DOCSLIB.ORG

Referral for Proposed Action Ranger 3 Deeps Underground Mine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Referral for Proposed Action Ranger 3 Deeps Underground Mine REFERRAL FOR PROPOSED ACTION RANGER 3 DEEPS UNDERGROUND MINE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................ 4 1.1 Short description.............................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Latitude and longitude ..................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Locality and property description ..................................................................................... 5 1.4 Size of development footprint or work area ...................................................................... 5 1.5 Street address of the site ................................................................................................. 6 1.6 Lot description ................................................................................................................. 6 1.7 Local Government Area and Council contact ................................................................... 6 1.8 Time frame ...................................................................................................................... 6 1.9 Alternatives to proposed action ........................................................................................ 6 1.10 Alternative time frames .................................................................................................... 6 1.11 State assessment ............................................................................................................ 7 1.12 Component of larger action ............................................................................................. 7 1.13 Related actions/proposals ............................................................................................... 7 1.14 Australian Government funding ....................................................................................... 7 1.15 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park ....................................................................................... 7 2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOPOSED ACTION .......................................................... 8 2.1 Description of proposed action ........................................................................................ 8 2.2 Alternatives to taking the proposed action ..................................................................... 28 2.3 Alternative locations, time frames or activities that form part of the referred action ........ 29 2.4 Context, planning framework and state/local government requirements ........................ 30 2.5 Environmental impact assessments under Commonwealth, state or territory legislation ...................................................................................................................... 37 2.6 Public consultation (including with Indigenous stakeholders) ......................................... 37 2.7 A staged development or component of a larger project ................................................ 37 3. DESCRIPTION OF ENVRIONMENT AND LIKELY IMPACTS ................................................. 38 3.1 Matters of national environmental significance .............................................................. 38 3.2 Nuclear actions, actions taken by the Commonwealth (or Commonwealth agency), actions taken in a Commonwealth marine area, actions taken on Commonwealth land, or actions taken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park ................ 60 3.3 Other important features of the environment .................................................................. 60 4. MEASURES TO AVOID OR REDUCE IMPACTS .................................................................... 74 5. CONCLUSION ON THE LIKELIHOOD OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ...................................... 81 5.1 Do you THINK your proposed action is a controlled action? .......................................... 81 5.2 Proposed action IS NOT a controlled action .................................................................. 81 5.3 Proposed action IS a controlled action ........................................................................... 81 6. ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD OF THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY ............................................. 83 7. INFORMATION SOURCES AND ATTACHMENTS.................................................................. 85 7.1 References .................................................................................................................... 85 7.2 Reliability and date of information .................................................................................. 88 7.3 Attachments .................................................................................................................. 88 8. CONTACTS, SIGNATURS AND DECLARATIONS ................................................................. 90 Abbreviations and acronyms ................................................................................................. 91 Chemical symbols and formulae ........................................................................................... 91 Units of measurement ............................................................................................................ 92 List of appendices .................................................................................................................. 93 Referral of proposed action Project title: Ranger 3 Deeps Underground Mine 1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 Short description This referral outlines Energy Resources of Australia Ltd's (ERA's) proposal to develop and operate an underground mine and associated facilities at the existing Ranger uranium mine, in the Alligator Rivers Region of the Northern Territory (see Figure 1 for regional context). The resource, referred to as Ranger 3 Deeps, has been defined by a series of successive surface diamond drilling programs from 2005–2009. Additional diamond drilling will be undertaken as part of the Ranger 3 Deeps Exploration Decline project, which was approved for construction on 25 August 2011 (as described in Section 1.13 ) and does not form part of the proposed action. This referral is made in parallel to the Ranger 3 Deeps Exploration Decline project, so that ERA can make its decision about underground mining when it has approvals in place to proceed. The proposed action is to mine and process the uranium bearing ore from the Ranger 3 Deeps mineral resource, which is currently estimated to contain 34,000 tonnes of uranium oxide. 