 Before I introduce myself, I'd like to let you know that we have interpretation into French, Portuguese and Spanish. Please click on the globe icon on the lower part of your Zoom window and select the language that you would like to listen in. So with that, my name is Charlton Bayer. I'm the Land Portal Information Specialist. And we welcome you all to this webinar on the Maledu Judgment, the Power of Tenure Rights Recognition. This is the second webinar, and it is part of the Advancing Land-Based Investment Governance Line series, which focuses on the governance of land-based investments in the global south. We seek to explore practical strategies and approaches adopted by rights defenders and practitioners to address common challenges surrounding these investments. Platinum mining has rapidly expanded into communal land in South Africa, leading to tensions over land rights between traditional communities, land users, and mining companies. The Vilgespray Farm Community won a landmark victory in 2018 when the Constitutional Court ruled in their favor and confirmed that consent was needed for mining activities and for relocation. The Maledu Judgment was based on constitutional rights and laws that protect the land use of people living on communal land. However, research suggests that there is a lack of available information on traditional mechanisms of relating to communal land and that this may create challenges for those who stand to benefit from this judgment. Today we will discuss the implications of the Maledu Judgment, the importance of recognizing and protecting informal land rights as well as the positive outcomes that Tenure Security can have for mining affected communities. On a logistical note, I would like to let you know that the webinar has been streamed live on multiple platforms. Please note that live tweeting is occurring for this event from the land portal Twitter account and the hashtag we are using is hash align. We have created a social media kit for this event which has been shared with you in the chat. If you do have questions, please post them using the Q&A button at the bottom of your screen and we will answer them or endeavor to answer them later in the webinar. Also in the interest of transparency, I should add that today's session is being recorded and you will receive a link to the video afterwards. Also an article with key messages will be available later on the land portal's website. So allow me to introduce our speakers. We have a terrific panel for today. First, we have Donnie Marchejo, he's a local community member of the Leseth Lang community and has a background in housing and settlement development. We also have Louise Duplassie, a South African public interest lawyer currently heading the land and housing and property program. She is a lawyer for human rights. She specializes in land reform, housing and mining cases, and has a long history of working with indigent rural communities. She was involved in a number of landmark judgments dealing with customary law, gender rights, housing, and restitution. We also have Eric Clark, the chief executive officer of the city Bello Platinum Mines Limited and Monica de Sosa. She's the deputy director of the Land and Accountability Research Center at University of Cape Town and has activities within the LARC's traditional governance stream. So let me just hand over to our panelists very quickly just to say a quick hi to our audience. I'll start with you Donnie. Hi, my name is Donnie Marchejo as indicated by the facilitator. Thank you. Louise would you like to say something quickly? Yes, good afternoon. I'm very glad everyone could join us. Thanks for that. Eric. Hi everyone, my name is Eric Clark. It's a pleasure to be here. Hi everyone. I'm Monica. Thanks for having me. And I'm really looking forward to hearing perspectives from around the globe as I see everyone is letting us know where they're from in the chat. Thank you for that Monica. So please give us an indication of where you're from in the chat and introduce yourselves in the chat. I think it's also a good opportunity to get to know other colleagues that are online. So please jump right into it. I want to give the floor to Louise to provide some context of the malady judgment and Louise could you also provide us with a brief history of what led to this judgment and some implications thereof. Yes, fans. I will start off. I think I'm going to start off by just saying something about the vulgar sprayed community. It's a community who bought the land in 1999. It was 13 clans who got together. But like in South Africa, we all know there's layers of land rights. That makes it very difficult to untangle many of these issues and this is also happening in this community. Where the name was actually despite the fact that the 13 clans bought the land and the land was registered in the names of Minister of Rural Development and Rural Affairs. Interest for the Baka Baka Fela community. So it's difficult to know who is really the land owner, but they factor our clients are definitely the landowners because they've used the land exclusively for more than almost more than 100 years. And they made the 13 clans of coming from another village, not far from the farm, but it was great with the name of Lysette Lane village. So what happened was is that the mine, the PPM mine moved on to our clients land and in 2015 we took a simple common law application to the to the high court. We call it speleation application and we managed to get an interview to see that our clients cannot be dispossessed of the land. Shortly after that the mine Institute eviction application against against the community to try to get them off so that they can commence the mining activities on the land. And this case ended up in the constitutional court. Initially the eviction application was granted, but the constitutional court overturned it. And, and this is where this is where the importance of the malady judgment is coming in. Before malady, before the malady judgment, it was easy for a mining company to use the mining right to get the eviction application against host what we call host communities, communities who are occupying land or any other person who's the rightful owner or lawful occupier of the land. After malady, that has now changed what we call post malady. It's not that simple anymore. The community either have to consent. That means negotiate with the mining company and for a deal to to relocate or otherwise the government must expropriate the community. And that's where it becomes very interesting because we can't get out of the government if they are prepared to expropriate the community to make way for a mining company. We are still waiting to find out what the position of the government is going to be and it hasn't happened to any community. So in that sense, it puts the community in extremely good position to negotiate a deal with the mining company like the malady, like the vulgisprite matter of vulgisprite community has now demonstrated that obviously Donnie and the other panelists will talk a bit more about. Thank you, Louise. I mean, you raise an interesting point and I want to ask Donnie about this. And that is this notion of, you know, moving from sort of consult to actual consent. So I want to ask you, Donnie, how has this impacted the way in which mining companies engage with your community or communities in general? Thanks. It gave us a very clear direction in terms of how to engage with the affected parties as they are a number of them. The underestimated the very many levels of the community, they previously threw the chief and the tribal authority and it was not sufficient. Sometimes it worked with the tribal authority, but in this case, the community and the tribal authority were not aligned. It provides a clear avenues to proceed. It gave us both the mining operation and the community the guidelines to proceed. And with that background, we came together as equals. You often find the negotiation, there is always one partner who has the power and this judgment and leveled a playing field with regard to that. And we can actually sit at the table and look at the benefits of all the partners. Thank you. Thank you very much, Donnie. You mentioned the levels of community and I think you also mentioned that in this case, the community is not necessarily of the same mind or even the same entity as the traditional authority. So let me ask Eric, how does this change how your