States to become South Africa's largest export destination, mainly imports raw materials such as iron ore, as well as iron and steel, to fuel its booming economy. Beijing also has unveiled a series of major investments since ploughing $5,5-billion into Standard Bank nearly three years ago. In May, Chinese companies reached deals to build a $217-million cement plant and invest $877-million to take control of a small South African mining company and build a new platinum mine.
South African Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies on Tuesday told business leaders in Beijing that his country's exports were too dependent on primary goods and that he hoped Beijing could buy more "value-added" goods.
Zuma, who is accompanied by a number of key ministers and 350 business leaders, is due to meet Premier Wen Jiabao and other senior Chinese officials on Wednesday. He was due to visit the World Expo in Shanghai on Thursday.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Coal of Africa feels Green Scorpion sting
Coal of Africa has stopped certain construction activities at its new Vele coal mine in Limpopo after receiving a compliance notice from the department of environmental affairs, the company said on Wednesday. Company CEO John Wallington said in a statement the company "ceased certain activities at Vele". The Green Scorpions had served the company with a compliance notice to stop all construction work on roads at the mine. It also ordered the mine not to use the existing roads, including access roads, for any reason.
Departmental spokesman Albi Modise said on Tuesday the company was also ordered to stop construction on a storage facility and tank for dangerous goods within 24 hours and to empty the facility of fuel within 48 hours. It had to stop any activities within the 1:10 flood line or 32m from any perennial, non-perennial and drainage lines of the Limpopo river. It was also instructed to stop any further installation of water pipelines and to stop using existing pipelines on the mine. The compliance notice further forced it to halt construction on a sludge dam until all authorisation had been obtained from the departments of environmental affairs and water affairs.
Modise said the mine had to appoint an independent environmental consultant within five days to assess the mine's compliance with environmental legislation. Modise said the company was issued with the mining rights for the Vele mine, which was located near the Mapungubwe World Heritage Site and the Kruger National Park, in March, but had never got the go-ahead from the department of environmental affairs to proceed with construction. "They needed to go through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process and we think they haven't done all they were supposed to do in this process," he said.
Wallington said all the mine's activities were within its mining rights, issued by the department of mineral resources. "The company is nonetheless complying with that Notice as required and confirms it has ceased certain activities at Vele," he said.
He said the company was working with the department of environmental affairs to sort out the problems.
Source: Times Live
Departmental spokesman Albi Modise said on Tuesday the company was also ordered to stop construction on a storage facility and tank for dangerous goods within 24 hours and to empty the facility of fuel within 48 hours. It had to stop any activities within the 1:10 flood line or 32m from any perennial, non-perennial and drainage lines of the Limpopo river. It was also instructed to stop any further installation of water pipelines and to stop using existing pipelines on the mine. The compliance notice further forced it to halt construction on a sludge dam until all authorisation had been obtained from the departments of environmental affairs and water affairs.
Modise said the mine had to appoint an independent environmental consultant within five days to assess the mine's compliance with environmental legislation. Modise said the company was issued with the mining rights for the Vele mine, which was located near the Mapungubwe World Heritage Site and the Kruger National Park, in March, but had never got the go-ahead from the department of environmental affairs to proceed with construction. "They needed to go through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process and we think they haven't done all they were supposed to do in this process," he said.
Wallington said all the mine's activities were within its mining rights, issued by the department of mineral resources. "The company is nonetheless complying with that Notice as required and confirms it has ceased certain activities at Vele," he said.
He said the company was working with the department of environmental affairs to sort out the problems.
Source: Times Live
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Environmental probe for dodgy mining rights
A special environmental government task team is to investigate mining in sensitive areas. This follows a swarm of controversial green lights given by the mining department for mining and prospecting rights in sensitive areas in the past couple of years.
The task team is the result of the long-anticipated meeting last week between Environmental Mminister Buyelwa Sonjica and Mining Minister Susan Shabangu. The two had met to discuss Sonjica’s concern over the controversial Vele colliery next to World Heritage Site Mapungubwe. "The minister is still deeply concerned about what is going at the mine," Sonjica’s spokesperson Sputnik Ratau said. But he said the minister believed the task team was a step in the right direction to resolve the environmental concerns. He described the meeting with Shabangu as fruitful.
