South Africa’s abandoned mines serve as a striking reminder of the nation’s resource wealth and the significant environmental consequences that have come with it. Although the country has frameworks that promise environmental restoration and social upliftment, only 27 of the nation’s 2332 high-risk abandoned mines have been rehabilitated, according to the latest publicly available data in the 2022 Auditor-General’s report.
This figure reflects an obvious gap between policy and practice. As a result, mining host communities are left burdened with health hazards as well as economic and social hardships. In this context, rehabilitation refers to repairing and restoring mining-damaged land to a safe state, preferably to its pre-mining condition. The environmental and social effects of non-rehabilitated mines are extensively studied, with non-operational derelict and ownerless (abandoned) mines being a primary source of these issues.
The most pressing of these issues include acid mine drainage (AMD), air pollution, land instability, and illegal artisanal mining. AMD occurs through a reaction between surface water and sulphide minerals beneath the surface, which react and form sulphuric acid. This sulphuric acid then leaches heavy metals from the surrounding rock into groundwater and other nearby water sources.
This contamination results in the death of cattle and aquatic ecosystems; polluted water for irrigation threatens livelihoods and, above all, tainted water supplies for consumption or household needs. A notable case of this was in 2012 in the town of Carolina, Mpumalanga, where heavy rains caused AMD to acidify the town’s potable water source. This resulted in the water being “not healthy for both human and animal consumption”, leaving more than 17000 residents reliant on water tankers for over nine months.
Abandoned mines are also air pollutants. Dust laden with toxic metals and gases from these sites infiltrates the air, contributing to a decrease in air quality and causing respiratory illness for those in the surrounding area. An illustration of this is the ‘Deadly Air’ case, a landmark judgment in the South African Appeal Court earlier this year, which upheld the plaintiffs’ argument that the South African government’s inaction in addressing Mpumalanga’s air pollution, as a result of coal mines in the vicinity, violated residents’ Constitutional right to a healthy environment.
To substantiate their argument, the plaintiffs cited a 2017 study, which attributed 2,239 annual deaths and more than 9,500 cases of childhood bronchitis in South Africa to coal-related air pollution. Beyond pollution, the physical integrity of the land around abandoned mines becomes weaker over time, resulting in land instability in the form of collapsing tunnels and sinkholes that pose a risk to human safety.
Compounding these issues, these sites attract illegal artisanal miners, referred to as Zama Zamas in South Africa. These are individuals who take advantage of unimpeded access to mines to extract remaining materials (often without safety/protective equipment) – posing a significant risk of accidents, such as injury or death. While exact figures are unknown, estimates suggest the number of Zama Zamas had surged to more than 40,000 by 2021, according to an article by Kennedy Manduna, published this year in the ‘Extractive Industry and Society’ journal, and the number is likely much higher today.
Illegal artisanal mining thrives in unregulated areas, turning them into lawless spaces that worsen insecurity and social instability for surrounding communities. In terms of rehabilitation, the legal frameworks are comprehensive and, in principle, sufficiently address environmental and social considerations. The challenge is thus not the absence of legal frameworks, but weak implementation and enforcement.
The primary legislation in this context is the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA, supplemented by the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and Waste Act, as well as the National Water Act. The MPRDA requires the following from holders of mining rights (which, in practice, are often companies) during and after operation: an environmental management plan (a detailed plan to manage and rehabilitate the anticipated environmental impacts) and a comprehensive mine closure plan, encompassing everything from rehabilitation strategies to developing community transition plans.
Other key requirements include decommissioning and hazard mitigation strategies and financial provisions for rehabilitation. Holders of mining rights should report compliance with these standards to the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy, should they wish to obtain an official mining closure certificate, which confirms that the rights holder is no longer liable for the specific mine site.
NEMA, in theory, enforces ongoing site monitoring and the “polluter pays” principle. The Waste Act governs safe mining waste management, and the Water Act imposes strict water-use licensing (during mining operations and after closure) and general pollution control. Regarding abandoned mines, legislation that governs post-mining procedures mostly addresses site hazards, while sustainable post-mining land use and facilitating post-mining livelihoods for the local people are less emphasised.
The MPRDA acknowledges mining communities in its provisions that mandate local economic development, post-mining rehabilitation obligations and community consultation and participation. Supplementary frameworks that acknowledge mining communities include the Mining Charter (aimed at promoting transformation, equity and sustainable development within the industry) and the Social and Labour Plan (SLP), which is a binding document required to secure a mining right, in which mining rights holders outline their specific strategies on how their operations will contribute to local community development.
In theory, SLPs provide a structured approach to reconcile extractive activities with long-term social and environmental responsibility. In practice, however, they fail to meet their objective due to inconsistent application and enforcement. Mining companies evade their obligations through underfunding or outright abandonment of rehabilitation initiatives.
Additionally, regulatory oversight is limited due to resource constraints and red tape, sporadic compliance monitoring, and accountability measures for non-compliance that are ineffectively applied. Another factor contributing to this failure is the lack of genuine corporate social responsibility, as mining rights holders tend to prioritise profit over long-term environmental and social responsibility.
Consequently, the intended objectives of the SLPs, the Mining Charter and MPRDA, namely promoting environmental rehabilitation and community development, continue to go unrealised. This gap between aspirational objectives and reality is evident in the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy’s target to rehabilitate all 6,100 abandoned mines by 2038, despite only 27 rehabilitations as of 2022. Grand policy commitments hold little value for communities if they are not properly executed.
Abandoned mines should be seen as an opportunity rather than a symbol of neglect. If approached with structure and commitment, these sites can be rehabilitated back to their pre-mining condition or, through proper assessment of land parameters, can preferably be transformed into productive spaces. This is the preferred option in developing countries like South Africa because when no clear or beneficial land use is identified, the rehabilitated area can be vulnerable to inappropriate or undesirable forms of post-closure land use.
In a paper on behalf of the Centre for Sustainability in Mining and Industry at Wits University, the writers note, “The costs of returning land to low (economic) value pre-mining use may be far greater than establishing a viable post-mining land use.” An example of this would be repurposing land for tourism or recreational areas, which may offer lasting benefits (socially and economically) at a lower cost.
Types of post-mining land uses can be categorised broadly into agriculture, forestry, water bodies (such as lakes), recreational land use or conservation. Rehabilitation efforts such as ecological restoration through reintroducing indigenous plants and treating polluted bodies of water can help revive damaged ecosystems.
Beyond rehabilitation, post-mining land use can serve as a catalyst for enabling community-driven economic opportunities. For example, former mine dumps can be rehabilitated and converted into sustainable agricultural land, improving food security and creating employment opportunities for host communities.
Therefore, rehabilitation and post-mining land use have a dual value – repairing the environment while supporting host communities’ social and economic well-being. Turning this potential into reality requires effective governance that develops comprehensive policies and sustained efforts to operationalise and oversee their implementation consistently.
Mining rights holders and the government must recognise that rehabilitation and post-mining land use initiatives should not be regarded as a burden but as investments in our nation’s sustainable future. Without effective governance and this recognition, mining host communities will continue to bear the costs of unfulfilled obligations.
Sisanda Lupondwana
Sisanda Lupondwana is a research intern in the Natural Resource Governance and Climate Change Programme at Good Governance Africa.
