Third charter must cast its net wide to incorporate mining communities

At an industry gathering in February, I was asked why it is so hard to simply do away with the Mining Charter and come up with something new, since the current one had become the product of a poisoned chalice. However, discarding the charter, scrapping it entirely, is not an option. It would give the impression that the issues raised by it are not worth resolving.

Poisoned chalice or not, doing away with the charter might give some who oppose transformation the impression that they’ve won. The decision by the Department of Mineral Resources to use the current charter as the basis for further engagement is therefore a sensible, necessary way of establishing authority on the part of minister Gwede Mantashe.

You would have noticed the changed mood in SA’s mining industry since the new dawn of President Cyril Ramaphosa. He committed the government and the social partners to urgently solve the Mining Charter crisis and kick-started the process by appointing a new political principal, to the delight of the industry.

While the mood may be warmer and smiles no longer conspicuous by their absence at the negotiating table, the mining communities’ unhappiness is a real concern that could lead to more frowns in future

Tellingly, by not challenging the high court ruling on the once empowered, always empowered principle the regulator (that is the department) seems to have won over any remaining sceptics from the business side.

However, in the euphoria of what is now a more cordial period of engagements about the charter and broader policy of the industry, we would be remiss if we think the stormy process that led to the third Mining Charter is over. There is still murmuring by those who have been adversely affected by decisions taken at the business and political level of mining in the past — and rightfully so. Mining communities in particular accuse the government of ignoring them and shutting them out of the consultative process.

The department has responded by publicly communicating its engagement efforts with various communities. But these do not go far enough, and while organised labour is part of the consultations it is not represented in its entirety — the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (Amcu) is absent, for instance.

While the mood may be warmer and smiles no longer conspicuous by their absence at the negotiating table, the mining communities’ unhappiness is a real concern that could lead to more frowns in future. There has been an increase in incidents of social unrest around mines, including the recent tragic bus attack, illustrating the frustration and anger of many in mine-hosting communities. The reality is that mining in their areas often does not translate to jobs or improved conditions for them.

In all this, in the ongoing disagreements about the third iteration of the Mining Charter — and there are many in addition to the once empowered, always empowered issue — I am reminded how difficult it is to expunge the past, more so if parties involved insist on looking forward without considering what brought us to the present. Policy makers and their political principals must consider the legacy of past policy, especially the economic and social impact this had on the lives of ordinary South Africans.

How mining shaped this country will continue to be the subject of academic discourse because it was fundamental to the way SA developed its economy and society. Apartheid and mining laid the foundation of this country’s economy, exploiting people through the migrant labour system and brutalising black workers so badly that the scars are engraved in our memories, especially those of present day mine workers.

You may be reading this thinking "here we go again", but the reality is that mining in SA has a legacy that cannot simply be wished away. A great part of the broader transformation project has been to redress past injustice in an attempt to allow present day SA to consider the future without getting bogged down by the past. The mining sector has tried to do the same, but its efforts have been dogged by what many perceive as a reluctance to embrace government policies that are aimed at transformation.

The policy uncertainty that has been a feature of the mining industry since 2007 will come to an end not so much because government policy will improve — though the indications are that it will — but because the dominance of politics over economic reality will no longer hold, and that means facing up to the past.

SA’s policy makers will have to make some very tough decisions, but we cannot afford to rush the completion of the third Mining Charter merely because the markets, investors and mining industry are putting pressure on the state. For the first time since the first Mining Charter, proper consideration must be given to the future involvement of mine-hosting communities, small-scale miners and workers. The latter is only possible if the government girds its loins and tells big business that we are going to do this right this time, and it may take a while.

In all of this the greater risk lies in the nature of leadership within the mining social partnership. Business has often bemoaned the calibre of the individuals deployed by the governing party to head the mining ministry, while labour has often accused the government of being timid, incapable of transforming the industry and pandering to business needs. It also derides the industry for its unwillingness to change how it treats its workers.

What is the way out for the mining social partners? Given the lost time of the past 10 years and the broken relationship this caused, the main aim must be to go beyond damage control

These dimensions — the politics, the mistrust and fixing mining policy — will require a leadership that is determined to revive SA’s mining without neglecting the need to address its legacy, and somehow find a way to make it attractive to investors again.

It is not an easy task. Like most South African problems, the industry’s challenges and inadequacies are structural and can’t be fixed merely by having good leadership. Anyone with an interest in the finalisation of the charter and mining policy knows that it will be hard to gloss over the obvious fact: that our policy is in shambles and has been tainted by pettiness and petulance from all involved. We need to accept that the damage goes beyond individual leaders in the government or those with the dominant voices on the business and labour side of mining.

Even today, with the improved atmosphere, there are those who still see things as us versus them instead of taking a common vision approach for the greater long-term benefit of SA.

What is the way out for the mining social partners? Given the lost time of the past 10 years and the broken relationship this caused, the main aim must be to go beyond damage control. First, it must be about a charter that will bring meaningful transformation in the mining sector across the board, not just at the corporate level. It must be about linking investment to social labour plans and local government community development programmes in a sustainable manner.

Second, Mantashe should include mine-hosting communities (not just their leaders or communities that can afford representation through lawyers) and Amcu early on in the consultative process. While not all that they have to say will be agreeable to other stakeholders, including them is the only way to address their concerns early on and can prevent future unrest.

Finally, to begin what can be regarded as meaningful steps to redress the mining industry’s horrible legacy and rebuild trust, mining companies should focus on improving the social conditions of their employees and work with local governments to establish economic hubs that will survive when the mining activities stop.

Mining played a huge part in shaping SA’s economy and can continue to do so in future if the right path is taken now. It has historical inscriptions and injustices that still need to be resolved, legacies that require a sincere effort to address. These legacies come with emotions that are at times not rational but cannot be dismissed.

If SA is to thrive, future historians will need to see the third Mining Charter as a document that not only provided policy certainty and encouraged investment, but also addressed history’s injustices.

• Molopyane is a consultant in the mining industry.