Academic literature on the topic 'Xolobeni'

The South African customary land tenure system is currently administered in terms of the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act 31 of 1996 (IPILRA). As the name suggests, this is a temporary measure to protect vulnerable customary land rights while awaiting permanent communal land tenure legislation. In terms of section 2(1) of the IPILRA, no person may be deprived of any informal right to land without his or her consent. This provision is subject to subsection (4) of the IPILRA, the Expropriation Act 63 of 1975 or any other law that provides for the expropriation of land rights. Accordingly, section 2(4) states that no one may be deprived of his or her informal rights in land unless it is through the Expropriation Act, any valid land expropriation legislation or through custom that is endorsed by a majority of the community members. Nevertheless, the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) and the mineral right applicants habitually contravene this consent provision by not including the beneficiaries of the IPILRA in the mineral right application process. The DMR awards licences without the communities' consent because the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA) authorises it to act as the custodian of mineral resources on behalf of all South Africans. When an application for mineral rights is received, it is the DMR's duty as a custodian to ensure that all the requirements of the MPRDA have been complied with. These levels of engagement, consent under the IPILRA and consultation in terms of the MPRDA, form the basis of the analysis of the decision of Baleni v Minister of Mineral Resources. Although the court decided that the acceptable level of engagement is consent in terms of the IPILRA, this article argues that consultation and consent are not mutually exclusive, and hence require reading the two pieces of legislation together.

This study investigates the exclusion of rural communities from the postcolonial South African nation state as a result of the neoliberal agenda of the democratic government. This is a qualitative study that was conducted using a desktop analysis of literature and information on the case of the rural Xolobeni community and their resistance to mining. The secondary sources analysed included books, journal articles, news articles and online court documents. The study was also guided by the postcolonial concepts of the nation state and neoliberalism, which have both contributed to the conceptualisation of citizenship in the postcolonial world. The study found that economic growth-centred development in South Africa is often at the expense of those living in the poor communities of the country, such as in the rural areas (Capps & Mnwana, 2015; Kunnie, 2000). Rural communities, such as the former Bantustans, are often stripped of their land rights and livelihood strategies without their consent, at the hands of the democratic government of South Africa under the guise of development. This study argues that this is an injustice that results in the exclusion of rural communities from the postcolonial nation state. This exclusion is not only undemocratic – it resembles the oppression of these communities that characterised apartheid in South Africa.

This research explored the nature of conflict that arose in Xolobeni, a small area in the Mbizana Local Municipality in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa, and the environmental politics emanating from the arguments that supported development rather than environmental protection. The proposed mining project was known as the Xolobeni mining development project within the Amadiba Tribal Authority, an area dominated by Pondos or (Mpondos). The Xolobeni area is located between the Mzamba and Mtentu Rivers, covering some 2 867 hectares, and extends for 20km along the coast of the Mbizana Local Municipality, in the Alfred Nzo District Municipality. In 2005, the Minister of the National Department of Minerals and Energy (DME), now known as the Department of Minerals and Petroleum Resources, announced that an Australian company, Transworld Energy and Minerals (TEM) will establish a mining development project in Xolobeni to mine red sand dunes which are contained within five blocks, each named after the river at its southern boundary. These blocks were Mtentu, Sikombe, Kwanyana, Mnyameni and Mphalane. According to the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (Act 28 of 2002), the Department of Minerals and Energy is the sole custodian of the mining licence and therefore the only Department that issues mining licences. The research investigated the nature of conflict that erupted in Xolobeni after this announcement, resulting in the formation of two groups namely, the Amadiba Crisis Committee (ACC) which represented the communities who were against the mining project in the area and the Xolobeni Local Community (Xolco) which was a Black Economic Empowerment company that represented the communities that supported the mining project and was to receive 26 percent of the proceeds from the mining company. The purpose of the Amadiba Crisis Committee was to channel complaints and grievances of local residents emanating from the mining development project and other development to all relevant authorities so that the Constitutional rights of residents can be respected. The research also investigated the role of each stakeholder in the proposed mining project, namely, local communities in the area, environmentalists, councillors, the National Department of Minerals and Energy, the National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, the Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs (DEDEA), the traditional authority and the Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature Portfolio Committee on Economic Development and Environmental Affairs. Central to this research was the level of consultation during the proposed mining project. Qualitative and quantitative research methodologies were used to collect data in Xolobeni. Interviews were conducted with the two opposing groups and other various stakeholders including the chieftaincy, environmentalists, councillors and officials in the Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs (DEDEA). The researcher used questionnaires in order to get the views of the targeted participants. Eighty questionnaires were distributed among the targeted participants but only forty five were returned. Some of the participants were reluctant to participate in this study because the mining project had not taken place. Secondary data from the Departments of Environment of Affairs nationally and provincially revealed that the Department of Minerals and Energy through its Minister, Bulelwa Sonjica, awarded the mining licence despite recommendations of both Departments not to do so. The Minister of the new Department of Mineral Resources, Susan Shabangu, withdrew the licence and gave three months to Transworld Energy and Minerals to address the outstanding issues raised in the environmental impact assessment (EIA). The data collected revealed that the proposed mining project affected all communities in the Amadiba Tribal Administrative area. The research also illustrated how the Xolobeni community organised themselves and protested against development that intended to force them to relocate from their ancestral land without proper consultation. Issues of sustainable development and environmental protection also formed part of the discussions in this research. While the mining project had stalled, it emerged that the majority of respondents in the area did not want the mining project to proceed.

