IT HAS been a rough year for the platinum mining industry in SA. At the beginning of the year, an ounce of platinum was worth $2200, but seven months later — as a result of the global financial crisis, cutbacks in vehicle manufacturing and low demand for platinum used in catalytic converters — the price of platinum has plummeted to less than R800/oz.
Like other mining companies in SA, the big platinum mines are speaking about cutting costs, closing mines, shelving new projects and, most critically, cutting its workforce.
Into this mining sector meltdown steps the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) with its first major foray into the relationship between business and human rights. Seven months ago, the commission launched an investigation into the mining operations of Anglo Platinum (Angloplat) after a small group of anti-mining campaigners claimed the mine was violating the social, economic and cultural rights of poor people living in surrounding communities.
So what did the commission conclude?
Shockingly, the commission’s report, released on November 4, did not give a straight answer to a simple question. Instead, it talks about “social and environmental issues surrounding the operation of the mine may lead to potential human rights violations” and “potential human rights impacts”. Nowhere does the report state whether violations took place or who committed them.
The commission’s seven-month investigation turned up nothing but a few esoteric recommendations about establishing complaints mechanisms, talking to belligerent nongovernmental organisations and moving beyond legal compliance.
That didn’t stop commission officials from hinting at impropriety at the launch of the report and in subsequent media interviews. “There were definitely human rights violations. The question is, who is responsible?” commission chairman Jody Kollapen told Business Day (SAHRC sees rights violations in Angloplat relocation, November 5). At the launch, the report’s author, Christine Jesseman, told a journalist from Engineering News that the mine was responsible for human rights violations in the process of relocating graves at Sekuruwe. Aren’t these the very claims the commission was supposed to investigate in the first place? And if it didn’t turn up evidence of violations during its investigation, what business does the commission have brandishing these unsubstantiated claims to journalists?
With such mixed messages coming out of the commission, no wonder journalists got the story badly wrong. “SAHRC sees rights violations in Angloplat relocation” said the headline in Business Day. The SABC chimed in with its own version of the report , claiming “Anglo Platinum guilty of human rights violations: HRC”. The problem with these stories is simply that they are wrong. The commission never made such findings.
Human rights violations are very serious offences. Investigating human rights violations requires careful methodology, research and interrogation of facts. As a former human rights commissioner, it is clear to me from reading this report that such a duty of care was not exercised in this investigation. And far be it from me to defend a powerful mining company. But as my granny would say: “Wat reg is is reg.” (“What’s right is right.”)
There are huge lacunae in the commission’s collection of facts. Let me cite one example: the commission failed to mention that more than 1600 households have voluntarily moved to new settlements to make way for mining operations — compared with fewer than 100 households (6%) that are refusing to move and are holding out for more compensation. In fact, the commission did not interview a single person from the majority of residents who have voluntarily relocated. “No such persons came forward,” it says on page 85 of the report.
In fact, the commission did not ask anyone whether they were satisfied with the resettlement package offered by the mine, which 96% of residents have accepted — a package which, according to Angloplat executive head of corporate affairs Mary-Jane Morifi, is equivalent to more than R830649 per household in one village, Mothlotlo, alone. The relocation costs to the mining company — totalling more than R1bn over the past six years and still counting — includes the construction of new homes for 1600 households, cash payments of R20000 per household, replacement of agricultural lands with twice as much land, investments in community development for schools and a clinic, and continuing royalties from mining that are paid into a community trust. That is huge per capita expenditure in poor household budgets and communities where unemployment hovers at nearly 50%.
And these are not even once-off capital investments. Angloplat has agreed to pay the Mapela Development Trust 0,75% of on-mine cash costs — or about R5m per village per year — to each of the 27 villages surrounding the PPL mine for as long as the mine operates. That’s an investment of R135m a year, which the Mapela Trust is free to spend on socioeconomic development projects.
Why would the commission fail to report these benefits? Because mention of the mine’s huge social and economic investment would undercut its argument that companies violate human rights and need to be held accountable. Forget about the fact that it found no evidence of violations in this instance. It would have been heretical for the commission to report that Angloplat was actually helping people in poor rural communities progressively realise their constitutional rights to access housing, land, water, education and basic services at a scale and rate that exceeds the government’s own investments. But this report was not about giving Angloplat credit for the progressive realisation of social and economic rights. That story line would have been too balanced.
The commission selectively chose to listen to a small group of disgruntled individuals to form the basis of its report — instead of a meaningful dialogue with the company under investigation; instead of talking to any of the more than 1600 households who have successfully relocated; instead of compelling government departments to provide answers to questions about legal responsibilities for enforcing rights; and instead of compelling answers from the leadership of section 21 companies and the tribal authorities on their involvement in allocating and managing funds for community development.
Section 181 of the constitution says institutions such as the commission should be impartial. The commission has failed that test. By disregarding the constitutional imperative for impartiality, it has done an enormous disservice, not only to a leading company such as Angloplat, but to the broader human rights movement whose credibility depends upon evidence-based advocacy.
The cherry on top surely must be the report’s recommendation that miners should contribute to a human rights education programme run by — guess who? — the commission. Somebody at the commission should read more carefully section 4 of the Human Rights Commission Act, which prevents investigators from holding pecuniary or other interests that might preclude them from exercising their powers, duties and functions in a fair, unbiased and proper manner. To put it bluntly, if you take money from a mining company, you set yourself up for a potential conflict of interest. This appears to be a crass attempt to extort money out of mining.
In this economic climate — on the brink of mine closures, cost-cutting and job losses — companies such as Angloplat are taking a hard look at their huge contributions to the social and economic development of communities in the country’s poorest provinces. The commission’s report makes it that much harder to justify these costs, and that much harder to nurture good corporate citizenship where it already exists.