Shabangu’s department issued mining rights to Coal of Africa at the beginning of this year, but Sonjica came out strongly against the Vele mine. She requested a formal meeting with Shabangu on the matter in February, but last week’s meeting was the first to result in significant reported progress between the two departments.
Last week the Mail & Guardian reported that the Green Scorpions had swooped down on Coal of Africa’s Vele mine in May. Two weeks ago the department of environmental affairs issued an order against the mine for environmental transgressions. Coal of Africa must now make representations to the environmental department on why it should not be prosecuted.
The M&G understands that the department is now conducting regular surveys to determine what exactly Vele had done. This week officials from both departments flew over the mining area as part of the ongoing investigation. "We need to determine whether the work Vele had done is within the scopes of permission it had been granted, and just how far they had gone beyond the legal framework," Ratau said.
Coal of Africa has maintained that all the work it has done so far, including the clearing of bush and building of new structures, falls in within the mining rights order it obtained. Last week Coal of Africa’s CEO Riaan van der Merwe insisted that the mine had acted within the law at all times.
Vele will not be the only mine investigated by the task team, though it is understood that much of its focus will be on Mapungubwe. "The task team is to look at the bigger picture, the ultimate impact of mining on sensitive areas," Ratau said. "And of course Vele will be one of the new focus areas, as it has been a contentious issue." The task team, which will have high-ranking officials from both the mining and environmental department on board, is also aimed at relieving tensions between the two departments and improving dialogue on environmental issues.
Other sensitive spots that have been in the news for mining activities include areas near Dullstroom, Chrissiesmeer and Wakkerstroom in Mpumalanga, Verlorenvlei near Piketberg in the Western Cape, as well as the Winelands. In many of these areas only strong environmental activism served as a warning to the impacts of mining on the local environment. But environmental activists say their job is getting more difficult with the avalanche of mining licenses the mining department has been awarding.
The two ministers will now draft a definition of what they see as sensitive areas, and the locations of these areas. On Thursday, Gareth Morgan, the DA’s spokesperson on water and environmental affairs, welcomed the task team but called for the two departments to extend this project by establishing a mining advisory forum with a specific focus on the effects of mining on the environment. "The discussion on what is a sensitive area should not be contained only in government," he said. "It should be thrown open to stakeholders from civil society, including farming and environmental organisations," Morgan said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
The task team is the result of the long-anticipated meeting last week between Environmental Mminister Buyelwa Sonjica and Mining Minister Susan Shabangu. The two had met to discuss Sonjica’s concern over the controversial Vele colliery next to World Heritage Site Mapungubwe. "The minister is still deeply concerned about what is going at the mine," Sonjica’s spokesperson Sputnik Ratau said. But he said the minister believed the task team was a step in the right direction to resolve the environmental concerns. He described the meeting with Shabangu as fruitful.
Shabangu’s department issued mining rights to Coal of Africa at the beginning of this year, but Sonjica came out strongly against the Vele mine. She requested a formal meeting with Shabangu on the matter in February, but last week’s meeting was the first to result in significant reported progress between the two departments.
Last week the Mail & Guardian reported that the Green Scorpions had swooped down on Coal of Africa’s Vele mine in May. Two weeks ago the department of environmental affairs issued an order against the mine for environmental transgressions. Coal of Africa must now make representations to the environmental department on why it should not be prosecuted.
The M&G understands that the department is now conducting regular surveys to determine what exactly Vele had done. This week officials from both departments flew over the mining area as part of the ongoing investigation. "We need to determine whether the work Vele had done is within the scopes of permission it had been granted, and just how far they had gone beyond the legal framework," Ratau said.
Coal of Africa has maintained that all the work it has done so far, including the clearing of bush and building of new structures, falls in within the mining rights order it obtained. Last week Coal of Africa’s CEO Riaan van der Merwe insisted that the mine had acted within the law at all times.
Vele will not be the only mine investigated by the task team, though it is understood that much of its focus will be on Mapungubwe. "The task team is to look at the bigger picture, the ultimate impact of mining on sensitive areas," Ratau said. "And of course Vele will be one of the new focus areas, as it has been a contentious issue." The task team, which will have high-ranking officials from both the mining and environmental department on board, is also aimed at relieving tensions between the two departments and improving dialogue on environmental issues.