company approaches community negotiations on resource rights and what has been the impact of the judgment for the company? I do understand that you have been an advocate for improved community relations. So what is your take on this understanding? Yes, thank you, Tommy. So Cetabello has, or prior to Millet who had consulted with the tribal authority as Donnie mentioned, but what we realized as this Millet judgment came is that, and what I like about the judgment is that it clarified and set the way forward for us as a mining company and for the community. And so it actually made it easier, I think, for us to get together because it paved the way. And in any negotiation, as Donnie mentioned, this was two parties coming together and obtaining consent and finding a win-win solution for all parties. So how has this affected Cetabello and our future, let's call it negotiations or interactions with communities? Well, for me, it's quite simple. We need to increase our due diligence. We need to understand more about the community. We need to understand more of the interactions between tribal and actual, you know, the people occupying the land or owning the land. And I think this Millet judgment actually helped and paved the way. What was good is that we came together and we came together to find a common good for all parties. And so, as Donnie says, we were equals when we began the negotiating process. And, you know, the result was that we have a very good settlement, a settlement that not only benefited the, you know, the owners, but it benefited the mining companies which enabled us to move forward and it benefited the greater community, you know, through employment procurement and the social labor plan. Thank you, Eric. I mean, you mentioned this need for increased due diligence. I think both you and Donnie also reflected on power relations in these discussions. So I want to ask you, Monica, taking that into account, what does the Millet judgment mean for sort of accountability towards individuals, community land rights, but also for the mining companies with due diligence? And are there other issues here that we have not yet considered? Thanks. Thanks, Tom. Yeah, I mean, I think the first thing is that as other speakers I've said, you know, my lady made it clear that the mining legislation cannot trump the legislation that protects people's customary rights to the land, which, you know, was an important declaration in itself. But what it did in a practical sense was make these rights visible, which, as Eric said, were previously invisible. And the question for me is why, you know, why did Cedric Bello not see these rights before, and the people who are holding them. And, you know, on one hand, sure it's convenient and easy to speak to a single authority, rather than multiple complicated stakeholders. But there are structural reasons for that invisibility too. And in the work that I do, and one of the structural reasons we found is actually the legislation governing traditional authorities in the country. And what this legislation ended up doing was really emphasizing the role of the traditional authority and its relationship with the state, rather than a traditional community and its members. And what might be happening, you know, within that community on the ground. The other thing that the legislation did was, you know, subsume groups and land rights holders within a kind of overarching community identity. And so, you know, you've got thousands of people with differing, you know, land rights and, you know, cultures and beliefs, all being called the Bachata-Bachafel, a traditional community in terms of this legislation. And, you know, this is really a continuation of what happened during colonialism and apartheid, and what the laws did to people during that time. As Louise explained, you know, these were actually land buyers, but they weren't allowed to call themselves that they had to identify as a much bigger tribe. And the result really is that, you know, with our current legislation continuing this trend, you know, that traditional authorities become who companies and governments speak to, and they become intermediaries between the community and every other entity. And there's this blurring of identities where traditional authorities who have political authority are assumed to also have authority over land. They're assumed to also manage and own the land, which is not always the case. And then, particularly in this community, there's an additional layer where you have an additional layer of complexity, where you have traditional authorities that are already somewhat of a hybrid between tradition and, you know, bureaucracy, with the way that the legislation recognises them, now also assuming corporate identities, and the ways in which these competing and blurred identities really become a way for people to dodge accountability across all of these different regulatory systems. So I think that's very important context for people to understand. Thank you. Thank you, Monica. That almost deserves a webinar on its own, just sort of unpacking an understanding. I think a couple of key points around the blurring of individuals' rights, who also identify as part of a community. And I think that that's a big part of it because all of us form part of greater associations, communities, groups, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you lose your rights as an individual or rights as a community in this kind of scenario where you can engage with communities. But it also makes it difficult to hold accountable. And I think you mentioned this, you said, why were these rights not visible before. A key point, and I'll come back to that later. These rights exist, but these rights are not really visible. They don't rise to the surface easily. And I think we'll come back to that question later. But I want to get back to Monica. Sorry, not to Monica to Louise. So thank you, Monica. I want to ask Louise if you can describe some of the benefits for the communities, including some anticipated benefits, whether this is from the perspective of negotiations or actually strengthening land rights. How do you see this playing out going forward especially? Well, I think there's a few things. Of course, our clients were struggling with the mines for a very long time, in order to get recognition as the actual landowners of the property. So the fact that they were in the court case itself, the court didn't really go to that. But the implications was that the mine had to talk to our clients as if they are the owners. And that is very important because that also goes to a dignity issue. Like I always say, we change from having meetings under trees to having meetings in a proper lodge with coffee and cookies. And I think that's a very much important issue because it also speaks to empowerment of communities that they are sitting around the table that Donnery was referring to earlier as equals to the mine, now in different issues. So except for the very good compensation package that the community get that included land as well, they also managed to negotiate a procurement policy because procurement policies in South Africa is like many other countries becoming more and more for people. Community wants to keep community individual community members wants to have opportunity to keep money in the community. They want the opportunity to apply and to go for those contracts that the minds are putting out there. And I think this was very specifically giving some recognition to Eric that Eric was very open minded about this. And what I think is a fair and transparent procurement policy was negotiated. So what's not happening often in South Africa is that communities have massive input into the social and labour plans. And again, in the future there will be a engagement between PPM and the local broader community about the social and labour plans. So I think that's the most important issues for me that came out of this process. Thanks Louise. I mean, procurement is such contested terrain. And you mentioned about open and transparency and being fair. So let me let me go to you, Donnie. What has been the significance for the recognition of the community's rights and how does this influence opportunities for the community to directly participate in the accrual of rights and benefits from these activities. Thanks facilitator. The community feels that there are rights are being legally protected by the judgment. Since they we can