Centre for Environmental Rights - Advancing Environmental Rights in South Africa

Tongaat Hulett Limited's disclosure of environmental non-compliances in annual reports

The following type of statement is frequently made in the company’s annual reports:

There were no material incidents, fines or non-monetary sanctions for non-compliance with applicable environmental regulations during the year under review.¹

In the 2010 Annual Report, the following statement was made:

There were no material incidents, fines or non-monetary sanctions for non-compliance with applicable environmental regulations during the year under review. The established community liaison forums between Tongaat Hulett and interested parties continue to address environmental related complaints.²

In Tongaat Hulett’s 2014 Annual Report it was also reported that, “there were no material incidents or non-monetary sanctions for non-compliance with applicable environmental regulations during the year under review.”³ However, the following information was also included in the 2014 Annual Report:

The Maidstone mill in Tongaat was issued with a directive by the municipal official in September 2013 relating to the overflow of effluent during a sludge removal activity at the effluent dam. The mill was asked to develop a plan for effective management of the effluent dam. This plan was submitted and acknowledged by the regulatory authority. The mill continues to proactively engage with local communities and the relevant authorities on matters related to effluent irrigation. Several short-term initiatives have been put into place to deal with community concerns.

The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) issued a fine to Tongaat Hulett for disturbing virgin land in the KwaMthethwa traditional leadership area where the cane and rural development unit (CRDU) was operating. While it had been acknowledged that Tongaat Hulett’s agriculture operations caused some disturbance on virgin land, management took a decision to appeal against the level of the fine considering an existing partnership involving Tongaat Hulett, the DEA and the KwaMthethwa Traditional Council. An appeal decision has since been received from the DEA, in which the extent of the original fine was significantly reduced. In the interim, efforts continue to be directed at avoiding tampering with virgin land during agriculture operations.⁴

Tongaat Hulett reports on complaints made by communities to the company. It operates a response system based upon the importance of the complaint:-

Level 1 environmental complaints are those that are deemed ‘minor’ and refers [sic] to the number of times the operation’s activities resulted in isolated public complaints. Although a response is triggered, Level 1 complaints do not require remediation plans. Level 2 complaints refer to the number of times the operation’s activities resulted in widespread public complaints or attention from media. Both a response and remediation plan is triggered in the event of a Level 2 complaint.⁵

2010 company reports

In the 2010 Annual Report the following was reported:-

During the reporting period 116 Level one and 11 Level two complaints were received compared to 50 Level one complaints received in 2008 and 113 Level one complaints received in 2007. The increase was attributed to the increased level of awareness and reporting by employees.⁶

2011 company reports

In the 2011 Annual Report the following was stated:-

During the reporting period, Tongaat Hulett experienced 13 Level 1 complaints and 2 Level 2 complaints. The two Level 2 complaints were from Maidstone related to fish dying in the Tongaat River, it was alleged that the mill effluent was contaminating the river. These complaints were thoroughly investigated by mill personnel and municipal authorities. It was confirmed that the root cause of the contamination was actually sewerage overflow into the river and not mill effluent. The municipality is looking into relevant corrective action.⁷

2012 company reports

In the 2012 Annual Report it was stated that:-

During the reporting period, Tongaat Hulett experienced 13 Level 1 complaints and 3 Level 2 complaints. Two Level 2 complaints were received at the Kliprivier starch plant and 1 was received at the Maidstone sugar mill. The 2 complaints at Kliprivier were both odour related. The first incident was related to odour emanating from product re-work and the odour was neutralised through chemical addition. The second incident was linked to odour from an effluent tank whilst it was undergoing a maintenance clean-up. The remedial actions implemented included the addition of ash to suppress odours as well as a catalyst to reduce the impact. The mill communicated its action plans to the relevant authorities and stakeholders.

The odour complaint from Maidstone mill was related to a smell emanating from the irrigation holding ponds. There was a leak in the raw water feed line to the irrigation dam which was assumed to be the root cause of the complaint. The leak was attended to by the mill personnel and sampling and analysis of river confirmed that there were no impacts on the river. Municipal authorities and all relevant stakeholders received communication regarding this incident.⁸

2013 company reports

In the 2013 Annual Report it was stated that:-

During the reporting period, Tongaat Hulett experienced 559 Level 1 complaints and two Level 2 complaints. One of the Level 2 complaints was received at the Maidstone Sugar Mill and another one was received at the Xinavane Sugar Mill. Incidents of illegal dumping at the South Africa agricultural operations remain the major contributor to Level 1 incidents.

The Maidstone complaint related to an irrigation pipe burst. The remedial actions implemented included clean-up and remediation of area affected, together with a repair of the pipeline. Implemented action plans were communicated to relevant authorities and stakeholders and a long term plan regarding the future of irrigation in this area is currently under review.

The second Level 2 complaint related to environmental issues raised through a media broadcast at the Xinavane operation. There were allegations regarding water pollution of the river system emanating from mill effluent discharge. Xinavane currently conducts regular water testing both upstream and downstream of the mill operations, as well as of some of the agricultural locations. The operation uses the services of an external third party laboratory, which has confirmed that the results of the water tests continue to fall within the business’s minimum standards.⁹

2014 company reports

In the 2014 Annual Report it was reported that there had been 50 complaints during the 2014 reporting period, including 48 Level 1 complaints and 2 Level 2 complaints. One of the Level 2 complaints related to complaints received at the starch milling operations relating to effluent and odour from process operations. It was noted that corrective action was taken including the upgrading of process operations. The other Level 2 complaint related to the pruning of trees at the business’s office.¹⁰