Other sensitive spots that have been in the news for mining activities include areas near Dullstroom, Chrissiesmeer and Wakkerstroom in Mpumalanga, Verlorenvlei near Piketberg in the Western Cape, as well as the Winelands. In many of these areas only strong environmental activism served as a warning to the impacts of mining on the local environment. But environmental activists say their job is getting more difficult with the avalanche of mining licenses the mining department has been awarding.
The two ministers will now draft a definition of what they see as sensitive areas, and the locations of these areas. On Thursday, Gareth Morgan, the DA’s spokesperson on water and environmental affairs, welcomed the task team but called for the two departments to extend this project by establishing a mining advisory forum with a specific focus on the effects of mining on the environment. "The discussion on what is a sensitive area should not be contained only in government," he said. "It should be thrown open to stakeholders from civil society, including farming and environmental organisations," Morgan said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Friday, June 25, 2010
Scorpions sting colliery
Senior sources in the Department of Environmental Affairs have revealed that the department cracked down on controversial coal mining near the world heritage site of Mapungubwe last week, ordering the mining company, Coal of Africa, to stop all "illegal" building activities immediately. But Coal of Africa denied receiving an order, saying that the company instead "received regular visits from a number of government departments", including environmental affairs and mineral resources. "Characterising such a visit by the Department of Environmental Affairs as a raid is unjustified," said Riaan van der Merwe, Coal of Africa's chief operating officer. But environmental department spokesperson Roopah Singh confirmed on Thursday a "pre-compliance notice" was issued on June 18. She said Coal of Africa now has to make representations to the department about the mine's transgressions.
The development has again highlighted tensions between environmental affairs and the mineral resources department over mining in this sensitive area of Limpopo. The mining department issued mining rights to Coal of Africa at the beginning of this year. The Mail & Guardian understands that the directive, relating to building at the Vele mine that the department has not approved, followed a raid by the environmental police unit, the Green Scorpions, at the mine earlier this month.
The unit moved in to check whether Coal of Africa had built roads and other structures without the necessary environmental impact assessments. Sources in the department said that the Green Scorpions found several instances where Coal of Africa had ignored departmental regulations. They were also concerned about the clearing of bush on colliery property. In a statement on Thursday Van der Merwe said the company had the necessary authorisation for bush clearing in the area covered by the mining rights. In addition, the necessary permits had been obtained from the national departments of agriculture and forestry and the Limpopo environmental affairs department. He also said that, although the company had not received permission from environmental affairs to build access roads, it was using the existing main road.
The Australian-owned company received a permit earlier this year for its Vele Colliery project next to the Mapungubwe National Park, where the world-famous 800-year-old gold rhino statuette was unearthed in 1933. Though it has not yet started mining, it is constructing the infrastructure required to begin operations later this year.
In May the M&G reported that Coal of Africa had been clearing bush that contained baobab trees. The colliery is 7km from the park's boundaries. The coal-processing plant would be 27km from the world heritage site, Mapungubwe Hill.
Buyelwa Sonjica, the minister of environmental affairs, has openly declared her opposition to the mine and her department has refused to approve the environmental impact assessments for roads and fuel storage sites associated with the mine. The company has signed a letter of intent to supply up to 5-million tonnes of coal annually from Vele and its sister project, Makhado, to steel giant ArcelorMittal. Opponents of the mining claim that the coal will be used to drive a coal-fired power station, Mulilo, that is planned for the region.
The department of mining did not respond to questions.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Also see the Save Mapungubwe website
The development has again highlighted tensions between environmental affairs and the mineral resources department over mining in this sensitive area of Limpopo. The mining department issued mining rights to Coal of Africa at the beginning of this year. The Mail & Guardian understands that the directive, relating to building at the Vele mine that the department has not approved, followed a raid by the environmental police unit, the Green Scorpions, at the mine earlier this month.
The unit moved in to check whether Coal of Africa had built roads and other structures without the necessary environmental impact assessments. Sources in the department said that the Green Scorpions found several instances where Coal of Africa had ignored departmental regulations. They were also concerned about the clearing of bush on colliery property. In a statement on Thursday Van der Merwe said the company had the necessary authorisation for bush clearing in the area covered by the mining rights. In addition, the necessary permits had been obtained from the national departments of agriculture and forestry and the Limpopo environmental affairs department. He also said that, although the company had not received permission from environmental affairs to build access roads, it was using the existing main road.