1 Mining will be via a series of stopes accessed via a decline allowing material transport to the surface in trucks. The decline constructed as part of the Ranger 3 Deeps Exploration Decline project will also serve as the primary access to the underground mine and is located adjacent to Pit 3. 2 The fixed ventilation system 3 constructed for Ranger 3 Deeps Exploration Decline project will also be utilised for the proposed action and will be expanded to include additional ventilation shafts. 4 A paste fill plant (approximately 100 m3/hr capacity) will be constructed within the footprint of the existing operational area for the purpose of backfilling the mined out stopes (see Section 2.1 ). The main mine workings will be greater than 300 m below the surface. Mineralised material will be transported to the surface and processed at the existing processing plant. Due to the selective nature of the proposed underground mining method, only a relatively small quantity of waste rock will be generated (approximately 0.5 Mt of waste rock, compared to greater than 80 Mt of waste from the mined out Pit 3) (see Section 2.1 ). Processing of the Ranger 3 Deeps ore will not require a change to the existing water management strategies implemented at the Ranger mine. Further, the proposed action will result in only small incremental changes to the ERA's process water and tailings inventories, and will not significantly alter overall closure planning for the Ranger Project Area. 1 More accurate estimates of the resource will be established through the continuing exploration activity and associated geological modelling. These will be reported accordingly. It is likely that within the time frame of the proposed action, and in consideration of mining and processing optimisation only a portion of the defined resource will be extracted. 2 Mining in Pit 3 ceased on 28 November 2012. 3 "Phase 1" of the Ranger 3 Deeps Exploration Decline project, approved in August 2011, includes ducted ventilation along the decline with surface based fans. A second phase of this project will include the construction of a vertical ventilation shaft, in a number of segments from surface to intersect with the exploration decline. This shaft would be converted to a passive air intake as a component of the complete ventilation system for the proposed action. 4 Ventilation shafts (vent raises) perform two functions: a) taking stale air from the decline and exhausting it into the atmosphere via a return air raise; and b) drawing fresh air into the decline via a fresh air raise. Referral: Ranger 3 Deeps underground mine 4 Prepared by L Pugh, P Anderson. Date: 16 January 2013 1.2 Latitude and longitude The Ranger Project Area is the land described in Schedule 2 to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 5 (Figure 1). The current mining operation is in the southern portion of the Ranger Project Area and constitutes an area of disturbance, including the Jabiru
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Ranger Uranium Mine Agreement Revisited: Spacetimes of Indigenous
    Transformations issue 33 (2020) The Ranger uranium mine agreement www.transformationsjournal.org revisited: spacetimes of Indigenous ISSN 1444-3775 agreement-making in Australia AUTHOR BIO Kirsty is a former lawyer, who Kirsty Howey worked for a decade at the Northern Land Council on various land rights and native title ABSTRACT matters. Her PhD research draws on this experience to investigate Native title agreement-making or “contractualism” has become one of the the relationship between the dominant legible frames by which to understand Indigenous-settler relations Northern Land Council and the in Australia, simultaneously providing benefits to Aboriginal groups yet state, including through constraining opportunities to configure these relations differently (Neale). In ethnographic research with current and former employees of this paper, I examine the very first mining agreement of its kind in Australia: the institution of practices of the Ranger uranium mine agreement negotiated in 1978. Borrowing Russian agreement-making. literary theorist Bakhtin’s analytic, I argue that the agreement is a “chronotope” with specific spatiotemporal dimensions. I focus on two key temporalities of the chronotope – the urgent temporality of development authorisation that conditions how, when and where agreements are produced, and the forward- looking “temporal inertia” that prospectively embeds these practices as precedents to be replicated in future mining negotiations. These two temporal logics shaped and were shaped by the spatial dynamics of the institutions tasked with negotiating the agreement, as events shifted back and forth between different venues. Exploring “how different legal times create or shape legal spaces and vice versa” (Valverde 17) reveals the productive and hegemonic conditions of the agreement chronotope in Indigenous-state relations in Australia as well as the compromised conditions for Indigenous institutional survival in the entropic north of Australia and beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Impact of the Ranger Uranium Mine, Alligator Rivers Region, Northern Territory, Australia
    XA0201925 IAEA-SM-362/16 Environmental impact of the Ranger uranium mine, Alligator Rivers Region, Northern Territory, Australia A. Johnston Environment Australia, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia S. Needham Environmental Protection Agency, Queensland, Australia Abstract. Stringent environmental controls have been applied to the Ranger mine, in the Northern Territory of Australia, because of its location in an area of outstanding natural and cultural values. The adjacent Kakadu National Park contains a wild and extensive biodiversity, striking landscapes, ancient Aboriginal rock art and a living Aboriginal culture. A special regime of biological, radiological and chemical monitoring has been applied to protect the environment and detect even very low intensity impacts. The results from this regime demonstrate to the government and general public that the high conservation values of the national park around the mine are being properly protected. This paper describes the techniques used to measure environmental impact at Ranger, and summarizes the results of over 20 years of monitoring. The overwhelming conclusion is that a very high standard of environmental protection has been achieved. 1. INTRODUCTION For twenty years, uranium has been mined and milled at the Ranger mine within an area that is surrounded by Kakadu National Park (Fig. 1), around 12°S in the wet/dry tropics. The region includes deeply dissected sandstone plateau and escarpments, falling to gently undulating sandy lowlands, drained by rivers which are tidal for over 60 km inland and which have extensive floodplains inundated by several metres of brackish water during the wet season. Ranger mine, about 70 km from the coast, is about 20-25 m above sea level.
