Johannesburg - When companies design development programs
for areas near their operations in South Africa that are required to win
government approval for licenses, local communities are often not consulted and
have no right to veto the mines, according to a group that’s lobbying for
stronger regulation.
In five case studies of mines ranging from platinum and
coal extraction to clay, the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, based at
Johannesburg’s University of the Witwatersrand, found that most communities
were unaware of the commitments companies made in the social plans and in
almost all cases those promises weren’t fulfilled.
The plans, along with legislation demanding greater black
ownership of assets that account for about half of South Africa’s exports, are
supposed to be part of the post-apartheid government’s plans to reduce
inequality. Mines in South Africa are often ringed by shanty towns housing
migrant workers, while environmental damage to surrounding areas regularly
threatens the livelihoods of local communities.
“Our case studies, together with the testimonies of
mining communities, would suggest that social and labour plans are not
assisting in overcoming systemic inequality,” the study’s authors, Robert
Krause and Louis Snyman, said. “There should be circumstances in which
communities are to be accorded the right to say ‘no’ to mining.”
Apartheid impact
Mining legislation introduced in 2004 requires mines to
establish and implement social and labour plans in order to be granted a
license. It was intended to try and redress the negative impacts of mining
during the apartheid era when many companies employed cheap black labour, often
housed in single-sex hostels.
The case studies, in which the mines and their owners
were not identified, said that the companies had failed to meet commitments
ranging from building houses and childcare centres to funding bursaries.
Read also: The plight of communities near mines
In most cases the local community was unaware of the
commitments the companies had made in order to secure the mining licenses,
according to the study. Often they concluded agreements with traditional
leaders without wider community consultation.
Legislation should be amended to ensure that there is
more public participation in the design of the plans, there should be more
transparency and the wishes of communities should be taken into account, the
authors of the study said.
“Participation is a fundamental deficit in the minerals
benefits system. Allowing further ambiguity in this area will perpetuate the
further exclusion of communities from the mineral benefit stream,” they said.
“The importance of making public participation part of formal hard law cannot
be overstated.”