The Australian-owned company received a permit earlier this year for its Vele Colliery project next to the Mapungubwe National Park, where the world-famous 800-year-old gold rhino statuette was unearthed in 1933. Though it has not yet started mining, it is constructing the infrastructure required to begin operations later this year.
In May the M&G reported that Coal of Africa had been clearing bush that contained baobab trees. The colliery is 7km from the park's boundaries. The coal-processing plant would be 27km from the world heritage site, Mapungubwe Hill.
Buyelwa Sonjica, the minister of environmental affairs, has openly declared her opposition to the mine and her department has refused to approve the environmental impact assessments for roads and fuel storage sites associated with the mine. The company has signed a letter of intent to supply up to 5-million tonnes of coal annually from Vele and its sister project, Makhado, to steel giant ArcelorMittal. Opponents of the mining claim that the coal will be used to drive a coal-fired power station, Mulilo, that is planned for the region.
The department of mining did not respond to questions.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Also see the Save Mapungubwe website
Thursday, April 1, 2010
South Africa is becoming a high-carbon zone to attract foreign investment
With its proposed Medupi power station, South Africa is an industrialised global climate player and major polluter. With its sky-high poverty levels and average life expectancy of just 51 years, South Africa is not a country we generally associate with extravagant binge-flying lifestyles, turbo-consumerism, and shopping trips to New York. How bizarre then that per capita carbon emissions in South Africa are now higher than in many European countries. While most South Africans are unlikely to ever own a plasma screen TV or Hummer, their carbon footprints still appear to be only slightly less than your average Japanese, and their national carbon emissions are now greater than those of France.
The situation becomes more comprehensible when you look at South Africa's industrial base, with 60% of South Africa's electricity being guzzled by heavy industry, and most of that comes from dirty coal. Now this key global climate player wants another coal station that would pollute as much as the two dirtiest plants in Britain put together, and cause a further surge in its national emissions – and they want you to pay for it. Far from benefiting ordinary South Africans, they will also be forced into subsidising this artificially low-cost electricity, for the benefit of multinational mining companies. It's no wonder that African civil society movements are leading the opposition to this development.
South Africa's situation is a case study in one of the major political currents that poisoned last year's UN climate talks. At Copenhagen, major emerging economies hid behind their poor to justify why they shouldn't need to take on legally-binding climate targets. Infuriating western governments, they used a rigid interpretation of the wonky principle known in UN-speak as "common but differentiated responsibility" (CBDR) to argue for more "pollution rights", since they have less historical responsibility for causing the carbon problem and less ability to pay to solve it. Never mind the new carbon-constrained realities on the whole world, these powerful developing countries claimed the right to pollute indefinitely, because (just like their industrialised counterparts), they saw short-term strategic interest in securing the largest possible area of global atmospheric territory. In short, a concept developed to promote equity has turned into an excuse to allow ever increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
Just as Switzerland offers the super-rich the ability to avoid high taxes, and Uzbekistan-presented high-street clothes chains in Europe with cheap child labour in their cotton fields, South Africa and other major emerging economies like China are beginning to exploit the CBDR principle to establish themselves as global havens for the most environmentally destructive industries on Earth. South Africa is effectively setting up shop as a high-carbon economic zone to encourage in foreign companies by freeing them of carbon regulation.
After Copenhagen, the attitude of the most powerful industrialising countries caused much spluttering on the part of western ministers. Ed Miliband was enraged at what he saw as an unfair apportioning of the blame to the industrialised world after the managed collapse of the negotiations, and wrote: "The vast majority of countries, developed and developing, believe that we will only construct a lasting accord that protects the planet if all countries' commitments or actions are legally binding. But some leading developing countries currently refuse to countenance this."
That's why it's so odd that western governments, including our own, now seem determined to egg them on by making a $3.7bn (£2.4bn) World Bank loan to the South African state-owned power company Eskom to help build one of the most polluting power stations in the world. With one hand the government complains about major emerging economies not doing enough to embrace low-carbon development, while at the same time, it directs money that's meant for aid, into dirty coal developments that power the international mining industry.
In fairness, Miliband's comments were clearly directed at China. There was a time last year when climate progressives in the South African government seemed to be his most effective allies in the south. By establishing a reasonable 2020 climate target the South African government positioned themselves in Copenhagen as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds. But in retrospect, with an aspiration to get up to 95% of their electricity from coal by 2025, despite vast untapped clean energy potential, last year's rhetoric looks like a very thin green veneer. Well, either that or the South African government's principled stand has since been quashed by Big Carbon lobbying.