    [Show full text]
  • Reclamation at the Ranger Uranium Mine, Australia
    Reclamation at the Ranger Uranium Mine, Australia Shannon Oslund Uranium mines are subject to the same kinds of remediation challenges as other mines, except for one difference—they generate radioactive waste. One of the biggest concerns is how to dispose of the radioactive tailings that are produced as a result of the mining process. Returning the landscape to pre-mine conditions is an enormous task given the size of the disturbance. The Ranger Uranium Mine in Australia covers an area of about 500 hectares, of which 420 hectares have been significantly disturbed by mining activities (ERA, 1997). Operations at Ranger are stringently monitored and must comply to some 53 laws (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1997) that consider environmental protection, Aboriginal interests, public health and the surrounding communities. Ranger is located within the boundaries of Kakadu National Park, a park that is nationally and internationally recognized for its natural and cultural heritage. The 1,980,400 hectare park (ANCA, 1996) is located in northern Australia, and is well known for its spectacular wilderness areas, nature conservation values, and natural and cultural heritage. In 1975 under The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, just over 515,000 hectares of the park was zoned as a wilderness area. In 1981 UNESCO listed 1.3 million hectares of the park as a World Heritage Area (Hall, 1992) because it is truly a unique example of complex ecosystems and landscapes including savannah grasslands, coastal rainforests, extensive mangroves and tidal flats, and wetlands. The wetlands of Kakadu were given official recognition by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance because of their importance in a biogeographical context, the outstanding diversity of their plant communities, and their role in conserving the large numbers of waterfowl that congregate during the dry season (Finlayson and Woodroffe, 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Mine Remediation in Australia's Northern Territory Peter Waggitt
    Uranium mine remediation in Australia's Northern Territory Peter Waggitt Darwin NT Australia NT and Uranium • NT has a long association with uranium • Early days – 1912 Goyder’s discoveries, etc • Rum Jungle – 1949 White’s discovery; 1954-71 - Cu & U mining • Adelaide River - 1955-64 – Minor deposits • South Alligator Valley - 1955-64: 13 mines producing ~850t U3O8 • Recent & Current activities • Nabarlek- 1980-89; ~11,800t U3O8 • Jabiluka – 1980s discovery; EIS; Development decline ~1700 m; closure in C&M and revegetation • Ranger – Longest currently operating U mine in White’s Open Pit – Rum Jungle Australia • Other prospects • Koongarra; Angela/Pamela; Biglyri; Angularli, etc NT and Uranium mining Concentrated in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, especially ARR • Currently only Ranger Uranium Mine operating • Unique location surrounded by WH dual-listed Kakadu National Park • Scheduled to cease processing in January 2021 • Completion of remediation due by January 2026 • Jabiluka prospect under LT C&M • Previously production at: • Rum Jungle – remediation (3dr attempt) underway • South Alligator - remediated • Nabarlek – remediated • Exploration continues • Three operators • 5 projects Ranger Uranium Mine • Discovered by airborne survey 1969 • Two public inquiries 1977 & 1978 • Began operations 1980 • Open pit mining from 2 pits • #1 1980-1995 • #3 1997-2013 • Underground resource (R3D) only explored c.2500m decline and 400m crosscut • Processing to end January 2021 • Remediation to complete January 2026 • Production • Lifetime U3O8 production
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Mining and Indigenous Social Impact Issues Kakadu Region, Australia
    XA0201920 IAEA-SM-362/11 Uranium mining and indigenous social impact issues Kakadu Region, Australia P. Wellings Parks Australia North, Environment Australia, Australia Abstract. This paper reports on indigenous social impact issues in the Kakadu/Alligators Rivers region of Australia. It briefly outlines the social history of the region, reflects on local, national and international attention being given to the impact of regional development on local indigenous (bininj) people, notes how social impact issues are being addressed and suggests some lessons learnt. 