Draft only please do not cite or distribute without author’s permission

Analysis

The brief discussion of the four mining charters shows a certain progression in the approach to mine community empowerment. The rhetoric in favour of mine communities has certainly increased. Not only does the latest charter provide concrete examples of mine community development projects, but ownership in mine companies must also now be distributed to mine communities. As a ring fenced element, mine community development now makes up 30% of a mining company’s obligations in terms of the 2017 Mining Charter. The 2017 charter also attempts to align mine community development with other development initiatives such as the IDP and the SLP, therefore possibly promoting a more holistic approach to mine communities.

The empowerment of mining communities epitomises the broad-based focus of BBBEE. Other than in the instance of incorporating individuals into the ownership structure of a mining company, providing for the procurement of services from specific suppliers, or catering to the needs of specific employees of the mining company, the scope of the ideal of “empowering mining communities” is open ended. The scope is uncertain both regarding the nature of what should be done, and who should benefit. This problem is visible in the framework provided by the Mining Charter.

The argument forwarded in this paper is that the extent to which the provisions regarding the empowerment of mine communities have been altered over the years can be ascribed to the politics of development. The continual adjustments signify the difficulty in framing the problems faced by mining communities, but also in identifying and accurately representing communities, as the beneficiaries of development.

Plainly, the problem is framed as poverty and underdevelopment. The general rhetoric regarding mining areas confirms that poverty is the main problem.²⁰⁸ Within the empowerment context, it is acknowledged that poverty is the legacy of apartheid and in the instance of mining communities, the exploitation that accompanied mining. The purpose here is not to deny that rural areas, specifically those where mining takes place, may lack basic infrastructure and other resources. To frame the problem exclusively as poverty and underdevelopment, however, means that a specific kind of intervention is required namely the allocation or reallocation of resources.^.209

A mining company has to conceptualise “mine community” to be able to identify the beneficiary of the prescribed reallocation of resources.²¹⁰ “Mine community” is defined in an open-ended manner to reflect the effects of mining.²¹¹ A mine community, however, may also include a “community” in a narrower, more formalised sense. The definition of community in the MPRDA refers to traditional communities and has been amended a couple of times²¹² and the Mining Charter has oscillated between benefitting “communities” and “mine communities”.²¹³ Thus, it is clear that it is not that easy to draw boundaries for communities on paper.

Not only does the difficulty in conceiving “community” allow for abuse by mining companies,²¹⁴ but, also, poverty and underdevelopment cannot be contained or addressed within boundaries created by mining legislation. The 2017 Mining Charter acknowledges this by trying to align the objectives of mine community development with those of the SLP and the IDP. Consequently, whether a mining company complies with a ring-fenced element of the Mining Charter is dependent on the successful creation and implementation of the IDP, which is primarily the duty of the relevant municipality. The framing of “mine community development” thus may put a mine company in a precarious position and may also lessen the benefits received by mine communities.

Conceiving “community” or “mine community” also poses a challenge for allocating equity ownership in mine companies to communities, as prescribed by both the 2016 and 2017 Mining Charters. As indicated above, the 2016 charter possibly envisaged the distribution of equity ownership only to traditional communities, whereas the 2017 Mining Charter clearly speaks of mine communities. Symbolically, awarding (partial) ownership of a mining company to the mine community in which it is operating is significant, especially in a neoliberalist development paradigm. The difficulty in determining the extent of the mine community that must benefit from this empowerment initiative, however, may negate the significance thereof. In a context where rights and right holders must be clearly defined in order to enforce and benefit from rights, the open-endedness of “mine community” may prove difficult to manage.

5. Conclusion

The mining industry has experienced some of its worst of times²¹⁵ over the last couple of years. Recent unrest and weaker economic performance in the extractive industries²¹⁶ have caused substantial conflict between mining companies and mine communities. The “miner spring” of 2012²¹⁷ shows how mine communities still direct their anger at mining companies for representing the dark side of capitalism and the legacy of colonialism and apartheid. The apparently increased focus on mining communities in the Mining Charter can, therefore, be interpreted as an attempt to find new means of addressing the unsolved problems faced by mining communities.

Nevertheless, the current fragility of the larger South African political landscape creates a vacuum that is easily filled with populist rhetoric aimed at the poor and rural masses, of which mining communities form part – making this “the best of times”²¹⁸ for desperate revolutionary calls. The political opportunism reflected in the timing of the release of the latest charter can therefore not be ignored.

Whereas broad-based BEE was introduced to counter the creation of a black elite, the ironic result of the politics of development (and of the day) is that the empowerment of mine communities, as it is framed currently, will result in just that. The beneficiaries of mine community empowerment remain misrepresented and misconfigured, causing that only some receive the actual benefits of development. Viewed from a development perspective, the rest remain poor and underdeveloped.²¹⁹ It is therefore questionable whether there really is any progress in the way in which the latest charter approaches the empowerment of mining communities, or whether it is mere rhetoric, amounting to more of the same.

Has the moment arrived to call for post-development (or even post-empowerment) initiatives? A move out of the development/empowerment paradigm may risk losing accountability on the part of mining companies for the current state of mining communities.²²⁰ Nevertheless, the politics of development require us to take a cautious approach to mine community development and to seek ways in which these communities can indicate how they view their own situations and futures.