Recognising that a tonne of CO2 from a South African coal plant is just as damaging as a tonne from anywhere else, the White House has signalled they won't offer their support to subsidise the Eksom mega-coal plant in South Africa when it comes up for a vote at the World Bank next week. Yet as the single biggest donor to the Bank, it will be the UK which is likely to get the final say. This offers a key test of whether the climate progressives in our own government can win out.
Source: The Guardian
The situation becomes more comprehensible when you look at South Africa's industrial base, with 60% of South Africa's electricity being guzzled by heavy industry, and most of that comes from dirty coal. Now this key global climate player wants another coal station that would pollute as much as the two dirtiest plants in Britain put together, and cause a further surge in its national emissions – and they want you to pay for it. Far from benefiting ordinary South Africans, they will also be forced into subsidising this artificially low-cost electricity, for the benefit of multinational mining companies. It's no wonder that African civil society movements are leading the opposition to this development.
South Africa's situation is a case study in one of the major political currents that poisoned last year's UN climate talks. At Copenhagen, major emerging economies hid behind their poor to justify why they shouldn't need to take on legally-binding climate targets. Infuriating western governments, they used a rigid interpretation of the wonky principle known in UN-speak as "common but differentiated responsibility" (CBDR) to argue for more "pollution rights", since they have less historical responsibility for causing the carbon problem and less ability to pay to solve it. Never mind the new carbon-constrained realities on the whole world, these powerful developing countries claimed the right to pollute indefinitely, because (just like their industrialised counterparts), they saw short-term strategic interest in securing the largest possible area of global atmospheric territory. In short, a concept developed to promote equity has turned into an excuse to allow ever increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
Just as Switzerland offers the super-rich the ability to avoid high taxes, and Uzbekistan-presented high-street clothes chains in Europe with cheap child labour in their cotton fields, South Africa and other major emerging economies like China are beginning to exploit the CBDR principle to establish themselves as global havens for the most environmentally destructive industries on Earth. South Africa is effectively setting up shop as a high-carbon economic zone to encourage in foreign companies by freeing them of carbon regulation.
After Copenhagen, the attitude of the most powerful industrialising countries caused much spluttering on the part of western ministers. Ed Miliband was enraged at what he saw as an unfair apportioning of the blame to the industrialised world after the managed collapse of the negotiations, and wrote: "The vast majority of countries, developed and developing, believe that we will only construct a lasting accord that protects the planet if all countries' commitments or actions are legally binding. But some leading developing countries currently refuse to countenance this."
That's why it's so odd that western governments, including our own, now seem determined to egg them on by making a $3.7bn (£2.4bn) World Bank loan to the South African state-owned power company Eskom to help build one of the most polluting power stations in the world. With one hand the government complains about major emerging economies not doing enough to embrace low-carbon development, while at the same time, it directs money that's meant for aid, into dirty coal developments that power the international mining industry.
In fairness, Miliband's comments were clearly directed at China. There was a time last year when climate progressives in the South African government seemed to be his most effective allies in the south. By establishing a reasonable 2020 climate target the South African government positioned themselves in Copenhagen as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds. But in retrospect, with an aspiration to get up to 95% of their electricity from coal by 2025, despite vast untapped clean energy potential, last year's rhetoric looks like a very thin green veneer. Well, either that or the South African government's principled stand has since been quashed by Big Carbon lobbying.
Recognising that a tonne of CO2 from a South African coal plant is just as damaging as a tonne from anywhere else, the White House has signalled they won't offer their support to subsidise the Eksom mega-coal plant in South Africa when it comes up for a vote at the World Bank next week. Yet as the single biggest donor to the Bank, it will be the UK which is likely to get the final say. This offers a key test of whether the climate progressives in our own government can win out.
Source: The Guardian
South Africa is becoming a high-carbon zone to attract foreign investment
With its proposed Medupi power station, South Africa is an industrialised global climate player and major polluter. With its sky-high poverty levels and average life expectancy of just 51 years, South Africa is not a country we generally associate with extravagant binge-flying lifestyles, turbo-consumerism, and shopping trips to New York. How bizarre then that per capita carbon emissions in South Africa are now higher than in many European countries. While most South Africans are unlikely to ever own a plasma screen TV or Hummer, their carbon footprints still appear to be only slightly less than your average Japanese, and their national carbon emissions are now greater than those of France.
