The investigation initiated by the South African Human Rights Commission (“SAHRC”) at the end of March 2008 was intended to focus on the broad human rights context surrounding the resettlement process undertaken by Anglo Platinum’s Potgietersrust Platinums Limited (“PPL”) Mine near Mokopane, Limpopo. The basis for further investigation was informed in part by the ActionAid report entitled Precious metals; The impact of Anglo Platinum on poor communities in Limpopo, South Africa which was launched at Human Rights House in March 2008. In its search for clarity the SAHRC engaged with a broad range of stakeholders to better understand the key relationships and interplay between PPL and the affected communities surrounding this mine in Limpopo. The role of the SAHRC in this context has been to conduct its own investigations, formulate observations, and from this assert progressive recommendations to overcome what has been seen as an impasse between certain communities and PPL in undertaking its resettlement programme.

There is a view among some stakeholders that the majority of community members identified for relocation have successfully relocated and this must be acknowledged in the context of the following analysis. However, it is necessary to emphasise that physical relocation in itself is not a barometer for determining the success of the relocation of a community, but merely one factor. Consequently, one of the SAHRC’s primary objectives in this investigation has been to identify and reduce vulnerability. From this preliminary analysis key vulnerabilities exist both within communities resisting relocation, but in many ways more acutely within communities not included as part of the relocation process but affected by the operation of the PPL and located within the surrounding area.

The overriding challenge that the SAHRC has recognised during this investigation is the almost total disintegration of trust in the relocation process. This is a product of a dislocation between many community members and the multi stakeholder institutions undertaking the relocation including the Section 21 (“s21”) companies, the Mapela Tribal Authority (“MTA”), the Mogalakwena Municipality (“the Municipality”) and PPL as a result of a perceived lack of agency among affected communities to either challenge the resettlement, provide input on its planning, affect its progress or lodge complaints against its process. This dislocation has created a perception in some elements of the community that organisations set up to consult and seek consent, and to deliver community concerns to the relocation sponsors are not working on behalf of the community, but on behalf of PPL, the relocation project sponsors. This dislocation is evident not just through community testimonial, but through visible and structural divisions which have developed within the communities, but most clearly through members of the communities refusing to relocate. Whether or not this perception is based on fact becomes almost irrelevant. In the eyes of those resisting relocation and others within affected communities it has become the reality upon which decisions are made, and action is taken. Such perceptions will not be altered and lost trust will not be regained by producing documentation of past processes, or through refuting claims upon which this perception is based. The fundamental observation made by the SAHRC is the need for 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. The current impasse can only be breached and trust regained through meaningful, open and multi stakeholder engagement. The SAHRC makes both general and specific multi stakeholder recommendations in this regard. These recommendations go beyond engagement and towards active participation by communities.

Resettlement projects necessitate the collaboration of a wide range of stakeholders to both manage the process, and to undertake technically specific tasks such as construction and town planning. While the technical capabilities of some contractors to undertake their specific task has been overtly demonstrated through the documentation, particularly those project managers, architects and environmental experts, the technical capabilities and capacity of other stakeholders to undertake their specific tasks has been far less obvious, in particular the capacity of s21 companies to undertake community consultation and the Mogalakwena Municipality to provide the services agreed to in the Service Level Agreements to the relocated communities. These stakeholders were designed into the relocation process at the point at which the process was being planned. However, assessment does not appear to have been undertaken at this point to gauge the capacity of these stakeholders to fulfil their key functions. As a result capacity shortfalls were not identified until the process was underway and the dislocation identified above had already begun. Such capacity shortfalls amongst these stakeholders to fulfil various functions in the relocation therefore had and still has the potential to undermine the process and inhibit PPL from achieving the key principle of relocation - that having made attempts to avoid or minimise relocation, relocated communities should be left with the same if not with an improved quality of life and livelihood.

Project sponsors must invariably delegate out key processes of the relocation processes to contractors and community institutions. However, it seems that during the relocation process, PPL also successfully delegated responsibility for various processes as well. Although PPL retained the role of project management and thereby remained engaged with the relocation process, various relationships were developed by which legal responsibility for many issues relating to the community consent and consultation were delegated out through the creation of s21 companies. By delegating legal responsibility for these processes PPL also effectively delegated accountability as project managers for the success of aspects of a relocation process necessitated by their own mining activities.

