abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

このページは 日本語 では利用できません。English で表示されています

記事

2020年2月18日

著者:
Sarah Smit, Mail & Guardian (South Africa)

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

‘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.

タイムライン

プライバシー情報

このサイトでは、クッキーやその他のウェブストレージ技術を使用しています。お客様は、以下の方法でプライバシーに関する選択肢を設定することができます。変更は直ちに反映されます。

ウェブストレージの使用についての詳細は、当社の データ使用およびクッキーに関するポリシーをご覧ください

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

クッキーのアナリティクス

ON
OFF

When you access our website we use Google Analytics to collect information on your visit. Accepting this cookie will allow us to understand more details about your journey, and improve how we surface information. All analytics information is anonymous and we do not use it to identify you. Google provides a Google Analytics opt-out add on for all popular browsers.

Promotional cookies

ON
OFF

We share news and updates on business and human rights through third party platforms, including social media and search engines. These cookies help us to understand the performance of these promotions.

本サイトにおけるお客様のプライバシーに関する選択

このサイトでは、必要なコア機能を超えてお客様の利便性を高めるために、クッキーやその他のウェブストレージ技術を使用しています。