You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to download our app instead?
Moneyweb Android App Moneyweb iOS App Moneyweb Mobile Web App
Join our mailing list to receive top business news every weekday morning.

Community wins right to access mining application. But who will win the war?

The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act fails to protect communities whose land, livelihood and culture will be directly affected, possibly destroyed, by mining.
Image: Shutterstock

South African law states that mineral resources are the common heritage of all the country’s people. The state is the custodian of these resources for the benefit of all citizens.

The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act also states that mineral resources must be developed sustainably. The Constitution protects the right of all people to an environment that’s not harmful to health or well-being. The Act aims to promote equitable access to the nation’s mineral resources. It’s also meant to ensure that holders of mining rights contribute towards the socio-economic development of the areas where they are operating.

Moneyweb Insider INSIDERGOLD

Subscribe for full access to all our share and unit trust data tools, our award-winning articles, and support quality journalism in the process.

ONLY R63pm

Choose an option:

R63 per month
R630 per year SAVE R126

You will be redirected to a checkout page.
To view all features and options, click here.

A monthly subscription is charged pro rata, based on the day of purchase. This is non-refundable and includes a R5 once-off sign-up fee.
A yearly subscription is refundable within 14 days of purchase and includes a 365-day membership.

Click here for more information.

But in reality, the situation is heavily skewed in favour of the mining industry. The Act fails to protect communities whose land, livelihood and culture will be directly affected, and possibly destroyed, by mining.

The most recent example of the Act’s failure is the Umgungundlovu (known as “Xolobeni”) community’s struggle to access an application to mine heavy mineral sands on their land.

South Africa’s coastlines contain some of the world’s richest and unexploited deposits of heavy mineral sands. The minerals (zircon, ilmenite, rutile) are raw material for titanium dioxide, a white pigment used in paint, coatings, glazes, paper, and even the cosmetics industry.

Initiatives to exploit these mineral sands have gained momentum in recent years at the behest of the national Department of Mineral Resources and Australian mining multinational Mineral Commodities Ltd. Unfortunately, critical decisions about this were constrained by the bias inherent in the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act.

Mining licences and community rights

To mine the heavy mineral sands, Mineral Commodities Ltd – through its subsidiary Transworld Energy Resources – needed to apply for a mining right from the Department of Mineral Resources. A mining right application includes important information such as the particulars of the applicant, the mining works programme and the social and labour plan for socio-economic development of mine-affected areas.

Within 14 days after accepting an application, the regional manager of the Department of Mineral Resources must make this acceptance known. The department must then call on interested and affected parties to comment within 30 days.

Until very recently, the forms of notice prescribed by the law were publication in the provincial Government Gazette, a notice in the magistrate’s court or one in a local or national newspaper. In practice, these weren’t conducive to reaching parties who need to know, particularly rural communities.

Importantly, the Act is silent on the right of interested and affected parties to know that an application has been submitted, and their right to access the information in an application. This information asymmetry immediately places parties such as the Xolobeni community at a disadvantage.

On the east coast, members of the Xolobeni community have been resisting mining on their land for more than 15 years. In March 2015, they learnt that Transworld Energy Resources had filed an application to mine on their land. They approached the Department of Mineral Resources’ regional manager to get a copy of the application. He referred them to a Transworld Energy Resources representative and the environmental consultant. Community members became increasingly frustrated as these role players sent them from pillar to post.

Seeing the application, community members reasoned, would enable them to meaningfully consult with the mining company. It would help them determine how the mining might disrupt or benefit their lives.

In late 2015, they decided to approach the High Court for a determination of their rights to the information in the mining application. The company eventually forwarded a copy of the application to the community’s attorneys in February 2016. It didn’t concede that the community members were entitled to the information.

A court victory

On 14 September 2020, the North Gauteng High Court ruled that the community and other interested parties had a right to a copy of an application for a mining right. This, the court said, would enable “meaningful consultations”.

This right, the court ruled, is grounded in the provisions of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act itself. The community need not rely on the cumbersome Promotion of Access to Information Act.

This decision builds on the Xolobeni community’s first court victory against Transworld Energy Resources, in November 2018. In this case, Judge Basson ruled that the Department of Mineral Resources was obliged to obtain the “full and informed consent” of the community prior to granting any mining right. This right, the court said, is secured by the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act, 1996.

Both decisions have been hailed as “groundbreaking”, “game-changing”, a huge victory for mining communities everywhere in the country.

