Download PDF - Anglo American Platinum

TOPIC 11 Avoid or Minimise Resettlement1.1 WHAT THE IFC REQUIRES:• Avoid or minimise resettlement: In accordance with IFC Performance Standard 5, involuntaryresettlement should be avoided or at least minimised (PS 5, Section 2). A project should thereforeconsider feasible alternative project designs to avoid or at least minimise physical or economicdisplacement, (PS 5, Section 7).1.2 SUMMARY FINDINGS AND ANALYSISA review of the addendum to PPRust’s environmental management programme report (EMPR) for theproposed PPRust North Mine, does not show any evidence of efforts made to minimise physical oreconomic displacement within the villages of Ga Puka and Ga Sekhaolelo.In terms of alternative project designs, two options are cited: (a) backfilling of the open pits; and (b) the ‘nogo’ alternative. Neither of these ‘alternatives’ have the minimisation of resettlement as a key consideration.In fact, the backfilling alternative relates solely to rehabilitation options for the open pit, while the ‘no go’alternative does not mention the avoidance of resettlement as a key factor or inherent outcome of theno-go option. Instead, it concludes that ‘Given the context of poverty and underdevelopment, [the no-goalternative] would be a significance loss of [economic] opportunity to the area’ (EMPR Addendum, SRK,2002, pp 9).The main driver for the specific mine design and lay-out was the location of the resource, which forsafety reasons in turn required the relocation of Motlhotlo village. Potential impacts included increaseddust pollution, damage to houses due to blast vibrations, and potential groundwater pollution. Areas ofMotlhotlo were also deemed the only viable location for the dumping of waste rock.As cited in the EMPR Addendum (2002), it is PPRust’s (and Anglo Platinum’s) safety policy not toaccommodate dwellings within 1000 m of an open pit. Thus, with the optimal location of the Mineselected, the resettlement became unavoidable.With parts of Ga Puka and Ga Sekhaolelo villages falling within 1000 m of the proposed open pit, anumber of affected dwellings therefore needed to be moved. The affected communities, through theirrepresentative structures, however indicated their preference for the entire villages to be relocated. Thiswas not necessarily the view of the majority. See Topic 4: Effective Consultation and Informed Participation forfurther discussion of this issue.During discussions with ERM, Anglo Platinum (AP) indicated that the project was guided by World Bankstandards relating to noise levels in its decision to relocate the community at Motlhotlo. In 1998, theEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA) carried out by SRK included noise studies, with the resultantnoise contours showing that two thirds of the settlements of Ga Puka and Ga Sekhaolelo were likely to beimpacted by unacceptable night time noise levels. According to AP, there were two options for mitigatingthese noise impacts: either make the operation a sunrise to sunset business, or undertake to resettle thevillages of Ga Puka and Ga Sekhaolelo. The former would have made the project financially unviable; thus,the resettlement option was chosen.1