The disintegration of trust amongst affected communities was initiated and exacerbated through a perception that grievances raised within the community were not being addressed. Without an effective grievance mechanism perceptions are created that community concerns are of little value thus effectively dislocating communities being resettled from the resettlement process. The community has a variety of mediums through which it is able to air grievances, including submissions to the Mapela Tribal Authority, through the s21 companies, and to PPL itself, although anecdotally on an ad hoc basis. As the project sponsors and therefore as the stakeholder with greatest responsibility, PPL should have ensured that it established a grievance mechanism which created a direct link between affected individuals and the project sponsor to ensure that interests were protected. After engagement with PPL the SAHRC is still unclear as to the existence of such an instrument. In the absence of information on the institutional source, the SAHRC was compelled to make an assessment based on its own observations. Community protests, episodes of direct action, the appointment of external legal representation, and ensuing legal action, submissions to local and national media and close liaison with civil society organisations has been described as community “forum shopping”. However, it is perhaps the clearest indication that either the affected community were unable to access grievance redress through PPL or that there was no grievance mechanism instituted in the first place.

The perceived removal of agency amongst affected communities to determine the progress of their own resettlement appears to have translated into a mistrust of all stakeholders engaged with PPL on the relocation including the Mapela Tribal Authority. The SAHRC recognises the importance of traditional leadership structures and is therefore concerned about the divisions created by the relocation process between some affected communities and certain of their traditional leaders. The relocation has forced into the open a fragile interplay between traditional leadership structures, traditional customs of land allocation and individual rights, in particular land rights. The SAHRC is concerned that the fragile balance by which communities have existed in communion under the authority of the traditional authority has been damaged through the relocation process. Various civil society organisations are currently working to mitigate the risks posed to affected communities by the relocation. The SAHRC is concerned about the lack of acknowledgement that Anglo Platinum has granted this important work and the lack of emphasis placed upon the importance of the active involvement of civil society in working together to empower communities. A related concern is the tangible tensions which exist between civil society organisations seen to be acting on behalf of communities resisting relocation or aspects thereof and Anglo Platinum. The scope of this investigation extends beyond those communities included in the relocation process. Broadening the scope to enable a characterisation of the whole human rights context within the area of the PPL mine, surrounding communities not being relocated but nevertheless affected by the PPL mine activity have also been included. It has been observed that these communities also face dislocation from the multi stakeholder relationships being developed between PPL and the Mapela Tribal Authority, the Mogalakwena Municipality and the s21 companies. In many ways, standing outside the scope of the resettlement many of these communities are even more dislocated than those being subjected to the relocation process. The SAHRC acknowledges that PPL have undertaken a series of environmental impact assessments to gauge and mitigate the potential risks posed to local communities as a result of operational activity. However, the SAHRC is concerned that the negative impacts of the mine are not being adequately addressed in these communities. Subject to the same lack of grievance redress there is a greater risk that these communities could be hit hardest by the possible negative impacts of mining activities. It is not within the SAHRC’s capacity or mandate to conduct an in depth technical audit of Anglo Platinum’s activities in general or relocation projects in particular. However, one of the primary constructive roles of the SAHRC can be to communicate and create a bridge between the lived experiences of individuals and communities, the vocabulary of human rights and accountability, while avoiding possible interpretations of minimalistic compliance by juristic persons such as Anglo Platinum.

Issues of technical and minimalistic compliance may be raised by various stakeholders, but the facts remain: there is significant tension amongst affected communities; there is significant tension between Anglo Platinum and elements of affected communities; there is significant tension between various civil society organisations and Anglo Platinum; there is significant tension between elements of affected communities and certain traditional leadership structures, s21 companies, municipalities and the police. Most importantly, there are apparent vulnerabilities amongst affected communities which need to be addressed.

The entire report can be downloaded here.

Tags: South Africa  mining  resettlement  Mokopane  Limpopo