1. INTRODUCTION The Kakadu/Alligator Rivers region is an area of approximately 28 000 km located in the Top End of the Northern Territory of Australia. Most of the region (nearly 20 000 km2) is incorporated within the World Heritage listed Kakadu National Park. Kakadu is one of Australia's premier national parks and one of only 22 sites listed (worldwide) as World Heritage for both its natural and cultural World Heritage values. The Australian government's nomination of Kakadu for World Heritage listing identified local indigenous peoples' spiritual attachment to the landscape, and the living cultural traditions that maintain linkages between people and country, as important elements of the World Heritage values of the park. An important feature of the region is that it continues as the homeland for indigenous people — who refer to themselves (in their own language) as bininj. They are people who can claim to be part of the world's longest continuing culture, a tradition of 50 000 years of hunting, foraging and stewardship of the landscape. This long period of continuing occupation is recorded in important archaeological sites and an enormously rich (and internationally significant) heritage of rock art.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Mining Radiological Conditions in the Ranger Project Area
    internal report 616 Pre-mining radiological conditions in the Ranger Project Area A Bollhöfer, A Beraldo, K Pfitzner, A Esparon & G Carr February 2013 Release status – unrestricted Project number – RES-2005-001 This page has been left blank intentionally. Pre-mining radiological conditions in the Ranger Project Area A Bollhöfer, A Beraldo, K Pfitzner, A Esparon & G Carr Supervising Scientist Division GPO Box 461, Darwin NT 0801 February 2013 Project number RES-2005-001 Registry File SG2005/0127 (Release status – unrestricted) How to cite this report: A Bollhöfer, A Beraldo, K Pfitzner, A Esparon & G Carr 2013. Pre-mining radiological conditions in the Ranger Project Area. Internal Report 616, February, Supervising Scientist, Darwin. Project number – RES-2005-001 Location of final PDF file in SSDX Sharepoint: http://publications.nt.environment.gov.au/PublicationWork/Publications and Productions/Internal Reports (IRs)/Nos 600 to 699/IR616_Pre-mining radiological conditions Location of all key data files for this report in SSDX: http://ssd.nt.environment.gov.au/SSDX/Chemical and Radiological Site Assessment/SPIRE Radiological/SPIRE Anomaly 2 Authors of this report: Andreas Bollhöfer – Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, GPO Box 461, Darwin NT 0801, Australia Annamarie Beraldo – Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, GPO Box 461, Darwin NT 0801, Australia. Address at time of publication: Sinclair Knight Merz, GPO Box 2145 Parap NT 0804, Australia Kirrilly Pfitzner – Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, GPO Box 461, Darwin NT 0801, Australia Andrew Esparon – Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, GPO Box 461, Darwin NT 0801, Australia G Carr – Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, GPO Box 461, Darwin NT 0801, Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson Four: Uranium Mining in Northern Australia Subjects: Geography, Geology
    Lesson Four: Uranium Mining in Northern Australia Subjects: Geography, Geology OVERVIEW STARTER: The lay of the land (5 minutes) Students take on the roles of different Note: Our PowerPoint presentation (available online) will help you lead the stakeholders in a community affected discussion outlined below, see: www.bit.ly/CNDCriticalMass by Ranger Uranium Mine, Northern Ask students as a class to state what they know about nuclear weapons. What is a Australia. In this case study, they work nuclear bomb? Have nuclear weapons ever been used? Collect answers, and fill any with data to put forward their gaps in knowledge. Then ask, where does the nuclear material come from? position as to what should happen to the future of their town, Jabiru. PRESENTATION (20 mins): a) Uranium MATERIALS – Outline how we get uranium (and plutonium), and where from. Briefly look at Stakeholder briefings / PowerPoint how uranium is extracted, processed, and enriched. Emphasise that the same process of enrichment produces fuel for nuclear weapons as well as nuclear ROOM LAYOUT power reactors. Provide an overview of risks when working with uranium, from For group work. extraction to decommissioning. b) Ranger Uranium Mine LEARNING OBJECTIVES – Outline a brief history of uranium mining, noting that although beginning with • All students will be able to scientific research, demand for uranium skyrocketed during WWII, as technology identify key stakeholders in for a nuclear bomb was worked on. From 1954, the British mined for uranium in uranium mining. Australia, which has one third of the world’s known uranium resources! • Most students will be able to – Introduce the case study – Ranger Uranium Mine, Northern Territory, Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Data and Statistical Interpretations for Rocks and Ores from the Ranger Uranium Mine N.T., Australia