engage directly with the mind. The direct engagement with the mind has resulted in the settlement agreement, which I think we have touched that a bit. And one, one should mention the fact that we were able to have an agreement with the mind. In terms of the alternative land for agriculture, for agriculture purpose, simply because the land that is being occupied by the mine. Doing mine in there. We were using it for agricultural purpose and agriculture and mining. They don't go hand in hand. And somebody will have to move out. And second to that we managed to agree on the rental feed, which will be backdated from when the mine started to to mine. And secondly, we were able to agree on the issue around the social labor plan, which will be something that will be doing each and every year. And fourthly, we have employment and procurement opportunities in place. If one can just mention the issue of the procurement, we agreed on the 60% of local procurement with the mind. So that at the end of the day, the local community can benefit from the economic spin off from the mine that is taking place around or in our land. So basically, one will say in a nutshell, this was a breakthrough in terms of our agreement with the mine through the judgment, my little judgment. Thank you. Thanks, Donnie, that provides some sort of very clear and very specific elements in terms of benefits. But I want to come back to Eric and touched on, I think, some conversations that we have alluded to before. In terms of the impact of this judgment for the mine Eric and the processes that you engaged with to identify, you know, these different layers of stakeholders and how you can engage with all these stakeholders and what it is that the mine can do in navigating this process. Yes, thanks, Tommy. So firstly, when said a bellow, let's say acquired these rights or started the negotiating process or consultation process. We began with the tribal authority, and the tribal authority indicated that they had, let's call it all power to negotiate and to, you know, to do a deal on behalf of the community. Now, where what we found here in this case was the tribal authority did not have all power to negotiate. In fact, in this in this area, there was almost three layers of of interaction that we needed to have as a mining company. So the first layer was the tribal authority. The second layer was the owners of the farm and the 13 plans as as Louise refers to refer to, but there was also a third layer, and they were the farmers or the herders that were effectively employees of the 13 plans but they were the occupiers of the land. And so we needed to conclude agreements if I could put it that way, with all three layers. And, and that was important that we did that, so that we close the loop on on the entire consultation and negotiation process. When this community took us to court, they took us to court as a, as a combined community or as a as a unified community. However, when we started the negotiation consultation process. They split up. They split up into at least two groups. And the two groups. We, we, we recognize this. Obviously, we, we, we had to engage both groups. And both groups, you know, we needed to ensure that whatever the settlement is that we concluded that both groups were signed and that neither group would be seen to be, you know, getting more from the mining company, compared to the other groups. So I'm pleased to say that we managed to bring to have one settlement agreement that both, both groups that negotiated with us signed. And I felt that that was, that was a great achievement on all, from all parties, you know, that we could all converge into one agreement and that was, that was important. I hope that answers your question. No, it doesn't mean I think it gives us a sense of that process as well. And I can also see we have a lot of questions coming in from the chat so I'm going to, I'm going to ask Monica one more question and then I think I'm going to give us as a group of chance to look and address some of the questions that have been posed in the chat before we come back for the, for the last round of questions. So thanks Eric but I want to ask Monica now. What do you think we need to understand to ensure that this judgment is implemented fairly and consistently across all communities in South Africa I mean we have one unique instance here. But, you know, how can this be operationalized across the country. Thanks, thanks Tommy. Yeah, I mean I think, you know what we need to shift our focus to is the actual model of cooperation or negotiation that happens after the judgment now you know so I, I'm very interested to hear from Eric and Louise and Donnie about, you know, the, the nitty gritty of how they got to the agreement that everyone's happy with you know who, how is, how are the negotiations taking place who is around the table. Who do they represent, and you know I think most importantly, how are, you know how is information and also mandates I guess channeled both to the table and, you know, and back to the, the, you know, complex group of stakeholders involved. Yeah, and, and because my lady is is relatively recent you know more and more companies and communities are going to have to start engaging in this way. And so, in a way what they've done is, is pioneering, and, and we need to learn from their process to figure out what could be a best practice model that that ensures that, you know, rights holders are getting their benefits, but also that there's accountability at all, that there's transparency throughout the process, and that most importantly rights holders have a voice. You know it doesn't help if again they're just subsumed and represented by you know a single entity, they have to have an ability to influence that negotiation directly. I think that this, you know this is very helpful for the audience to understand where the pitfalls are what went well, and what worked, because we're going to see more and more of these negotiations coming up in future. Thank you Monika I mean, there's quite a couple of questions here for the fellow panelists as well but before we go there. I think it might be good now that we address some of the questions from our, our community that has signed on for this webinar. And I've got you on the line Monika so I'm going to address the first question to you. This is a broader question about you know the conflict between surface rights of communities to the land for agriculture I think Donny alluded that to that as well, and subsurface or underground rights for for natural resources. And the question from Robert let's see is, how can we reconcile subsurface rights mineral rights with the surface rights of farmers of rural communities. Sure. I mean this is, this is not my area of expertise but you know reading my led the constitutional court says there is no conflict. The constitutional court says that you've got mineral legislation. And in this case the surface rights are informal rights to land so you have legislation protecting the informal rights to land. The point is you need to look at both of those pieces of legislation together and allow them both to achieve their purpose. And the purpose of the legislation, protecting informal rights to land is to ensure 10 years security and so they're given special protection in the constitutional constitution, because of their vulnerability in the past. So, you know the court says there is no conflict you have to look at them together, each of them have to be fulfilled, you know in their entirety. And at the end of the day, you know if you can't come to an agreement, the state can expropriate the land. So, so that's the court's answer to his question. The, you know, the reality on the ground means that there often is tension and that tensions arise, because you have competing interests in the same piece of land. Okay that's very interesting Monique and I'm going to stay with you and I apologize to the colleagues because there's one more question that is specifically addressed to you. But before that we have another question. A scenario is explained but the substance of the question is that in a situation where communities do not have necessarily all the capacity to, to litigate or to go to court and do not find a supportive year in government or the government departments that engage with this. What are the options for communities. Yeah, I mean I'm afraid there aren't many. The reality is that where you don't have, you know