In a report released by the South African Human Rights Commision (SAHRC) at the beginning of November, platinum-miner Anglo Platinum’s (Angloplat’s) actions in relocating communities surrounding its Potgietersrust Platinum Limited (PPL) mine is questioned, and, following an investigation, has ultimately been deemed as “adversely affecting” those communities involved.

In its official response to the report, Angloplat states that it does not have “the track record of a company that skimps on helping poor and vulnerable people progressively realise their social and economic rights.”

Requesting credit be given where credit is due, the platinum-miner says: “In this tough economic climate, where the price of platinum has dropped by more than 57% this year alone, our company may not always be in the position to contribute R7,5-billion, as was done in 2007, towards the national treasury in taxes, or to invest huge resources, like the R289-million we spent last year, on socioeconomic development.”

The investigation was the first of its kind, as the SAHRC was required to investigate a private corporate, given that the commission hitherto focused primarily on State abuses. The investigation was triggered by a report released earlier in the year by nongovernmental organisation ActionAid, which accused Angloplat of human rights abuse in its relocation of communities so as to make way for platinum- mining.

Angloplat welcomed the SAHRC investigation, claiming that the ActionAid report was distressing, one-sided and inaccurate.

The concerns raised and subsequently investigated in both reports pertain to issues concerning the lack of clean water, lack of adequate sanitation, lack of electricity access, environmental pollution, insufficient agricultural land for community substinance, limited access to education and lack of cultural sensitivity during the relocation of graves.

SAHRC chairperson Jody Kollapen was reported in Mining Weekly as saying that, in some cases, even well-intentioned activities by the platinum-miner have resulted in prejudice, whereas in other cases, well-intentioned activities have not been rolled out for the real benefit of the people.

“In the context of this report, the impact of the operations has adversely affected the community. That is the reality and we must acknowledge that,” he said.

Angloplat has acknowledged that the SAHRC has usefully pointed out areas in which PPL mine can improve its performance on a wide range of issues, including multistakeholder community consultation, more effec- tive grievance mechanisms, and better communication with affected communities on the nonfinancial benefits of relocation.

However, the platinum- miner disagrees with the facts of a number of points raised in the report. “While we consider this report potentially important, it is also very much a work in progress. “There are some significant factual inaccuracies contained in this report that we would like to discuss in much greater detail with the SAHRC in the weeks and months to come.”

In the SAHRC report, it is said that the community at Sekuruwe is not subject to relocation, and that mine activities have led to the loss of agricultural land within the community and, therefore, led to the loss of economic livelihoods. As such these negative impacts should have been included in the livelihood restoration process instituted by PPL.

However, Angloplat says that it provided R4,2-million in a lump- sum payment as compensation to the community for ten years’ loss of livelihoods. Further, the community appointed an independent appraiser, who valued the agricultural land at R1,6-million. Angloplat agreed to pay double that amount, R3,5-million, for the land.

“This means that Angloplat has compensated the Sekuruwe community for the loss of agricultural land and livelihoods at more than R7,7-million. “Surely this is an example of Anglo Platinum exceeding minimum legal compliance and not a case of our bad corporate behaviour,” says the mining giant.

Another inaccuracy in the report, according to Angloplat, is a statement indicating that agricultural fields in the old Motlhotlo village covered a footprint of 240 ha. “When the community requested 700 ha, more than three times their original land in the old village, Angloplat purchased 700 ha of land on two farms.”

This effectively tripled the amount of agricultural land that the relocated community has access to. “In fact, Angloplat has even fertilised and cultivated this land on behalf of these relocated communities,” says the mining company.

Also called into question is the information in the report pertaining to supply of water to residual communities unwilling to relocate, including both Ga-Pila and Ga-Molekane. “The legal responsibility to provide water to these communities, by law, resides with the local municipality, not with Angloplat.

“Although we are not the official water service provider, we are acting as good neighbours by helping the Mogalakwena Municipality supply sufficient quantities of potable water to local residents and schools.”

For the residual villagers in Motlhotlo, Angloplat provides an average of 320 ℓ of water for each household every day. This is in stark contrast to the report, which states that only 19,4 ℓ of water a month for each household was being provided.

“For the record, we had repeatedly requested the opportunity to meet with the SAHRC prior to the publication of this report in order to catch these kinds of factual mistakes in advance. “But we are happy to point these out to the SAHRC in subsequent submissions and discussions.

[Angloplat] hopes that these errors can be remedied by the SAHRC before this important report is disseminated more widely, as it would be a pity if the absence of more careful fact-checking detracted from the overall message of the report,” says the company.

In the report, the SAHRC urges companies to “move beyond legal compliance and push for the development of processes and institutional structures which actually identify and manage the multitude of risks associated with resettlement”.

“Implicit in this statement in the context of this report, is that Angloplat is already legally compliant with the regulations and statutes that govern how mining companies in this country must operate and laws which are intended to protect the human rights of poor and vulnerable people. “If we are legally compliant on the one hand, then how can we be accused of human rights violations on the other?” says the platinum producer.

The use of the phrase ‘beyond legal compliance’ suggests that the report is not so much talking about human rights violations by Angloplat, but is rather about pushing the company to do more than what the law requires.

The report does not accuse Angloplat of human rights violations, but it does point out that there is potential for social impacts to grow into human rights violations if risks are not carefully mitigated and managed.

“We fundamentally agree with that approach. If the SAHRC is suggesting that the current legal framework insufficiently protects the rights of poor and vulnerable people, then we should be discussing changes in law, not just corporate practice,” concludes Angloplat.