The situation becomes more comprehensible when you look at South Africa's industrial base, with 60% of South Africa's electricity being guzzled by heavy industry, and most of that comes from dirty coal. Now this key global climate player wants another coal station that would pollute as much as the two dirtiest plants in Britain put together, and cause a further surge in its national emissions – and they want you to pay for it. Far from benefiting ordinary South Africans, they will also be forced into subsidising this artificially low-cost electricity, for the benefit of multinational mining companies. It's no wonder that African civil society movements are leading the opposition to this development.
South Africa's situation is a case study in one of the major political currents that poisoned last year's UN climate talks. At Copenhagen, major emerging economies hid behind their poor to justify why they shouldn't need to take on legally-binding climate targets. Infuriating western governments, they used a rigid interpretation of the wonky principle known in UN-speak as "common but differentiated responsibility" (CBDR) to argue for more "pollution rights", since they have less historical responsibility for causing the carbon problem and less ability to pay to solve it. Never mind the new carbon-constrained realities on the whole world, these powerful developing countries claimed the right to pollute indefinitely, because (just like their industrialised counterparts), they saw short-term strategic interest in securing the largest possible area of global atmospheric territory. In short, a concept developed to promote equity has turned into an excuse to allow ever increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
Just as Switzerland offers the super-rich the ability to avoid high taxes, and Uzbekistan-presented high-street clothes chains in Europe with cheap child labour in their cotton fields, South Africa and other major emerging economies like China are beginning to exploit the CBDR principle to establish themselves as global havens for the most environmentally destructive industries on Earth. South Africa is effectively setting up shop as a high-carbon economic zone to encourage in foreign companies by freeing them of carbon regulation.
After Copenhagen, the attitude of the most powerful industrialising countries caused much spluttering on the part of western ministers. Ed Miliband was enraged at what he saw as an unfair apportioning of the blame to the industrialised world after the managed collapse of the negotiations, and wrote: "The vast majority of countries, developed and developing, believe that we will only construct a lasting accord that protects the planet if all countries' commitments or actions are legally binding. But some leading developing countries currently refuse to countenance this."
That's why it's so odd that western governments, including our own, now seem determined to egg them on by making a $3.7bn (£2.4bn) World Bank loan to the South African state-owned power company Eskom to help build one of the most polluting power stations in the world. With one hand the government complains about major emerging economies not doing enough to embrace low-carbon development, while at the same time, it directs money that's meant for aid, into dirty coal developments that power the international mining industry.
In fairness, Miliband's comments were clearly directed at China. There was a time last year when climate progressives in the South African government seemed to be his most effective allies in the south. By establishing a reasonable 2020 climate target the South African government positioned themselves in Copenhagen as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds. But in retrospect, with an aspiration to get up to 95% of their electricity from coal by 2025, despite vast untapped clean energy potential, last year's rhetoric looks like a very thin green veneer. Well, either that or the South African government's principled stand has since been quashed by Big Carbon lobbying.
Recognising that a tonne of CO2 from a South African coal plant is just as damaging as a tonne from anywhere else, the White House has signalled they won't offer their support to subsidise the Eksom mega-coal plant in South Africa when it comes up for a vote at the World Bank next week. Yet as the single biggest donor to the Bank, it will be the UK which is likely to get the final say. This offers a key test of whether the climate progressives in our own government can win out.
Source: The Guardian
The situation becomes more comprehensible when you look at South Africa's industrial base, with 60% of South Africa's electricity being guzzled by heavy industry, and most of that comes from dirty coal. Now this key global climate player wants another coal station that would pollute as much as the two dirtiest plants in Britain put together, and cause a further surge in its national emissions – and they want you to pay for it. Far from benefiting ordinary South Africans, they will also be forced into subsidising this artificially low-cost electricity, for the benefit of multinational mining companies. It's no wonder that African civil society movements are leading the opposition to this development.
South Africa's situation is a case study in one of the major political currents that poisoned last year's UN climate talks. At Copenhagen, major emerging economies hid behind their poor to justify why they shouldn't need to take on legally-binding climate targets. Infuriating western governments, they used a rigid interpretation of the wonky principle known in UN-speak as "common but differentiated responsibility" (CBDR) to argue for more "pollution rights", since they have less historical responsibility for causing the carbon problem and less ability to pay to solve it. Never mind the new carbon-constrained realities on the whole world, these powerful developing countries claimed the right to pollute indefinitely, because (just like their industrialised counterparts), they saw short-term strategic interest in securing the largest possible area of global atmospheric territory. In short, a concept developed to promote equity has turned into an excuse to allow ever increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
Just as Switzerland offers the super-rich the ability to avoid high taxes, and Uzbekistan-presented high-street clothes chains in Europe with cheap child labour in their cotton fields, South Africa and other major emerging economies like China are beginning to exploit the CBDR principle to establish themselves as global havens for the most environmentally destructive industries on Earth. South Africa is effectively setting up shop as a high-carbon economic zone to encourage in foreign companies by freeing them of carbon regulation.
After Copenhagen, the attitude of the most powerful industrialising countries caused much spluttering on the part of western ministers. Ed Miliband was enraged at what he saw as an unfair apportioning of the blame to the industrialised world after the managed collapse of the negotiations, and wrote: "The vast majority of countries, developed and developing, believe that we will only construct a lasting accord that protects the planet if all countries' commitments or actions are legally binding. But some leading developing countries currently refuse to countenance this."
That's why it's so odd that western governments, including our own, now seem determined to egg them on by making a $3.7bn (£2.4bn) World Bank loan to the South African state-owned power company Eskom to help build one of the most polluting power stations in the world. With one hand the government complains about major emerging economies not doing enough to embrace low-carbon development, while at the same time, it directs money that's meant for aid, into dirty coal developments that power the international mining industry.
In fairness, Miliband's comments were clearly directed at China. There was a time last year when climate progressives in the South African government seemed to be his most effective allies in the south. By establishing a reasonable 2020 climate target the South African government positioned themselves in Copenhagen as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds. But in retrospect, with an aspiration to get up to 95% of their electricity from coal by 2025, despite vast untapped clean energy potential, last year's rhetoric looks like a very thin green veneer. Well, either that or the South African government's principled stand has since been quashed by Big Carbon lobbying.
Recognising that a tonne of CO2 from a South African coal plant is just as damaging as a tonne from anywhere else, the White House has signalled they won't offer their support to subsidise the Eksom mega-coal plant in South Africa when it comes up for a vote at the World Bank next week. Yet as the single biggest donor to the Bank, it will be the UK which is likely to get the final say. This offers a key test of whether the climate progressives in our own government can win out.
Source: The Guardian
Friday, November 20, 2009
SACP sees red over Malema
The SA Communist Party on Friday defended its general secretary, Jeremy Cronin, after ANC Youth League president Julius Malema lambasted the former's stance on nationalising the mines. "We find it very strange and politically dishonest that whilst on the one hand the ANCYL calls for a debate on the question of nationalisation, yet, on the other hand, it throws insults on those who are taking up the debate," the SACP said in a statement.
It condemned "in the strongest possible terms" the insults hurled at Cronin by Malema in a response to an SACP article on mine nationalisation. Malema described the piece, penned by Cronin, as "openly reactionary".
Cronin provided an analysis of the issues surrounding the nationalisation of the mines. In it, he criticised Malema and the league's calling for nationalisation, saying: "Comrade Malema hasn't always helped his case with off-the-wall sound-bytes. "The impression of a policy being made on the hoof, individualistically, is reinforced by the fact that we are yet to see any serious attempt at a collective policy document on this matter from the ANCYL." He added: "I suspect that comrade Malema and others are missing this bigger systemic picture because when they speak of mineral beneficiation they are thinking of bling... sorry, jewellery."
Malema responded to the piece by describing it as reactionary "clothed in quasi-Marxist rhetoric, with potential to make a sorry and sad reflection of the true character of the SACP's ideological steadfastness". He said he did "not need the permission of white political messiahs to think". Malema said it was "sad" that Cronin had "decided to isolate me" from a league resolution in which it outlines its stance on nationalisation: "... the State should be custodian of the people in its ownership, extraction, production and trade of mineral wealth beneath the soil, monopoly industries and banks."