an NGO on your side, or a lawyer like Louise, you know you're kind of left to your own devices. And you know I think we are, we might speak about this a bit later but you know if, if communities aren't able to get these resources on their side my lady might not mean that much for them. If they can't, if they aren't assisted to get to the negotiating table and they aren't equipped with knowledge about the rights. I mean it's the legislation in terms of traditional governance really lacks accountability mechanisms and oversight mechanisms so people who find themselves living within traditional communities. Even don't have that there are no legislative mechanisms for them to turn to when they encounter abuses, or when their rights are threatened, they are very reliant on on the assistance of third parties. And as you say that isn't always possible, you know not Louise can't help every single community facing mining in the country. Please want my fellow panelists to be aware that you know please feel free to contribute to any of these questions if you want. But I want to maybe switch to Eric a little bit and we have a question here that asks, you know, whether this judgment is being applied in practice by by other companies. And have there been positive moves or developments from other mining companies? I know you can't speak on behalf of other mining companies Eric but maybe you have a bit of information to speak about the mining sector and how the mining sector is applying or interpreting this judgment and going forward. No Tommy I fortunately I can't answer that question and I'm not involved with any other mining companies and how they've implemented things post this judgment. I just know that from our perspective it has changed the landscape we have had to engage far more with the community. And and I noticed, you know, some of the they are they are some questions that have been directed. And, you know, after this this judgment there was also an arbitration hearing that took place to to assist us and the community to determine how the benefits of our settlement agreement needed to be administered. And and and so what we have done is we bought three farms, the farm spaces is bigger than bulk of spread. And those farms can be utilized for farming like Donnie mentioned. And and then the other outcome from the settlement agreement or from the arbitration hearing was that a trust needed to be formed. So that the money that's set aside that we have set aside in terms of the settlement agreement will be put into this trust and then the community can decide how this money is dispersed and to whom it's dispersed. And so, so a lot has a lot has happened from our perspective but I'm not I can't comment on what other companies have done. Okay, thank you very much very. Yeah, understand. There's a couple of questions and I just want to bring in Donnie for the last couple of questions they were directed to you. Certainly our audience member is asking whether there was a sort of free and prior informed consent signed agreed within the community and the mining company and how this principle was taken into account beforehand. I think the question is really about consent by the community to enter into an agreement, and how that took place. Thanks for the question. I, there was no free consent. Hence we have the maled judgment. We talk about different levels of negotiations whereby the mining company was engaged on but unfortunately where it matters most the occupants of the land were not considered in terms of what one will call it a meaningful consultation. The, the matter unfortunately ended up in the, the courts, your high court and the constitutional court. So one will simply say, if there was a free consent from the directly affected people. We were not going to go to an extent of going to the constitutional court so that we can be hit by the mind. Thank you. Okay, that is succeed from Donnie. I want to go back to our panelists now and we will come back to the questions from the audience. Again, but I want to touch back on Monica's last comments around, you know, a model of cooperation. I want to see accountability, giving voice to landholders rights. And so my question really is, and I want to start with Louise is to understand how the, the tenure rights of individuals and communities, which is important, which has been highlighted by this judgment, is the issue around access to information. Who do the rights belong to how can mining companies determine who are the rightful owners that should be that they should speak to. I mean, Eric referred to doing better at doing that due diligence. So let me ask you Louise in a simple terms, what kind of information is needed to support cooperation and discussion that is meaningful that is transparent. Between these competing interests. Yeah, before, if you don't mind before I answer that question, I just want to come back to something that was asked earlier about the impact of moledo and what miscommunities do doesn't, we don't have the support of NGOs and so on. You know, we always, always in the law world, we say if you have possession, you're already there. And I think that is, that is what malaria is doing is to show that it's not as easy to evict a hosting community anymore. It's now up to the government to expropriate a community. That is a massive step from where we were before a moledo. It's not going to be easy. And we don't even know what governments position is if they are going to expropriate a community to make way for mining. So if I'm in a community's position, I'll just don't, I won't move. I will just sit there and wait and see. Push government to also came into the frame because unfortunately in this litigation process we never heard anything from them. They did not participate. We don't know what the view is or so. So the advice to those communities is if you can't get hold of an NGO or a lawyer to assist you, use a sit tight and see what government is going to do now. And then coming back to your question about transparent and, you know, what I think is what happened here is a very good illustration in the past, the mining companies could go to the traditional authorities. And it's easy. I understand that from, you know, from a mining company as well, it's easy to go to the traditional authority and to make those deals with them. And I think the Volker Sprat community is a good example. We still don't know what the deal entailed that they enter into with the traditional authority in, I think it was 2008. So they had to come back now to the Volker Sprat, to the Thirteen Clans or the Volker Sprat community and start to engage with them. But I could only engage with them when they were much more open about information that the community needed to enable them to negotiate this deal. So it's as if you are, if I can refer to it, as if you're pulling those, that kind of information that's always not there for communities, you are pulling it to the rightful lawful occupiers. Because without that, it's not possible to negotiate a proper deal. And I think that is a very good, that's a very, very good and a very important consequence of the related judgment. It's not only going to be the traditional authority is going to set of information. It will come down to the people as well to enable the mining companies to negotiate deals with the communities. So you were saying, sort of, thank you, Louisa, that you're saying that in terms of, you know, asserting your rights or a community or individuals rights in this kind of situation in the first instance, so tight, because the state will essentially have to go through the process of expropriation is what you are saying, which is not a process that can be done lightly and that is not without its own constitutional checks and balances. So that's the first piece of advice about understanding you correctly on that question. Yes, that's on the impact of the related judgment. I think that this one must be the most important one. Is that you now forcing government into the frame of, of doing something, otherwise the minds can't use the mining right anymore to get eviction order. Thank you. I mean that's an important point because it entrenched the validity of the rights and strengthens those rights and I think it has big implications in general for sort of customary land rights or land rights that are undocumented or not documented in the same way as the sort of classic freehold rights. So I think that is