A tactical gain or a game-changer?

But do these decisions correct the imbalance that existed? Or are they merely tactical gains in a war that has already been lost?

The plight of the Xolobeni community is not dissimilar to hundreds of other mining-affected communities across the globe who are at war with the proponents of mining. At war because what’s at stake is survival itself: of people, livelihoods, species, landscapes, the survival of the company in the marketplace. At war because blood has already been spilled, at Xolobeni and elsewhere.

The war is essentially about two things. It’s about different visions of development: agriculture, tourism, subsistence versus mining, urbanisation, industrialisation. And it’s about the age-old question of whether mining, with all its adverse impacts, can benefit the many, or only the selected, significant few.

Currently, it is waged under opaque conditions:

The Xolobeni decisions bring a little more clarity. But without thorough institutional reforms, wise choices on the exploitation of mineral resources for the benefit of all South Africans will remain elusive.

The South African government should follow international best practice. It should require the disclosure of beneficial ownership in mining (and gas) companies. And it should crack down on the involvement of politically exposed persons, including traditional authorities, in mining deals.The Conversation

Tracy-Lynn Field, Professor of environmental and sustainability law , University of the Witwatersrand

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in to comment.


Unfortunately for the left wing, the days of “the world needs our minerals” are over for South Africa forever. There are plenty of heavy mineral sands deposits in Australia, India and New Zealand to make SA irrelevant. South Africa has decided to make a mining hostile environment. Capital is mobile and moves to greener pastures.

If anything the article highlights the shambles the ANC has wrought. In normal countries the sovereign government decide who may mine, what, where and under what conditions. This is not decided by hte community nor some ivory tower academics who like to think they exude a modicum or relevance, but don’t.

“The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act also states that mineral resources must be developed sustainably”. Another joke. Any mineral resource that is mined is a depleting asset. How can this be sustainable. Sooner or later the mineral of economic interest is gone.

“It’s also meant to ensure that holders of mining rights contribute towards the socio-economic development of the areas where they are operating”. it’s called gainful employment in a country where unemployment is north of 30 per cent.

“The minerals (zircon, ilmenite, rutile) are raw material (sic) for titanium dioxide, a white pigment used in paint, coatings, glazes, paper, and even the cosmetics industry”. Wrong. Zircon (ZrSiO4) does not contain titanium. As such it cannot be used to make titanium dioxide. It finds application is ceramics amongst other things. The giant Dubbo deposit in Australia is set to eclipse other producers of zirconium and hafnium owing to the unusual metallurgy of the deposit.

“Both decisions have been hailed as “groundbreaking”, “game-changing”, a huge victory for mining communities everywhere in the country”. Australia thanks you.

You should know by now that all of this is by design. They don’t want the world to deplete the rest of their resources. They don’t want a mining industry that empowers a few and leave many behind. The AFTA will solve all of this in due time. If a policy hurts folks that look like you, you start to scream, well scream loudly because the future isn’t that bright for WMC. I thought you know this by now. The fix is in.

What the land grabs have done for Zim, the Mining Charter did for SA.

Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Southern Africa when competent managers used their skill to maximise profit from the combination of good soil and rainfall to employ people and to feed the nation. The nationalisation of land put an abrupt end to this process. The soil, rainfall and labour are still there, but the managers were forced off the land. The people are starving.

South Africa was the mining powerhouse of Africa and the world. The Mining Charter grabbed the minerals from the rightful owners and chased the skilled managers offshore. The minerals, labour and technology are still available, but managers have better opportunities in Australia. The people are starving.

If famine does not arrive by itself, then the collectivist mindset in Africa invites it through socialist policies. This is how, through the combination of stupid greed, ignorance and good intention, they plod along on the road to hell.

Sensei, your assumptions are based on racism and stupidity. You are a pessimist and cynical in your approach concerning these issues. It only hurts people like you so you go after the integrity of Africans and speak those outdated talking points about how uneducated Africans are. Your comment is full of biases and emotional diatribe. Very soon Africans will trade with one another on a scale that this world has never seen before. Then, we will fully develop our own nation’s economy and resources.

I pray that you are right. I will even support you financially if you can work this miracle that you promised. I am not racist or biased. I merely state facts that have been proven many times over. Your dream is just that. An unsubstantiated wish, dream, ideal and pie in the sky. Ignorance about economic realities kills people in Africa

End of comments.



Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company: