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

随着开采边界扩展到对社会和环境更敏感的地区，地雷与社区之间的冲突正在增加。这项研究考察了南非的一个关键案例，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-社区冲突的可能性的影响。上下文和合理性过去几十年来，发展中国家的采矿业持续扩张。采掘作业有一个“有争议和模棱两可”的发展记录(Bebbington等人，2008年)，经常带来相当大的冲突，在开采地点造成广泛的社会冲突(Bebbington等人，同上)。3国际采矿和金属理事会(ICMM)发现，2002-2013年间，矿山-社区纠纷的数量增加了八倍(ICMM，2015)。为了解决这种紧张局势和管理社会政治风险，许多矿业公司采取了企业社会责任(CSR)战略(Bebbington，2018；Bebbington等人，2008；Calvano，2007；Frederksen，2018；Kemp，2011)；其中许多与国际金融公司(IFC)、国际货币基金组织和联合国(UN)等组织提出的国际标准保持一致。这些标准建议企业采用参与式和“协作式”流程(联合国，同上：32)。尽管这是朝着正确方向迈出的一步，但这些模糊的、规范的声明没有认识到，矿山社区不是存在于政治真空中的同质实体。社区由具有不同利益和动机的不同群体组成(Agrawal&Gibson，1999)。在抵制或接受采矿活动方面，内部出现了分歧，特别是那些更加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采矿中受益的人之间(Conde&Le Billon，2017)。国家和跨国矿业公司之间的关系进一步塑造了解决矿山-社区冲突的方式。采掘型企业是“长期的、高风险的、昂贵的、非常资本密集型的”(Cameron&Stanley，2017：59)，希望吸引外国投资以实现其矿藏价值的国家需要为投资者提供广泛的法律、合同和财政稳定(同上；贝宾顿等人，2008；这可能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)。在南非的铂金地带，采矿作业位于一个庞大的宿主社区，有社区内部争执的历史。这是一个充斥着公司-社区冲突的地区：2016-2018年间，南非白金地带东部发生了400多起社会动荡事件(斯托达德，2018)。持续的社区起义表明，人们普遍认为不公正盛行。正义在公司-社区冲突解决背景下的含义吸引了研究兴趣(Hamann&Kapelus，2004；Kemp等人，2011；Leonard，2020；Whiteman，2009)。权力对司法的影响一直是和平与冲突文学中的一个共同主题，但在CSR理论中基本上没有这种方法(Kemp等人。2011：98)。怀特曼(同上)侧重于三种形式的正义：分配正义、程序正义和互动正义。在这种情况下，分配正义指的是“实现的目的”(Kemp等人。同上，程序公正是指作出决定的正式程序；互动公正是指公司与社区代表之间的非正式日常互动(怀特曼，同上)。

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).