Several government departments and private companies still think information and documents on the state of SA’s environment are “state secrets”, and they often refuse to release even the most routine data to citizens.
The worst offender, according to a report published last week, is the Mineral Resources Department – which told citizens to take a hike in 97 percent of cases where they sought information on environmental health and protection issues.
This “culture of secrecy” extended to serious cases where groundwater might have been polluted by acids and poisons, and to less controversial requests on what plans were in place to rehabilitate environmental damage when mines closed down.
There was also evidence that some officials seemed more concerned with protecting the financial interests of mining companies than they were with safeguarding the interests of neighbouring communities and civil society organisations.
This is according to a report by a national law clinic which provides legal services to people and groups concerned with environmental justice issues.
Titled “Unlock the Doors”, the report charges that the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia) has become a convenient tool for some government bodies to avoid, delay or refuse to release information which should be freely available to the public.
Melissa Fourie, the former head of the government’s Green Scorpions environmental inspectorate, who now directs the Centre for Environmental Rights, said she and her colleagues were “astonished” by the extent to which government and private groups concealed information.
“In some cases, private bodies appear to be aided by public bodies in concealing basic information like licence conditions from the public… Moreover, Paia is increasingly being used to exclude civil society from basic feedback on governance and information that should be freely available.
The report is based on a two-year project to analyse the success of civil society to access information which would enable people to hold the government and companies to account for their impacts on the environment.
The analysis is based on more than 104 formal requests under Paia and 42 requests (not using Paia) for access to information submitted to 17 public and 35 private bodies over the past 18 months.
Centre attorney Dina Townsend and her colleagues also kept records of hundreds of telephone calls and e-mail reminders during the project, which culminated in two high court cases and two formal complaints to the public protector against government officials.
“In the course of submitting over 100 requests for information, the centre encountered reluctance, resistance and suspicion from both public and private bodies. We were frequently interrogated about our and our clients’ motives, use and need for the information. We were told that key documents like copies of licences were confidential commercial documents not appropriate for public disclosure,” said Townsend.
For example, the centre requested a copy of an environmental management programme from a mining company which had abandoned a coal mine without doing any rehabilitation work.
The requests were sent to an official identified only as “Mr D”, who was responsible for handling all requests under Paia at one of the mining department’s busiest regional offices.
“Mr D failed to respond to any of our e-mails or telephone calls,” says the report, noting that the official appeared to be the only person authorised to release certain information.
“We phoned Mr D every day for a week. To date Mr D has not answered or returned these calls and we still do not have the requested information. The centre eventually reported Mr D to the public protector.”
The report also criticised the power of such individuals within the mining department to “radically undermine the right to access to information”.
Overall, the mining department’s compliance with Paia was consistently poor.
Of the 41 requests sent to this department, only seven were acknowledged.
The department failed, without exception, to respond to requests within the legislated 30-day deadline. Nor did it request an extension for another 30 days.
Instead, most requests were greeted with a standard letter denying access to the information sought.
In one case, the department’s national office granted partial access to information, but centre lawyers battled for months to extract this information through the Gauteng regional office.
In another case, officials claimed they were unable to copy documents – and if the staff from the centre wanted to make copies themselves they would be liable to a fine of at least R500 000 if any documents were damaged or lost.
“This fine has no basis under the Promotion of Access to Information Act and is clearly intended to intimidate the centre into abandoning its requests.”
Centre officials were often sent from pillar to post, seeking access to information from government officials and companies.
Some information officers also seemed to be untrained or unfamiliar with the act’s requirements and were threatened with legal action by two private companies.
The department had also largely ignored statutory requirements to report whether it was complying with Paia. However, the department’s latest report showed that it received 607 requests for information during 2010/11. It granted access to information in just 14 cases.
“This high percentage of refusals indicates a significant lack of transparency.”
Private companies also seemed reluctant to release information.
In one case, Gold Fields Limited executive vice-president (general counsel) Michael Fleishcher wrote to Fourie acknowledging that most, if not all, the documents requested were public, but noted: “We release information to stakeholders in a controlled fashion and reduce the risk of information being misused.”
Responding to a similar request to release information voluntarily on its website, Harmony Gold Mines CEO Graham Briggs said his company was committed to “dialogue and transparency” and that documents requested were public. However, the centre should rather get the information from the government, Briggs said.
Sentula mining company, however, said it would be only too happy to release information.
Mining department spokeswoman Zingaphi Jakuja did not respond to requests for comment. - The Mercury
*The full Centre for Environmental Rights report can be viewed at: http://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Unlock-the-Doors.pdf