important, but I want to come back to Donnie and some of these issues that you have raised. Donnie, how does the local community, I know in some ways your situation is resolved, but I mean this is a situation that's going to affect many more communities potentially. So I want to ask you, how does the local communities and other communities can get access to information about this judgment, what this judgment means and how they can use this judgment to protect themselves and what information do communities in general need when faced with these kind of situations and you know how does government ensure that that information on deals or on mining on rights is made public so that communities can inform themselves and be in a position to protect their rights. It's quite a very, very difficult question from my side to answer it directly, but in my attempt to answer that question will be, government has got the responsibility in terms of ensuring that the people are treated fairly. And that can only be achieved through if government is transparent and ensures that there is accountability, especially from the side of your traditional councils. Remember, we are talking about the communities that are to a certain extent the level of education is not on the same level as that of me and you and be able to read and comprehend what is what is what is written there. And to a certain extent even the judgment is always difficult because you always have to get the legally legal professional people to interpret that so it's always a difficult but one will envisage that through the DMR. And they will engage with through the community with the community through the workshops in terms of people understanding. What can be a benefit to them in areas whereby they are mining, but unfortunately, the government is not doing enough in that instances to make sure that people know and understand exactly what the MPRDA that is an act that deals specifically with with mining. How what are the processes what are the processes that needs to be followed for a mind to be granted the permission so there is a lot that needs to be done from from the government side in terms of conducting workshop seminars to local communities where there is particularly a mining. So, yes, is the responsibility of government to do that and to enlighten people in terms of their rights in as far as mining is concerned. Thanks Tonya I mean I think you're speaking to an issue, not only of access to information but also building capacity and developing that capacity for communities and individuals to be able to stand up or agitate for their rights. I want to come to to Eric. You have spoken at negotiating this process identifying different players about improving your due diligence, for example. So, as a private company, what information do you see as being important to have access to in the context of this judgment so you know I'm taking. I'm asking this question, looking forward, you know, for example, access to land tenure information, what kind of information and access to information would you like to see that can help or ensure that mining companies can engage ethically in these kind of negotiations and attempts to explore these resources in a way that is that is meaningful. For the community and also for the company but also improves efficiency and effectiveness of these processes. Tommy I think information is there's lots of information around. I think what companies and communities need to do is get together and share the information and get to a common understanding of what that information is and says I think where where we, if I have to reflect on this judgment and and what we could have done better is before we before the judgment. was made, you know, I think the mining company ourselves and the community, we could have engaged for five years ago. And, and come to a sort of a common understanding of the way forward, we, it's almost a pity that we have to have the courts decide on or tell us that all you need to do is get together and negotiate and talk to each other. At the end of the day and I think the success that we had as a mining company as a community is we were willing to talk to each other. There's lots of information around. You know you can get information from NGOs you can get information from lawyers, but it's really the interpretation of that information that's always up in the air and as Donnie mentioned, you know everybody's a different levels of education. But when you get together on an equal footing, and you sit down and you talk you get to understand what the mining company is trying to achieve, and what the community wants. And for me that's the bottom line in all of this is keep open lines of communication and then share the information that's available. You know, if I really had to reflect on this, you know the fact that the 13 plans on the land. And if that was understood a little bit better by us as a mining company. Many years ago, I think we would have had a sooner outcome of negotiation and consultation. So for me that's what it's that's what it boils down to it's about communication and being willing to sit around the table on an equal footing and discuss the way forward. I mean, it's an interesting perspective but doesn't that communication come from, you know, a position of trust as well. In other words, you need to have trust in that conversation. And I'm wondering if you know that the judgment helped to, I guess I used the term here force some trust into the equation. So how can you help ensure trust sort of going forward in these kinds of situations. Well, I would like to say to you trust is earned and trust is only achieved through mutual respect. And I think that's what we were able to achieve with each other as a community is in a mining company. I took it upon myself as the CEO and realized that this was this was important for us as a organization to move forward. And rather than delegate to someone in the organization. This was strategically important for the organization and that's why I took up the, I took up the challenge. And today it's about it's about respect. It's about leveling the playing field and and communicating and working together. Thank you. Thank you very. I think that's very interesting and it's very interesting perspective and a very hands on role and I'm not sure all companies will do that but I think that is an important point to take away an important point of reflection, but I want to ask Monica. If you have any ideas in terms of, you know, this access to information, not only the legal information on the judgment, but I'm including that about policies, whose role is it, you know, so, so Donnie spoke about the lack of capacity of some of the people to understand really the judgments, the policies and how to defend their rights. So whose role is it to make sure that this information is available, accessible, open and relevant in a way that is meaningful for parties to understand. And if it's government's job. Are they doing that are they fulfilling that that role somehow. I can't speak to you directly what government is doing and isn't doing they may be programs that I'm unaware of but you know this this particular type of information you're talking about you know information about the judgment the sorts of rights that are affirmed in the judgment and other policies that come out. And yeah I mean our experience is that that government isn't doing that work of translating what happens, either in the policy arena, or in the courts to usable rights on the ground. And as I said often you rely on NGOs or lawyers like Louise to translate to do that translation exercise. And I mean this this is a very general statement so it's possible that they are pockets of this happening, but we haven't really seen that in our work. And, and, you know, generally, there isn't a very good track record of government facilitating public participation processes and engagement and consultation. It's, it's very lacking and I think that they do need to take up that role, because you can't expect, you know, everyone to be up to date on what's happening in the constitutional court and to understand, you know what the judges are saying, without that translation exercise. Yeah, and I mean the danger, as I said before is that traditional authorities become, you know the source of information that that if government is doing the work that they only then channel the information through traditional authorities, you know