Mine-community conflict resolution and justice: a case study of South Africa's platinum belt

矿山与社区冲突的解决与正义：南非铂矿带的案例研究

• 批准号: 2669195
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Manchester
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2021
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2021 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2669195
• 关键词: Mine; community; conflict; resolution; justice

As the extractive frontier expands into more socially and environmentally sensitive areas, mine-community conflict is on the rise. Examining a key case study in South Africa, this study willinvestigate the impact that relations between the state, mining companies and communities aswell as intra-community relations have on the likelihood of the just resolution of mine-communityconflict.Context and rationaleThe past few decades have seen sustained extractive sector expansion in developing countries. Extractiveoperations have a "contentious and ambiguous" (Bebbington et al., 2008) developmental record, and oftenbring considerable strife, generating widespread social conflict at sites of extraction (Bebbington et al., ibid).3The International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) found that the number of mine-community disputesrose eightfold between 2002-2013 (ICMM, 2015).To address this tension and manage socio-political risk, many mining companies have adopted corporate socialresponsibility (CSR) strategies (Bebbington, 2018; Bebbington et al., 2008; Calvano, 2007; Frederiksen, 2018;Kemp, 2011); many of which align to international standards advanced by organisations like the InternationalFinance Corporation (IFC), the ICMM and the United Nations (UN). These standards advise firms to employparticipatory and "collaborative processes" (UN, ibid:32). Although a step in the right direction, these vague,normative statements fail to recognise that mine communities are not homogenous entities existing in a politicalvacuum.Communities consist of diverse groups with diverse interests and motivations (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999). Whenit comes to resisting or accepting mining activity, internal divisions arise, notably between those moredependent on land to sustain livelihoods and those who might benefit from the mine through jobs orprocurement contracts (Conde & Le Billon, 2017). Relationships between the state and the multinationalmultinational mining companies furthermore shape how mine-community conflicts can be addressed.Extractive ventures are "long, risky, costly, and very capital-intensive" (Cameron & Stanley, 2017:59), and stateshoping to attract foreign investment to realise the value of their mineral deposits need to provide investorsextensive legal, contractual and fiscal stability (ibid; Bebbington et al., 2008; Frederiksen & Himley, 2020:58).This can render states unwilling or unable to "mediate between investors and community interests" (Szablowski,2007:45).On South Africa's platinum belt, mining operations are situated in a sprawling host-communities with a historyof intra-community contestation. It is a region rife with company-community conflict: The eastern limb of SouthAfrica's Platinum Belt has seen over 400 incidents of social unrest between 2016-2018 (Stoddard, 2018).Persistence community uprisings indicate that perceived injustices prevail.What justice means in the context of company-community conflict resolution has attracted research interest(Hamann & Kapelus, 2004; Kemp et al., 2011; Leonard, 2020; Whiteman, 2009). The effect of power on justicehas been a common theme in peace and conflict literature, but this approach has been largely missing in CSRtheory (Kemp et al. 2011:98). Whiteman (ibid) focuses on three forms of justice: distributive, procedural andinteractional. In this context, distributive justice refers to the "ends achieved" (Kemp et al. ibid:97) of a conflictresolution process, and the perceived fairness of such ends; procedural justice refers to the formal processesthrough which decisions are made; and interactional justice describes the informal, day-to-day interactionsbetween company and community representatives (Whiteman, ibid).

随着采掘边界扩展到社会和环境更加敏感的地区，矿山与社区的冲突正在加剧。通过对南非的一个关键案例研究，本研究将调查国家、矿业公司和社区之间的关系以及社区内部关系对公正解决矿山与社区冲突的可能性的影响。背景和理由过去几十年来发展中国家采掘业持续扩张。采掘作业具有“有争议且模糊的”（Bebbington 等人，2008 年）发展记录，并且经常带来相当大的冲突，在采掘地点产生广泛的社会冲突（Bebbington 等人，同上）。3 国际采矿和金属理事会 (ICMM) ）发现 2002 年至 2013 年间，矿山与社区纠纷的数量增加了八倍（ICMM，2015）。为了解决这种紧张局势并管理为了应对社会政治风险，许多矿业公司采取了企业社会责任（CSR）战略（Bebbington，2018；Bebbington 等，2008；Calvano，2007；Frederiksen，2018；Kemp，2011）；其中许多符合国际金融公司 (IFC)、ICMM 和联合国 (UN) 等组织提出的国际标准。这些标准建议公司采用参与性和“协作流程”（联合国，同上：32）。尽管朝着正确的方向迈出了一步，但这些模糊的规范性陈述未能认识到矿山社区并不是存在于政治真空中的同质实体。社区由具有不同兴趣和动机的不同群体组成（Agrawal & Gibson，1999）。当谈到抵制或接受采矿活动时，内部分歧就会出现，特别是那些更依赖土地维持生计的人和那些可能通过工作或采购合同从矿山中受益的人之间（Conde＆Le Billon，2017）。国家与跨国矿业公司之间的关系进一步影响了矿山与社区冲突的解决方式。采掘企业“时间长、风险大、成本高且资本密集型”（Cameron & Stanley，2017：59），而国家购买则是为了吸引外国投资要实现其矿藏的价值，需要为投资者提供广泛的法律、合同和财政稳定性（同上；Bebbington 等人，2008 年；Frederiksen & Himley，2020：58）。这可能会使国家不愿意或无法“在投资者和社区利益之间进行调解”（Szablowski，2007：45）。在南非的铂矿带上，采矿作业位于一个庞大的东道社区，其历史悠久社区内部的争论。这是一个充满公司与社区冲突的地区：2016 年至 2018 年间，南非白金带的东部地区发生了 400 多起社会骚乱事件（Stoddard，2018）。持续的社区起义表明，感知到的不公正现象普遍存在。正义在社会中意味着什么？公司与社区冲突解决的背景引起了研究兴趣（Hamann & Kapelus，2004；Kemp 等等，2011；伦纳德，2020；怀特曼，2009）。权力对正义的影响一直是和平与冲突文献中的一个常见主题，但这种方法在企业社会责任理论中很大程度上缺失了（Kemp et al. 2011:98）。怀特曼（同上）关注正义的三种形式：分配正义、程序正义和互动正义。在这种情况下，分配正义是指冲突解决过程中“实现的目标”（Kemp 等人，同上：97），以及这些目标的感知公平性；程序正义是指做出决定的正式程序；互动正义描述了公司和社区代表之间非正式的日常互动（Whiteman，同上）。