[miningmx.com] — LAST week’s series of articles about the threat which farmers and environmental groups hold for Mine Waste Solutions’ operations in the Stilfontein area, elicited the following reaction from the Federation for a Sustainable Environment:
The Sake24 articles (published in Rapport, Beeld and Miningmx) written by Jan de Lange cast serious doubt on the character and motives of Mariette Liefferink, chief executive of the Federation for a Sustainable Environment (FSE), as well as the FSE.
It is assumed that the FSE is working with four landowners to help them get high prices for their land by making life “unbearable’ for Mine Waste Solutions (MWS). In our view this is a distortion of the facts and a misrepresentation of the truth.
We were never given an opportunity to respond to the articles before publication. It is our firm view that the FSE has been seriously prejudiced by the articles and that Liefferink’s reputation has been damaged through misrepresentation.
The FSE is a non-profit organisation that acts for the benefit of the broad public and the environment. The FSE’s main objective is to ensure ecological sustainability of development and promote the judicious use of natural resources; and to take steps, including legal steps, in situations that could have a negative social, economic and environmental impact on people and the environment.
In legal actions the FSE is assisted by, inter alia, the Legal Resources Centre and the Centre for Environmental Rights. The FSE’s actions must always comply with the high moral reference framework of the above organisations and their donors, and any aspersions cast upon our motives could have serious implications for all those involved.
It is alleged, among other things, that one of the country’s foremost environmental activists is making “every effort to sabotage one of the mining industry’s most important cleanup projects.’
Liefferink emphasises that neither she nor the FSE is opposed to the processing of historical waste facilities and the depositing of reworked waste in a mega tailings dam.
On the contrary, Liefferink and the FSE regard this as the best possible environmental option, as long as it is done with the intention of also attending to future problems without creating new pollution problems. In short: We want to reduce the problems, and not create more problems.
In this particular instance we are especially concerned about the critical information gaps in MWS’s environment management programme and environmental impact studies.
The defects are extensively dealt with in our appeal against MWS’s water licence which is before the Water Tribunal. During the appeal process this will be tested in depth by all parties. We stand by the content of our appeal. At no stage did we act on behalf of landowners and we were unaware of any claims by landowners for financial compensation from MWS. Our relationship with them simply concerned the impact to their land.
The documents we handed to De Lange, prior to the publication of his articles, provided adequate proof that the landowners were represented by their own legal representatives and not by us.
De Lange further alleges that Liefferink is a member of the NNR’s controlling body and is using the position to launch an unremitting attack on the mega tailings dam. The article further implies that we have submitted false complaints to the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR).
The situation at MWS was brought to the attention of Nigel Adams of the Department of Water Affairs’ law enforcement unit (Blue Scorpions) by email. The NNR received a copy by email as well. The NNR in no way informed us that any matter was being investigated or that a directive had been issued.
De Lange’s article goes on to say that MWS’s mining rights were withdrawn by the Department of Mineral Resources the week before last on the basis of complaints from Liefferink and Johan Kondos It continues to say that one of the landowners, Johan Kondos, with Liefferink’s help, objected to the mining licence.
The FSE lodged no complaint with the Department of Mineral Resources, as alleged, and it did not assist Kondos to hand any objection to the department concerned.
The articles continued: “She [Liefferink] caused chaos [in an environmental forum]. “I’m not here to protect jobs. I’m here to protect the environment for posterity’ she said, according to eyewitnesses.’
And further: “It’s an old tactic of environmental organisations to sabotage such consultation structures.” The minutes of the meeting supplied by the MWS consultant does not mention any such remarks or behaviour.
