JOHANNESBURG (miningweekly.com) – An investigation by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) into the relocation of communities surrounding Anglo Platinum’s (Angloplat’s) Potgietersrust Platinum Limited (PPL), in the Limpopo province, found that mining operations had indeed “adversely affected” the communities.
The SAHRC released its research report on Tuesday, following an extensive investigation triggered by a report released earlier this year by nongovernmental organisation ActionAid, accusing Angloplat of human rights abuses in its relocation of communities to make way for platinum mining.
Angloplat, which initially dismissed ActionAid’s report as “distressing, one-sided and inaccurate”, struck a more conciliatory tone, welcoming the SAHRC report.
The world’s leading platinum producer acknowledged that the new study drew attention to some “potential hidden vulnerabilities of communities and residents involved in a complex, multi-year, multi-million rand relocation project”.
“In the context of this report, and what we have heard here today, the impact of the operations has adversely affected the community. That is the reality, and we must acknowledge that.
“In some cases, even well-intentioned activities have resulted in prejudice, and in other cases, well-intentioned activities have not been rolled out for the real benefit for the people. And so, from a human rights perspective, one must be able to acknowledge that and move forward,” said SAHRC chairperson Jody Kollapen.
This research and report was the first by the SAHRC into a South African corporate, given that the commission has hitherto focused its attention primarily on State abuses.
The SAHRC head for research Christine Jesseman said there was a “definite commitment” from the parent company Anglo American and Angloplat to human rights standards.
She added that the company had been open and forthcoming with information during the commission’s investigations.
The SAHRC investigated and voiced “concern” over issues including: lack of potable water; lack of adequate sanitation; lack of access to electricity; environmental pollution; insufficient agricultural land to sustain subsistence therefore threatening food security; negative perceptions over the award of compensation; limited access to education; and, potential lack of cultural sensitivity during grave relocation.
“In the report we refer to potential human rights violations or possible human rights violations. In many instances we are dealing with evolving situations. We are dealing with almost daily changes in situation, and we are also dealing with an ongoing situation, we are dealing with factually conflicting information – say for example the issue of accreditation of the testing laboratories for water,” emphasised Jesseman on the difficulty of compiling information, and on the need for proper consultation between all stakeholders.
The SAHRC aimed at formulating observations and asserting progressive recommendations to what has been seen as an “impasse between certain communities and PPL in undertaking its resettlement programme”.
RECOMENDATIONS
The commission made a number of detailed recommendations on urgent and short-term matters, namely: water; sanitation; environment, including mine blasting; electricity; grave removals; agricultural land and food security; compensation; transportation of children to school; and, the concrete batch plant.
The SAHRC also made specific recommendations on relationships between stakeholders, as well as on institutional processes including process documentation; monitoring, grievance redress; and consultation.
Overarching general recommendations from the commission were that communities should be assisted in understanding their rights and how to access them; that companies should be assisted in moving beyond a mere compliance-based approach to resettlement; and that companies should be assisted in understanding the human rights implications of their behaviour and operation within their sphere of impact.
The Commission said that it would be of great benefit if a general education programme was conducted in all affected communities in South Africa, who have been subjected to relocation, and ideally this should take place before any resettlement consultations. It was suggested that experienced specialist consultants be contracted to develop this programme, in conjunction with the SAHRC, and this could be funded by voluntary contributions from extractive industry companies operating in South Africa.
The SAHRC also recommended that a general human rights audit become standard practice for all extractive industry companies resettling communities.
It recommended that as standard practice, a general forum should be established where all mining companies, whether operating or prospecting in a relevant area are members. Municipality representatives and those from the Premier’s office, representatives from the Department of Minerals and Energy, the Department of Land Affairs, the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, the Tribal Authority, as well as members of the affected community, and the resettlement committee should also be members of this forum.
“Although not conferring broad obligations on the part of the company to promote, protect and respect the human rights of all individuals within its area of operations, the allegations directed at Angloplat should demonstrate the reputational and financial risks of not engaging with potential human rights impacts,” the report stated.
RESPONSES
Angloplat said the SAHRC had usefully pointed out areas in which its PPL mine could improve its performance on a wide range of issues, such as multi-stakeholder community consultation, more effective grievance mechanisms, and better communications with affected communities on nonfinancial benefits of relocation.
Angloplat said the report contained much useful information, which would be used as a guide. It would study the report, reflect on its analysis and observations, and determine how best to act upon its recommendations.
Furthermore, Angloplat said it had commissioned independent consultants to undertake a post-resettlement review for Motlhotlo that would start in 2009. “We recognizs that we can still do more for these communities in terms of improving post-resettlement livelihoods,” the miner noted.
The resettled community of Motlhotlo has proposed new community representative structures and these would be established in the coming year.
“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,” noted Angloplat and mentioned three specific examples.
The company also highlighted that the suggestion that it moved “beyond legal compliance” implied that it had not acted unlawfully.
“But let’s be clear: this report does not accuse Anglo Platinum of human rights violations; it only says that there is potential for social impacts to grow into human rights violations if risks are not mitigated. We fundamentally agree with that approach. If the Commission 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,” said the company.
“But even in terms of corporate practice, let’s be clear that Anglo Platinum does not cling to minimal technical legal requirements. We are fortunate to have had the resources to be able to exceed the minimum requirements on almost every count – the size of resettlement packages, provision of replacement land, investment in community infrastructure, job opportunities, and so on. And we are still not finished yet,” the company reiterated.
Meanwhile, ActionAid welcomed the SAHRC report, which it said vindicated its own investigation, and was an indictment of Angloplat.
“The report confirms the serious impacts that Angloplat is having on poor communities’ access to adequate land, water and compensation in Limpopo, and refutes the company’s claim that people have fully consented to its activities.”
ActionAid also said that the report held strong lessons for government, which it said was clearly failing in its duty to protect the interests of communities surrounding mines.
During the discussions, the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) came under much criticism. “Proposed amendments to the MPRDA would actually weaken even the limited rights to consultation and compensation that currently exist. These amendments must be dropped and new legislation drafted in the spirit of the Polokwane resolution, calling for mining to promote the sustainability and development of local communities,” ActionAid said.
|
|
