You are being redirected to the story the piece of content is found in so you can read it in context. Please click the following link if you are not automatically redirected within a couple seconds:

So. Africa: Civil society calls on Minerals Act amendments to recognise land rights of local communities

Author: Sarah Smit, Mail & Guardian (South Africa), Published on: 18 February 2020

‘Changes to mining Act need work’ 7 February 2020

Years of fighting by South African mining communities have shaped the changes to the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act. But civic organisations say the recently released amendments need some work if these communities are to finally be heard. In his speech to delegates at the 26th annual Mining Indaba in Cape Town this week, Mineral Resources Minister Gwede Mantashe said that mining companies “must take seriously the communities on whose land they mine”.

The subject of community land rights has been a mainstay of Mantashe’s time as minister, as his department inched closer towards finalising the draft amendments to the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act. The Act — which came into force in 2004 and vests all mineral rights in the state — governs who gets to mine. But in recent years litigation has exposed how the Act, in its initial form, has failed to address the tension between land rights and the rights of companies to mine that land.

In two court battles — over the informal land rights of the Bakgatla community in the North West and a community in Xolobeni in the Eastern Cape — judges found that the Act does not trump the rights of communities to decide what should happen to their land…For instance, in its submission on the amendments, Corruption Watch notes that the definition for meaningful consultation merely requires “good faith” on the part of the applicant. “While this requires the applicant to go further than mere notification of the affected and interested parties, the reality is that the guidelines have similar requirements, which has led to the limitation of participation rights of community members,” the submission reads. In its submission, The Centre for Applied Legal Studies takes issue with the phrasing of the requirements for initial consultation with interested parties.

Read the full post here