Maravi

(HERALD) Indigenisation: Guaranteeing socio-economic rights of locals

Indigenisation: Guaranteeing socio-economic rights of locals
Tuesday, 11 October 2011 00:00

Given the criticisms being made against indigenisation is it not time that we heard from the intended beneficiaries, in this case the local communities whose lands are endowed with natural resources.

Would local communities share the same sentiments as those who have wished away indigenisation, calling it a partisan and corrupt endeavour to benefit and enrich a politically connected few?

Will they be as concerned for the transnational companies that seem to receive greater sympathy from Zimbabweans arguing that indigenisation has "eroded investor confidence"? Do the chiefs, old women, young men and children who continue to be economically deprived in a community endowed with mineral wealth believe that a law that offers them a 10 percent share in the wealth exploited from their natural resources has damaged their country's image?

If we asked them, would indigenous Zimbabweans within local communities across the country prefer to do away with indigenisation in the name of restoring the confidence of foreign investors who have left them no real or sustainable socio-economic guarantees, save for a school or clinic donated in the name of corporate social responsibility.

The reality is that indigenisation has renewed hopes and aspirations for real development and guarantee of socio-economic rights within our local communities.

The rest about indigenisation remains political posturing, which we must always remember is subject to the will of the majority indigenous Zimbabweans who stand to benefit from the "broad based economic empowerment" being offered by indigenisation.

The will of local communities who stand to benefit from indigenisation may well be guided by two considerations, which considerations seem to be ignored by those wishing an abrupt end to indigenisation.

Firstly, is indigenisation not a genuine "broad based economic empowerment" initiative that will guarantee indigenous Zimbabweans socio-economic prosperity and rights?

Secondly, are transnational companies so sacred as not to bear any obligation or duty towards the communities within which they exploit natural resources, a duty to ensure that such natural resources are applied to benefit socio-economic human rights?

Given the fact that human rights compliance has been the standard by which the Government of Zimbabwe has been measured we may as measure indigenisation by what implications it has on the socio-economic rights of thousands of Zimbabweans living in local communities.

We may come to find that indigenisation complies with international law's requirement that States adopt "necessary measures" which ensure the application of natural resources to benefit socio-economic rights?

The people of Mhondoro Ngezi would most likely tell you that prior to indigenisation becoming their Government's policy and endeavour, all they knew of platinum were the truck loads of earth being ferried away from holes left gaping in their lands. One can picture them, observing from drought stricken fields, with the thought of pending hunger weighing in their minds, as their natural resources were ferried away to benefit foreign investors, including even the Bafokeng community in far away South Africa.

Surrounded by the wealth of the world's second largest platinum deposits many within the Mhondoro community derived little economic benefit from such a natural resource to amount to security against socio-economic deprivation.

Zimbabwe's Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment legislation provides an opportunity for indigenous communities on whose land natural resources are exploited to obtain at least 10 percent ownership of the mining companies exploiting such resources.

Through community share ownership trusts the community, not the government or individuals within government, will benefit from its exploited natural resources. Having been economically empowered local communities will be able to determine for themselves how proceeds from their natural resources can be applied to meet their socio-economic needs, such as building schools and hospitals, providing university scholarships for their children or constructing roads, dams and irrigation schemes.

No longer do Zimbabwe's local communities, endowed with natural resources, have to wait upon the generosity of mining companies impressed upon by corporate social responsibility obligations to hand out periodic donations. Rather, their dignity restored, local communities can now determine and provide for their own needs according to their shared goals and aspirations, and in so doing secure theirs and future generations' socio-economic needs and rights.

How then can indigenisation legislation, which secures such benefits for Zimbabwean people cause "damage to the country's image".

Has Zimbabwe not embarked on measures that must be supported, even by the very United Nations, which is the primary promoter of human rights?

The United Nations' International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights directs that a state embarking on steps that apply its available resources to the benefit of socio-economic rights must receive international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical.

Should Zimbabweans themselves not be supporting the successful implementation of an indigenisation initiative that guarantees them their human rights entitlements?

