9 years after the Marikana tragedy, recent developments suggest that there is still an ‘us and them’ in mining-host community relationships. The former beholden to shareholders, driven by profit-making motive (adding a return on investment), the rest if at all comes secondary. On the other hand, justifiably, the community is concerned about losing their ancestral land and the environmental impact of mining activities on it. At this rate, there is fear that the post-Marikana decade could be a missed opportunity.
This year, month of August in particular, which is coincidentally Women’s Month, marks nine years since what has been termed the Marikana Massacre, a blot on South Africa’s post-1994 history. Its memory evokes the pain akin to a sharp dagga piercing a heart which is the country’s conscience. While letting bygones be bygones, it is time to ask ourselves whether we are pulling out all the stops endeavouring to forestall a repeat of the tragedy. What has been singled out as a root cause was the lack or breakdown in channels of communications between mining companies and members of the host communities. The majority of the victims at the receiving end of the ‘concomitant’ force of gun fire were from the host communities around Marikana in Rustenburg local municipality.
Have channels of communications been established or have whatever faltering communication channels that existed been revived? Are mines complying with the Mining Charter as they should with regard to their role in host communities.
Mining companies’ corporate social responsibility programmes have well-intentioned objectives that spell out efforts to be exemplary corporate citizens in spheres such as social, economic and environment. However, well-meant they may be on paper, it is in the outcomes that the conduct of mining companies is judged. Benchmarks Foundation highlighted this in 2013 press release. “As much as mining has contributed to developing the South African economy, it has also had negative social, economic and environmental consequences. All of these need to be highlighted, debated, and actions – agreed on by all stakeholders – need to be implemented to mitigate the negative consequences of this essential sector,“ the Foundation noted then.
To date, it cannot be clearly pointed whether the tragedy occasioned a sea change in the mining-host community relationship. But recent developments suggest that there is still an ‘us and them’ relationship in mining-host community relationships. The former beholden to shareholders to are driven by profit-making motive (adding a return on investment), the rest if at all comes secondary. On the other hand, justifiably, more than anything, the community is concerned about losing their ancestral land and the environmental impact of mining activities on it. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in protracted saga between the community of Xolobeni Community and an Australian mining company interested in mineral sands on their land. There is also the failure of some mining companies to institute measures to safeguard the lives of employees, which puts mining companies in bad light. This is evident in the in the unresolved accident where three miners died when due to ground failure at Lily Mine in Mpumalanga.
Civil society had expressed optimism that the appointment of Mr Gwede Mantashe, as the Minister of Mineral Resources, in 2018 would usher in a new era of better dialogue between mining companies and host communities. Benchmarks Foundation encapsulated this in a press statement, “Executive Director of Bench Marks Foundation, John Capel, says: “The new minister once worked in a mine and, as former general secretary of the ANC, must be aware of the many negative impacts and the winners and losers’ dichotomy.” However, while the Minister, as a government representative may act a broker, at the end of the day the buck stops with the mining houses themselves on compromises they would be willing to make.
Nonetheless, this has not materialised.
The Benchmark Foundation bemoaned the excesses of mining companies in their relentless drive to exploit mineral resources in communities. In a speech delivered at the 2019 Mining Indaba in Cape Town, Chairperson of the Bench Marks Foundation, Bishop Jo Seoka, African, said: “It is difficult to understand why the minister of mineral resources appears to support foreign invaders of the land to force development for short-term financial benefits instead of sustainable development for the people when they have democratic rights to choose and decide their future.”
Recent Reports indicate the people of Marikana Community, despite contributing to millions to the government’s fiscus in form of taxes and revenue to platinum mining companies, still don’t have access to basic services like health facilities and access to clean water.
Generally, the lack of progress is worrying. The aftermath of the Marikana Massacre presented an opportunity for the country, the mining houses in particular, to change how they relate to communities. However, current trend of events suggests that mining companies are not making the most of it. Mining companies go beyond pledging about their commitment through transitory PR exercises, but walking the talk through various sustainable initiatives.