Mining Corporations, Democratic Meddling, and Environmental Justice in South Africa

Abstract

During Apartheid, the mining industry operated without restraint and compromised the ecology, the health of mining workers, and local communities. The lines between the mining industry and government was often unclear with the former influencing government decisions to favour uncontrolled operations. Although new post-Apartheid regulations were designed to control negative mining impacts, the mining industry and the state still have a close relationship. Limited academic research has empirically examined how mining corporations influence democracy in South Africa. Through empirical investigation focusing on Dullstroom, Mpumalanga and St. Lucia, KwaZulu-Natal, this paper examines how mining corporations, directly and indirectly, influence democratic processes at the macro state and micro community levels. At the macro level, this includes examining mining companies influencing government decision-making and enforcement to hold mines accountable for non-compliance. At the micro level, the paper examines mining companies influencing democratic processes at the local community level to get mining developments approved. Findings reveal that political connections between the mining industry and government, including collusion between mining corporations and local community leadership, have influenced mining approval and development, whilst excluding local communities from decision-making processes. Industrial manipulation has also influenced government in holding corporations accountable. This has contributed towards not fully addressing citizen concerns over mining development. Democracy in post-Apartheid South Africa, especially for mining development is, therefore, understood in the narrow sense and exposures the realities of the ruling party embracing capitalism. Despite challenges, civil society may provide the avenue for upholding democratic values to counter mining domination and for an enabling political settlement environment.

Compliance to Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations by a Gold Mining Company in Zaka District, Zimbabwe - A Travesty or Tribute to Environmental Democracy and Justice

“…Furthermore, actions by traditional leaders to force locals to conduct appeasement ceremonies despite registering displeasure with the way EIA public consultation was done was not only a betrayal of their subordinates but also the 'living dead' who had bestowed them custodianship and trusteeship over local resources. Edifying this observation, Leonard (2018) reports the existence of political connections between the mining industry and government, including collusion between mining corporations and local community leadership in Dullstroom, Mpumalanga and St. Lucia, KwaZulu-Natal to influence mining approval whilst excluding local communities from decision-making processes.…”

“…EMA was the first port of call when local's feels aggrieved with EIA processes but in this case, it was sapping on its constitutional obligations of protecting locals' environmental rights by siding with the proponent. Building on this observation, Leonard (2018) observes that from apartheid into post-apartheid South Africa, the lines between mining industry and government have remained blurred as the two still have a close relationship making the former to operate without restraint but at the expense of environment and communities' interests. Though EMA was legally mandated to protect the environment and communities' environmental rights, it was highly sympathetic to the proponent.…”

“…Mining is one of the extractive sectors obliged by South African laws to conduct EIA but public participation in the process is limited due lack of information on their rights, laws that governs mining as well as information on institutions of appeal (Centre for Environmental Rights (CER 2009)). Building on this observation, Leonard (2018) report cases of tripartite collusion in South Africa between mining companies and the state and/or local community leaders in Dullstroom, Mpumalanga and St. Lucia, KwaZulu-Natal areas where the government offered mining licenses to mining companies without having conducted proper public participation processes or sharing relevant information with the general public. Kabir and Momtaz (2011) further observes that the proponents of Meghnaghat Power Project of Bangladesh did not involve locals in all stages of the EIA process citing that the activities for the project were too technical to be understandable by the rural community.…”

“…Feyissa further reports that in other countries, EIA proponents should organize forums where the public can review final EIA reports and scrutinize decisions made while the federal government of Ethiopia obligates local administrators to work with proponents to identify and consult only a few representatives drawn from selected kebeles. In South Africa's Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal mining areas, mining companies colluded with the state and local leaders to support EIA process and approve mining applications in their favor while elbowing out poor communities (Leonard 2018). Although South Africa's mining legislation prescribes a number of opportunities for the affected communities' involvement during EIA processes, mining companies often try to combine all of these into one consultation process as they try to avoid engaging the poor communities (CER 2009).…”

“…Murombo (2016) argues that the natural resources sector especially the mining sector has been a site of lack of transparency and accountability, not only in Zimbabwe, but also in other resource rich countries. Despite this status quo, Leonard (2018) observes that there is limited academic research that has been done to empirically examine the influence of mining corporations on environmental democracy through EIA processes at micro/community levels in South Africa and beyond. It is against this background that this paper seeks to examine the perception of a local community on the extent to which a gold mining company in Zaka District mainstreamed environmental democracy and procedural environmental justice during EIA processes.…”