On September 22, 2011, in Mhondoro Ngezi, Chief Murambwa expressed the revived hopes of his community's socio-economic fortunes. The Minister of Youth Development Indigenisation and Empowerment, Hon Kasukuwere had assured the Mhondoro Ngezi community "broad based economic empowerment" benefits to be derived from gaining a share in their vast platinum deposits being exploited by Zimplats.

The CEO of Zimplats, Mr Mhembere, went on to confirm his company's preparedness to comply with the setting up of a community share ownership trust for the people of Mhondoro Ngezi.

The people of Mhondoro may well be the greatest witness to indigenisation's true intent, one that seeks to benefit their socio-economic rights.

They have not sought to attack the messenger delivering to Zimbabweans their socio-economic entitlements. Because President Mugabe, Minister Kasukuwere and Zanu-PF are the messengers, many have preferred to vilify their message despite it echoing the people's socio-economic aspirations and pursuits.

We forget that the messenger and message of indigenisation can only be authenticated and legitimised by the custodians of Zimbabwe's wealth, the larger community of the people of Zimbabwe.

Where we to pay attention to Chief Murambwa's words we would understand that indigenisation has and is taking deep root.

Further, Chief Murambwa would assure investors that they are welcome to exploit natural resources on his land, however, only when they are willing to comply with an initiative that guarantees his people a share in the wealth of their natural resources. Such a request is far from being neither unreasonable nor unprecedented, given the renewed international expectation that business enterprises must respect the human rights obligations of countries in which they invest.

Zimbabwe has assumed the task of guaranteeing its people's socio-economic rights, best attainable when a country's available resources are applied to such ends.

Those whose sympathies have been with foreign investors, and not local communities choose to be blind to the rising expectations of the very same human rights principles they have demanded be respected in Zimbabwe.

The United Nations' Special Representative on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations has confirmed growing expectations and calls that business enterprises must respect human rights within their spheres of influence, and must not be complicit in their violation.

Foreign investors must be aware that the Government of Zimbabwe has international law obligations under Article 2 of the International Convention on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and Article 21 of the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, to ensure that the country's natural resources are applied to benefit its people's welfare and socio-economic rights?

Many transnational companies have in fact voluntarily adopted a human rights framework to their activities, which would call upon them to respond to the socio-economic needs of the local communities in which they carry out such business activities.

Corporate social responsibility is clearly no longer adequate, given its failure to adequately and sustainably guarantee the human rights of local communities.

British Petroleum's Human Rights Guidance Note acknowledges the changing expectations of local communities, regional and national governments, international observers, consumers and shareholders with respect to the role of business in realising human rights, and that given its growing business in the developing world BP must be aware of those changing expectations.

Further, the African Commission on Human and People's Rights has stated that where any investment project has a major impact within the territory of a local community there is a duty to consult with the community, and to obtain their free, prior, and informed consent, according to their customs and traditions.

Transnational companies that have retained their mining investments in Zimbabwe, namely Rio-Tinto and Anglo American, have adopted policies committing them to understanding the economic implications of their activities so as to optimise benefits and reduce negative impacts, both for the local community and for the overall economy. Instead of thinking of indigenisation as undermining investor confidence, we may well begin to view it as simply a more assertive voice calling upon transnational companies to ensure that Zimbabwe's natural resources are applied to benefit the socio-economic rights of its people.

I mentioned in the beginning that it is time we gave voice to local communities whose socio-economic rights and future is dependent on their natural resources, for us to best ascertain the extent of the allegations against indigenisation.

The people of Mhondoro Ngezi, being one such community, have embraced the intent and promise of indigenisation, anticipating the socio-economic rights that will be guaranteed once community share ownership trusts begin to realize economic benefits. They may well find it strange that indigenisation must be demonised as corrupt and benefiting only a few.

More-so, would they find such an initiative that secures them at least 10 percent share in their natural resources to be bad reflection on Zimbabwe's image.

They may as well not agreed that indigenisation undermines foreign investment, when, to the contrary, such investments become more secure and sustainable when the local communities within which they exploit natural resources enjoy socio-economic benefits guaranteed by a share in their natural resources.

l Rangu Nyamurundira is a lawyer and human rights consultant based in Harare.

Labels: INDIGENIZATION AND EMPOWERMENT ACT (ZIMBABWE)

posted by MrK @ 4:21 PM