which I think is is a good channel but it can't be the only channel it can't be the only means through which people learn about their rights, and it can't be that they only relying on NGOs or other entities to let them know about their rights. I mean I want to speak a little bit to another type of information and there are some questions coming through in in the chat about this, you know, and, and we also need to speak about information about the deals you know so information about actually what's happening on the land, you know, people just see bulldozers come in or the land gets fenced off and they're wondering what on earth is going on. And, you know, in this respect, it is helpful to look at my lady alongside a couple of other judgments that have come out in the chat they're referring to them as the call of any judgments but it's by Lenny one and two. And, you know, my lady affirms a pure as place or it affirms the legislation that protects tenure security and affirms that it isn't trumped by mining legislation. But it's mostly providing a kind of defense to negotiate consent, I mean to negotiate compensation. Once a mining rights has already been granted. And so it's a kind of an after the fact. That you're allowed to then have the power to negotiate your compensation. And if they can't be an agreement, the state could expropriate as a last resort. But, but by Lenny is more directly about concept it's about consent before mining right is granted. And the community having that right based on their customary land rights, which is more powerful in many ways. And by Lenny to affirmed people's rights to access the mining application so information that the mining company submits to governments to to be granted the mining right, you know up to now, people have really struggled to find out what what is in those applications what is the mining company saying they're going to do to government what are they saying the impacts are going to be all of that information has been hidden from people. So you have to look at my lady in relation to these other judgments and use them together to really protect people's rights and access to information that protects those rights. And I want you to say that across the board and in terms of all of these types of information, you know you really have to look at the purpose of the information what is it intended for and who, who is the audience. You know, if, if information is being posted on websites for villagers who don't necessarily have access to the internet or, you know, the resources to buy data. It's, it's really pointless information that's not access to information. You, you have to then use mechanisms that people can activate. So based on their own context and, and, you know, regardless of what means they have. So, yeah, I think talking about information is pointless we don't speak about how people then are able to actually find it and use it. You know, I mean, absolutely information has to be actionable. It has to be usable as to be accessible. I think those important points that you raised. Also about access to information in generally in relation to sort of broader struggles for, you know, connectivity and internet access and penetration. Nevermind, you know, basic things like energy and electricity, without which you don't have that kind of connectivity. I want to come back to I think Louise for question that we have on the, on the chat and so I'm trying to work my way through that as well so Louise this is a general question. But I think that you might be able to help us with that is how can communities restore their land rights in cases of a lack of documentary evidence because I think the case you cited the evidence was quite clear at least in terms of establishing the rights. But in cases where documentary evidence or the land rights are less clear. I know you've alluded to that earlier but if there's no land rights I mean what should communities do. Well I think this is quite important to realise that, unfortunately, South Africa, there's one piece of legislation still missing and dealing with land rights and that is what we call the Community Land Rights Act. But it might be given another name and that's dealing with almost 17 million people in South Africa who live in this kind of communities, traditional communities, where that piece of legislation is not coming out. Most probably for political reasons and that is to give security, not only to individuals but to the community and also is going to do the administration always going to manage that land. And that's a big problem, this lack of that piece of legislation. Because that also gives minds many times the excuse I need to deal with traditional authorities and then we have the problem that we have in with the welfare spread case. Now how to prove that communities have land rights, if you are occupying in South Africa, if you have been official occupier for a certain period of time, you are regarded to have protection and the piece of legislation that we call IPILRA. So there is protection for you. Except for that because of our involvement in restitution times as well, you know they are many many ways to prove that you were on the land and first of all you must show you've got possession and then it's many ways to show what the, how long you had that position and that gives you then this protection and the IPILRA. And it's a very strong protection but it's only that current land use protection until the new piece of legislation will come out. So I don't see that as a big problem, you know to give people's protection. And then maybe just a large question. Somebody asked a question, can a legal framework be put in place in Africa to protect indigenous peoples rights, but I want to rephrase that a little bit and ask you know, what you have just described, is that an approach that can be adapted or adopted more broadly by other countries across Africa as a framework to protect indigenous and customary rights. I must say I don't know enough about other countries in Africa. This is unfortunately borne out very much out of apartheid. And the fact that you know these communities couldn't register their rights like the de facto and their euro rights didn't correlate because of apartheid laws that didn't allow that. So, and this is also why we need this piece of legislation basically to deal with that last, to get away off to make a part of it, the right with us to make sure that piece of apartheid legislation is disappearing. And we do get, give recognition to the rightful owners of people who's living on communal land. Thank you, Louise. I mean, I think that that's very helpful. And I think, of course, country context is so important and needs to be understood. But when I come back to Eric and then Donnie, we have a couple of questions asking around, you know, the agreement reached between the community and the mind. The question is, what forms the base or the basis I guess and this is in terms of the economic basis for the decision or for the agreement that is reached between the community and the company. So the question is, is it based on the resources to be exploited or is it based on the needs of the communities. I think that's, that's a that's a interesting question. I would say to you it's, it's, it's twofold. One is the interest of the community. If I look at the settlement agreement that we concluded there are specific sections in that settlement agreement that look after the broader community. And those sections are threefold. One is employment, two is procurement, and three is the social labor plan. So those, those agreements that we concluded with the community were for that purpose, were for the community. The second part of the agreement was to recognize the owners of the of the land and occupiers, and they needed to be compensated and they were compensated on the basis of land usage. I mentioned a few, you know, earlier on, it was that there's a rental that's paid for the for the from the time of use that the mining company occupied or started using that land. That's a rental to the community or the legal lawful owner of the land. Yes. And what happens, sorry, this is a follow up question that I think fits in here. The follow up question is what happens to the land tax who is responsible for the land tax, if any, is it the community, or is that something also taken over by the mind during this period. I'm not aware of any land tax. We, we, we, for us, it's a let's call it