Most rural mining-affected communities in South Africa believe they are marginalised because policies are implemented that deny them access to mineral resources on their own land, states the Land Access Movement of South Africa (Lamosa).

Lamosa coordinator Constance Mogale says that mining-affected communities in the rural areas of the country deserve to have a platform when decisions are made on amendments to Acts, such as the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) and the Restitution of Land Rights Act, as mining-affected communities do not benefit from the development that takes place, but instead suffer at the hands of development in the area.

“We have seen our government collude with businesses and the private sector on issues pertaining to mineral wealth and natural resources in the rural areas, but there is no rural voice on any of those platforms,” she notes.

She adds that what government does resort to is involving traditional leaders, such as chiefs, in some instances; however, that does not provide enough representation for the people affected by such developments in the rural areas, as some chiefs take decisions without a thorough understanding of the consequences the decision will have on communities in the area.

The National Assembly passed the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill, which aims to reopen land claims for those who missed the December 1998 cutoff date and to criminalise fraudulent land claims, in February.

However, Mogale says, although the passing of the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill seems like a positive step towards taking the rural communities into consideration, this is unlikely to happen, as the previous amendment to the Restitution of Land Rights Act was also aimed at addressing the same issue, but the problem remains.

“If you consider the last Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act of 1997, which aimed to reverse the legacy of the 1913 Natives Act, the process of the land claims in that Act was also questionable in terms of financial and human resources.

“Similarly, the MPRDA introduced the separation of mineral rights and land rights in 2002, which means that, although rural communities may have rights to their land, they do not have rights to any mineral resources found on the land. However, all the title deeds before the year 2000 stated that you own the surface rights from the bottom to the top,” she points out.

Mogale highlights that the current version of the MPRDA suggests that the rights to the natural resources and mineral wealth – despite being contained in the land owned by rural communities – could be granted to anyone who applies for it.

“This is in line with Section 23 of the MPRDA Amendment Bill and, as a result, mining-affected communities lodged a complaint based on this but the feedback was poor as [there was] no public consultation and our affected communities were not reconvened for feedback,” she explains.

Lamosa believes that it is the role of government to strengthen the voice of rural communities affected by mining, which will enable them to be active role-players in the decision-making process pertaining to their land as well as any natural and mineral resources on the land.

“We need government’s support in formalising bodies that will represent these communities so that we can be considered equal partners when it comes to policy and decision-making,” she concludes.