On mineral beneficiation, Malema said Cronin had reduced the league's call for this to an "obsession with bling". "It is sad that previously those who look like us were considered intellectually inferior by the white supremacists, and today Comrade Jeremy reflects the same sentiment, even before he interacts with the views of the ANCYL," Malema said.
The SACP called on Malema to discuss the issue in a "principled and comradely manner without resorting to the Mbeki-era type of insults against the leaders of our party". It said it had invited the league to take part in its political school last month, where it had discussed nationalisation, but the league had not attended.
Source: IoL
It condemned "in the strongest possible terms" the insults hurled at Cronin by Malema in a response to an SACP article on mine nationalisation. Malema described the piece, penned by Cronin, as "openly reactionary".
Cronin provided an analysis of the issues surrounding the nationalisation of the mines. In it, he criticised Malema and the league's calling for nationalisation, saying: "Comrade Malema hasn't always helped his case with off-the-wall sound-bytes. "The impression of a policy being made on the hoof, individualistically, is reinforced by the fact that we are yet to see any serious attempt at a collective policy document on this matter from the ANCYL." He added: "I suspect that comrade Malema and others are missing this bigger systemic picture because when they speak of mineral beneficiation they are thinking of bling... sorry, jewellery."
Malema responded to the piece by describing it as reactionary "clothed in quasi-Marxist rhetoric, with potential to make a sorry and sad reflection of the true character of the SACP's ideological steadfastness". He said he did "not need the permission of white political messiahs to think". Malema said it was "sad" that Cronin had "decided to isolate me" from a league resolution in which it outlines its stance on nationalisation: "... the State should be custodian of the people in its ownership, extraction, production and trade of mineral wealth beneath the soil, monopoly industries and banks."
On mineral beneficiation, Malema said Cronin had reduced the league's call for this to an "obsession with bling". "It is sad that previously those who look like us were considered intellectually inferior by the white supremacists, and today Comrade Jeremy reflects the same sentiment, even before he interacts with the views of the ANCYL," Malema said.
The SACP called on Malema to discuss the issue in a "principled and comradely manner without resorting to the Mbeki-era type of insults against the leaders of our party". It said it had invited the league to take part in its political school last month, where it had discussed nationalisation, but the league had not attended.
Source: IoL
Thursday, September 17, 2009
SA vows to crack down on illegal mining
South Africa has vowed to clamp down on illegal mining operations, which have increased on the back of higher metals prices and as Africa's biggest economy hit its first recession in 17 years. Mineral Resources Minister Susan Shabangu said late on Wednesday that illegal mining in the world's top platinum producer and number three producer of gold was valued at R5,6-billion.
She said the government would tighten up legislation to clamp down on illegal operations, as top police detectives investigate the organised crime. "Illegal mining is a huge, multibillion-rand criminal industry featuring national and international syndicates," Shabangu told Parliament. "These gold-smuggling syndicates are highly organised, dangerous and well-resourced," she said.
Shabangu said thousands of diggers, mainly from Lesotho, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Botswana, risked their lives to share in the loot. The hidden world of illegal miners was recently thrust into the public spotlight when 91 people working in an abandoned mineshaft in Welkom died after a fire broke out.
Shabangu said illegal miners were no different from "ruthless criminals" and were openly carrying AK-47 assault rifles in the Barberton mining district in Mpumalanga, in the north of the country. She said heavily armed gangs were setting booby traps using explosives to protect their illegal mining operations from police and security personnel. "Legal mineworkers have been also abducted in Barberton and used as human shields in confrontations with the police," she said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
She said the government would tighten up legislation to clamp down on illegal operations, as top police detectives investigate the organised crime. "Illegal mining is a huge, multibillion-rand criminal industry featuring national and international syndicates," Shabangu told Parliament. "These gold-smuggling syndicates are highly organised, dangerous and well-resourced," she said.
Shabangu said thousands of diggers, mainly from Lesotho, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Botswana, risked their lives to share in the loot. The hidden world of illegal miners was recently thrust into the public spotlight when 91 people working in an abandoned mineshaft in Welkom died after a fire broke out.
Shabangu said illegal miners were no different from "ruthless criminals" and were openly carrying AK-47 assault rifles in the Barberton mining district in Mpumalanga, in the north of the country. She said heavily armed gangs were setting booby traps using explosives to protect their illegal mining operations from police and security personnel. "Legal mineworkers have been also abducted in Barberton and used as human shields in confrontations with the police," she said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)