the lease or rental that is paid to the community and yours to the owners, not to the community to the 13 owners. Yeah, and so the legal owners would be responsible for whatever rates taxes or land or agricultural taxes might be due then that's your position. Yeah, look, I'm not aware of any land tax at the moment so I can't really answer that. No problem. There was another question for you, Donnie. And I think it relates to the person states that they are a member of the community. They are asking the question, or making the statement that the process is still lacking. And she is not sure that they are seeing the benefit of the judgment as farmers and community members at large. The implementation of the settlement agreement is still not showing results yet. So maybe I'm just throwing that out there for you. Okay. I fully agree with the comment that was made to say, yes, we do have a settlement agreement, but we have not yet fully enjoyed the benefits of the settlement agreement. I think the comment was more specifically on the issue of the land that has been bought for agricultural purpose. And my response is that the whole process needs to be driven within the dead lands. And unfortunately at this stage, the clans are a bit fragmented in a sense that they can't meet and resolve and make a necessary follow up in terms of what needs to be done on those particular farms. So it was back to say that clans should be in a position to appoint their representatives who will be able to advance that interest of using the farms. The farms are there, but unfortunately more of us, community members, we are more interested in the employment and the procurement side of the settlement agreement rather than the agricultural part of that. But I hope that after this discussion, the member of the community who have listed that should also go back to his land, probably have a chat with the clan, come up with some representative who will work with other members through the local traditional authority. To mandate and come up with a clear program in terms of how to start now cultivating the land, how to start now bringing animals into those farms. So I think that is leaking from our side to take that matter forward. Thank you, Donnie and I want to keep you there but I want to bring in Louise and Monica as well and ask some some some questions or your understanding of, you know, if we are to see the kind of benefits and impacts that we have talked about, not only as legal concepts or constructs, but as real practical benefits for community members, how important is this aspect and how difficult is this aspect of a unified community, a cohesive community that that speaks with an agenda with one voice. And what is the risk if a fracturing occurs for this process and ultimately for the outcomes and impacts on the ground. I can maybe go first Monica doesn't mind. You know, this is if somebody can come up for a model to deal with this this difficulty that we experience in many communities. You know, the moment there are lots of resources, there is community conflicts not only with mining but also we see to have land successful land claims in South Africa and so on. Where this case on case in courts, community members having disputes trying to sort it out in courts or even more dangerous in communities and so on. So it's definitely a problem. But like I always say in my little community that I stay in my neighborhood, you know, we can't even agree on what color the gate must be of the park. So it's not such a strange thing to experience. But we need to come up with a model and to deal with this issue. I think it's extremely important. I don't know how important it is in other countries but in South Africa it's really a problem. And unfortunately in Vulgar Sprite, it's also a problem we identify through the social survey process of that PPM funded. There's something like 3500 beneficiaries now under the 13 clans. So it is definitely a difficulty to get that 13 clans and the 3500 people together and to decide on how are they going to spend or either going to make use of the compensation and of the land that they received now. So I don't have the answer and I think many people are struggling to get this answer. Sure. Yeah, I agree with Louise that this is the conundrum and that's why I was asking the questions about the model. Because in many ways conflict is inevitable in any scenario. And the only way to deal with that effectively is to build in checks and balances into the process to make sure that everyone has the same information that information is accessible that everyone knows the rules of the game from the beginning. But that, you know, things can be flexible and move when they need to. And it's why having some kind of, you know, documentation of the model that, you know, was used in this case might be useful for, you know, future to build future models on. Yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean, I'm going to leave it there for now. I really just think you have to have processes built into it where people are able to raise complaints where people are able to say this person that I agreed to represent me, you know, three months ago is no longer representing my interests. And, and what can I do about that? How can my voice be included in this process again? Because you really don't want to land in a situation where, again, the rights holders are being invisibilized by, you know, someone else who now gets to speak on their behalf. I mean, thank you. And I mean, of course, we are one doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of a decision due to the difficulty of implementing the decision and Eric. I mean, sorry, Donny, I saw you, you're coming on there. Do you have something that you want to add on to that? Yes, I wanted to add something on the issue of why our community seem not to be unified, post what one will call as a victory. And I think it's a question of resources. When the resources becomes available and becomes clear, the approach becomes more of an individual than a collective. And I think that's where the problem is. And we started to advance our interest more than the interest of the of the collective. So I guess we it's difficult. We there is no formula at all to deal with that differences that emanate after the victory when resources becomes available. There is no formula to deal with that. It's always a problem. I think throughout South Africa, that is a case with regard to the issue of land and benefits that are out of that land. Do you see this as a challenge for the mining companies as well? And I'm trying to relate this to questions that we have also in from our audience that says, how do power companies manage these power differentials or different sources of power when negotiating with communities? And I think also in some way trying to, you know, assess the legitimacy of these power bases. And you could even have a scenario where you have multiple legitimate power bases that you need to deal with. Any advice or ideas on how to manage that? Also in line with what Monica has said about a model for going forward. Tommy, yes. It's a huge challenge. And I mean, what Donnie was saying, and was that, you know, unless when a community is fragmented like that, the benefits that should be flowing and should be flowing quickly take time to flow. Because you can imagine as a mining company, we need to know where, for instance, to accrue those benefits to and to whom. Because the problem is, if you're not sure, and Louise mentioned earlier about a survey that was conducted as to who are the beneficiaries, who makes up the 13 clans, this needed to take place. Even as we sit here today, that survey, there's a handful of few members of the clans that are not in agreement within their clan as to who those beneficiaries or who the members of that plan should be. So it is a challenge. But that doesn't mean that we need that we must just throw out through our hands up in there and stop. This is a process. It's a continuing process. And frankly, let's agree, you know, mining companies and communities need to coexist in a win-win situation. And so neither of us can afford to give up and just to ignore these complications. So as a result, our company continues to engage where we can. If there are new people that prop up, if I put it that way, we need to engage them. We need to find out the legitimacy of these individuals. And one thing that we did in the negotiation process, and I