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Chemical Data and Statistical Interpretations for Rocks and Ores from the Ranger Uranium Mine N.T., Australia by J. Thomas Nash and David Frishman Open-File Report 83-239 1983 ILLUSTRATIONS Figures Page Figure 1. Map of a portion of the Northern Territory, Australia, showing the location of uranium mines and deposits...............v 2. Location of drill holes in Ranger No. 1 and Ranger No. 3 orebodies sampled for this study ............................ Tables Table 1. Analytical methods for elements...................................? 2. Gold analyses....................................................10 3. Correlation matrix for ore bearing samples.......................15 4. Factor matrix for ore-bearing samples............................18 5. Correlation matrix for barren samples............................21 6. Factor matrix for barren samples.................................24 7. Statistical summary for Upper Mine Sequence schists..............26 8. Correlation matrix for Upper Mine Sequence schists...............27 9. Factor matrix for Upper Mine Sequence schists....................30 10. Statistical summary for Lower Mine Sequence chloritic marble.........................................................32 11. Correlation matrix for Lower Mine Sequence chloritic marble.........................................................33 12. Factor matrix for Lower Mine Sequence chloritic marble...........36 13. Statistical summary for jasperoid samples........................37 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Geomorphic Research to Determine the Off-Site Impacts of the Jabiluka Mine on Swift (Ngarradj) Creek, Northern Territory
    Geomorphic research to determine the off-site impacts of the Jabiluka Mine on Swift (Ngarradj) Creek, Northern Territory WD Erskine, MJ Saynor, KG Evans & GS Boggs 1 Introduction In October 1996 Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Kinhill Engineers & ERA Environmental Services 1996) for the mining of uranium at Jabiluka. The Commonwealth Government approved the Ranger Mill Alternative in October 1997 subject to a broad range of requirements on environmental protection (Johnston & Prendergast 1999). The Ranger Mill Alternative involved the mining of the Jabiluka orebody by underground methods and the milling of the ore at the existing mill at Ranger (Kinhill Engineers & ERA Environmental Services 1996). However, following the refusal of the traditional land owners to permit the trucking of ore from Jabiluka to Ranger, the Jabiluka Mill Alternative was further developed and approved by the Commonwealth Government in August 1998, subject to a number of environmental requirements (Johnston & Prendergast 1999). This alternative involved the construction of a new mill at Jabiluka and was outlined in a Public Environment Report (Kinhill & Energy Resources of Australia Ltd 1998). Environmental requirements stipulated that all mill tailings had to be returned to the underground mine void and to specially constructed stopes or silos instead of tailings pits, as proposed by ERA (Johnston & Prendergast 1999). Work on the mine began immediately after government approval. Despite criticisms of the Jabiluka Mill Alternative by Wasson et al (1998) which were also raised by the World Heritage Committee, the Supervising Scientist found that development of the Jabiluka uranium mine will not threaten the natural values of Kakadu National Park (Johnston & Prendergast 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Cover. Ranger Uranium Mine in the Australian Northern Territory (ERA)