A longstanding trend in development studies literature has emerged that emphasizes the importance of addressing issues of power in all facets of development, including in the planning and design of development interventions. While top-down planning reinforces the view of the poor as impotent, powerless actors whose well-being is dependent upon the actions of others through concentration of decision-making power in the hands of those who take on the role of trustees, popular participation in planning empowers the poor by viewing the poor as competent, rational actors who are better suited to improve their own lives than any external expert. This research report analyzes the power dynamics involved in an attempt by an Australian mining company (Mineral Commodities Ltd) and the South African government to implement a mining project in the Xolobeni area of the Wild Coast of South Africa. The issue of popular participation has always been a large part of the debate of whether to approve the mining license. Opponents of the project claim that the process discouraged and even prevented local participation, while supporters claim variously that either sufficient local participation did take place or that local participation was unimportant because the project would improve the lives of local residents regardless of how much participation took place. This report aims to analyze the power dynamics that came into play throughout the long fight over the proposed mine and draw out whatever lessons can be learned regarding South Africa’s development process.
Thesis (M.Dev.Studies)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2011.

This research report analyses the social dynamics involved in a proposed project to mine the sand dunes along a 22km stretch of the Wild Coast for titanium products, named the Xolobeni Heavy Minerals Sands Project. The proposal has been presented by a small Australian mining company, Mineral Commodities (MRC), and its local subsidiary, Transworld Energy and Minerals Resources (TEM), and would directly impact an area of the Wild Coast known as Mgungundlovu, situated in the Amadiba Tribal Administrative Area. It has become a highly contested process, with the affected communities ultimately rejecting the proposal. The report aims to analyse these social dynamics through the frame of ‘development’ and its relation to environmental protection. It argues that participation is central in ‘development’ and that in this case study, such participation is crucial in highlighting the centrality of subsistence livelihoods, based on local natural resources, to the people of Mgungundlovu. That is, ‘development’ options should be based on the recognition of the importance of local livelihoods in this instance, and not on their destruction for ‘development’ to occur. The report begins with a discussion of the notion of ‘development’ and adopts a critical view of it that acknowledges its socially, historically, and discursively constructed nature. It also adopts a skeptical view of ‘sustainable development’, which largely fails to analyse power relations and social inequality. It therefore proposes the discourse of environmental justice as a more suitable alternative to analysing the relationship between power, participation and ‘development’. The report presents two case studies in order to provide a comparison with the case of Xolobeni, and it then describes the local social context. Given this context, it then moves on to analyse the extent to which the environmental management regime in South Africa allowed for participation by the affected communities. Following this, it analyses the roles played by the various social actors in terms of participation, power, environment and ‘development’. The research finds that participation in ‘development’ by the affected communities was minimal, and that the process was instead driven by particular interests and broader discourses of the relation between environmental protection and ‘development’ that position the environment in opposition to ‘development’ and prioritise economic growth over the local social, cultural and environmental context. The degree of control exercised by the affected residents over the dynamics surrounding the proposed mining have therefore been minimal, and have instead been driven by institutions of the market and state, disconnected from local needs. This in turn highlights the role of power in ‘development’.