think Donnie alluded to it right in the beginning, is when we began the negotiations, it was important to understand what mandates everybody has. And so whether those mandates are from the individual clans or from individual members or from the various tribal authorities, those mandates were critical in determining who we are negotiating with and the legitimacy of those individuals. But it's not an easy answer, and there's no easy way forward. But we cannot give up. We have to move forward and find a way. Thank you, Eric. And I think by way of sort of wrapping up, I want to keep you there because I think you are alluding to this problem. And I think Monica has been, you know, kind of harping on this point. And I want to ask, I don't know if that already exists, but do you think there is an opportunity to learn from this experience and come up with some kind of, I don't want to call it a manifesto, but you know, a model of cooperation, let me just use Monica's words, a model of cooperation, something that can serve as a sort of guidance on ensuring that that beneficiation reaches where it reaches, because it's one thing to reach an agreement, a settlement agreement, but to kind of implement it and have those benefits diffuse to empower communities to empower individuals to develop society. I mean, that is ultimately the goal. Is there an opportunity to work on or to develop, perhaps, you know, such a framework or model of cooperation as perhaps one outcome from this. And in asking that question, I also want you to think of a little bit, okay, your sort of concluding remarks, I don't want to say that should be your concluding remark, but maybe to just wrap up with that note or that concept. And is that something that you think is missing or could help? So, Tommy, a simple answer is yes, it would help. We, as mining companies, I think would, if I could speak on behalf of our company, I would welcome it. A framework would be much easier to move forward and get the benefits to the beneficiaries and particularly in terms of this agreement that we have. So, yes, I would welcome it. And then my closing comments are maybe I'm repeating myself, but mining companies and communities can work together for the common good. We have common interests. If I look at our organization and the area that we operate in, you know, we have more than 60% of the people working in our mine. And, you know, in South Africa, you know, every, because of the lack of employment, you know, those employees have, you know, they feed many in their families. And those families then in turn, you know, spend money in the community. And so I don't know what the ratio is, Louise, but I think it's probably about eight or nine or 10 to one. And so it's important that mining companies and communities continue to laze and work together. And it's not just about mining. There's a legacy beyond mining that needs to be left by mining companies. And I think that's part of the interaction and the benefits. And that's why, you know, agriculture is one of those legacies that can exist beyond mining. Donnie, I'm sorry that I'm jumping in here. There was a question asked earlier and I want to ask Donnie and to answer this as part of your closing remarks. And one of our audience members asked the question, could you have said no, in other words, could the community have said thank you but we don't want to do or have any money mining done here. Is my question. There was a question from an audience member asking the question, could the community have simply said no. Thanks, but no thanks. Okay. I guess today's session was more in terms of whether the mines have, or they embark on a meaningful consultation with the community. If you look at the history of South African communities, as far as the mining development is concerned, most of the time the mining companies will negotiate with wrong people if one can use that weight. Simply to tick boxes and get an appropriate mining license and do that. But for me as a member of the community, I believe that if there is a mining institution that is interested in doing mine. If the approach is a Guinea approach to the community, engage meaningfully with the community, and have a sort of an agreement, which will clearly depict how the benefits, how the community is going to benefit out of this exercise, this mining exercise. I don't see, I don't foresee any community that will say we are anti development. Remember, mining brings a lot of development in the area. So for me, if the mining institution negotiate and proper negotiations with the local community, where they are interested in mining, I am of the strong view that the two parties can find each other and work together on that. But if the mines will negotiate with the wrong people somewhere, that's where you are going to have people objecting to have mining in that area. I don't want to mention examples. We know there are examples in the Eastern Cape. I don't want to get into that. But I just want to confine myself with the question to say whether people will say we don't want the mine here. And for me, proper consultation, proper meaningful consultation yields different results to that one that we have just mentioned. Thank you. Thanks, Tony, Robert. I mean, that would be preempting the conversation that is to be had. Let me just go to Louise quickly for your closing thoughts on the previous question around the framework for going forward. Yeah, I think that will be useful. But I just want to close off by saying if mining communities come to see us for advice in the office, we always say for a community to consent to mining or to say yes or support mining. They need to know that they are going to have a better quality of life or at least a quality of life that they do have now. But if the quality of life is going to be less, then they have the right to say no. But to do that, we need much more information. And from our side, from LHR, we are working on a very broad manual. Where we really look at the pros and cons of mining. I'm talking about anything from taxes flowing, taxes being paid to government, money flowing out of the country. We're looking at the employment, we're looking at the green issues, the impact of all of that. So I think that's only if a community really have all of that kind of information that they can make that informed decision. Are you going to be better off if you have a mine or must you say no for a mine? I hope this kind of manual information will assist and take us a bit further in this process. Thank you, Louise. Monica. Thanks. I mean, I think we've spoken about the framework and how I think that some kind of best practice development is a really good idea. I wanted to, as a kind of closing statement, just bring us back to the land rights. And, you know, Louise has mentioned the communal land tenure bill that there's still a gap in a permanent mechanism to protect the tenure security of customary land rights. And really, you know, this I think is an arena to watch the policies in progress. And there seems to be, you know, quite a bit of movement on it now. And, you know, I would hate for the protections that, you know, Maledo upheld to be undone in new policy. And so we have to make sure that the protections that Maledo have facilitated or has facilitated are translated into whatever new policy comes and governs the tenure security of customary land rights. Yeah. And, and I think there are concerns about whether the new policy is actually going to achieve that. Okay, thank you very much, Monica, Eric, Donnie Louise, for your valuable insights here. I fully appreciate that we are only unpacking a little bit of what is a massive discussion around land rights development and access to information. We're going to go on and on. So my sincerest thanks to you, Donnie, Eric, Louise, and Monica once again. I think our audience really benefited and enjoyed the discussion. I think the sign of a good discussion is when it stimulates more questions than answers and there's a lot of questions that came in the chat. We'll be sharing a copy of the webinar with everybody and please feel free to reach out to everyone to deepen the discussion and keep checking the land portal website for more announcements on this sort of discussion. So with that, I want to say thank you very much once again to everybody that participated from across the world and our panelists. Have a good morning, afternoon, and a good evening. Thank you. Good. Bye-bye. Bye.