    Cover. Ranger Uranium Mine in the Australian Northern Territory (ERA) Hinkley Point B nuclear power station (CEGBl NUCLEAR POWER AND THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE STATUS REPORT 1 c;90 ln accorclance with the ANSTO Act and as a core activity of its Strategic Plan. ANSTO maintains an ongoing assessment of the world's nuclear technology developments including nuclear power and the nuclear fuel cycle industry. This publication reviews the current status of nuclear power and the nuclear fuel cycle. It updates a review published in 1985 by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, the predecessor of ANSTO. The Commission had previously included such material as part of its Annual Reports up to the twenty-ninth Report, for 1980-81. 1 believe that a positive reassessment of the benefits of nuclear power is beginning to take place with the growing awareness in the community that all forms of energy usage involve risks and can adversely affect the environment. Australia's very large uranium resources could be an important factor in any resurgence in the use of nuclear power. Australia and ANSTO can also offer an improved method for the disposal of nuclear waste. This publication has been prepared for readers with a general semi-technical interest in the industry. I would be pleased to receive any comments on the value of the review and on specific items that have been assessed. David I Cook Executive Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Nuclear Power The generation of electricity represents over 30% of the world's primary energy demand and this proportion continues to increase. Primary energy consumption has risen fourfold since 1950 and is forecast to grow due to the world's continuing large population increase.
    [Show full text]
  • Australia's Uranium Resources, Production and Exploration
    3 Australia’s uranium resources, production and exploration … world stockpiles of uranium are diminishing. An increase in reliance on mine production for uranium supplies by nuclear power plant operators should have the effect of increasing the significance of Australia’s uranium reserves. Factors such as the size and quality of those reserves, and Australia’s record as a stable and low-cost supplier, should ensure that Australia is well placed to continue to supply traditional customers and to achieve significant market penetration in Asia, which is the most rapidly growing area for use of nuclear power.1 Without doubt Australia’s known resources could be increased significantly … but there needs to be a significant change in how uranium is viewed and a clear level of support shown at both the Federal and State level. A change in political will and direction is required to give the clear message to companies that it is worthwhile exploring for uranium. Australia already plays an important role in supplying low cost uranium to support the generation of clean nuclear energy … and if properly funded and supported … the unfortunate trend of the past ten plus years can be reversed and Australia could take its rightful place as the world’s most important exporter.2 1 Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Submission no. 29, p. 5. 2 Cameco Corporation, Submission no. 43, p. 6. 74 Key messages — Australia possesses 38 per cent of the world’s total Identified Resources of uranium recoverable at low cost (less than US$40 per kilogram). According to company reports, Australia’s known uranium deposits currently contain a total of over 2 million tonnes of uranium oxide in in-ground resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Mining in Africa: a Continent at the Centre of a Global Nuclear Renaissance
    OCCASIONAL PAPER NO 122 Governance of Africa's Resources Programme September 2012 Uranium Mining in Africa: A Continent at the Centre of a Global Nuclear Renaissance Nicolas Dasnois s ir a f f A l a n o ti a rn e nt f I o te tu sti n In rica . th Af hts Sou sig al in Glob African perspectives. About SAIIA The South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) has a long and proud record as South Africa’s premier research institute on international issues. It is an independent, non-government think-tank whose key strategic objectives are to make effective input into public policy, and to encourage wider and more informed debate on international affairs with particular emphasis on African issues and concerns. It is both a centre for research excellence and a home for stimulating public engagement. SAIIA’s occasional papers present topical, incisive analyses, offering a variety of perspectives on key policy issues in Africa and beyond. Core public policy research themes covered by SAIIA include good governance and democracy; economic policymaking; international security and peace; and new global challenges such as food security, global governance reform and the environment. Please consult our website www.saiia.org.za for further information about SAIIA’s work. About the Govern A n c e o f A f r I c A ’ S r e S o u r c e S P r o G r A m m e The Governance of Africa’s Resources Programme (GARP) of the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) is funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
    [Show full text]