Search

Mukasiri Sibanda's Blog

articles on mineral resource governance

Artisanal mining and ease of doing business reforms in Zimbabwe

WP_20131124_011

Formalising artisanal mining in Zimbabwe is one of the priority areas for the mining Technical Working Group (TWG) on ease of doing business reforms. A subcommittee has been formed to make recommendations on terms and conditions for a special mining permit that will help to formalise artisanal mining. The subcommittee comprises the Ministry of Mines, Zimbabwe Miners Federation (ZMF), Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association (ZELA), Zimbabwe Artisanal and Small Scale for Sustainable Mining Council (ZASMC) and Metallon Gold Zimbabwe.

Government desperately needs foreign currency to finance its needs like fuel, electricity and raw materials for industry according to the mid-term monetary policy statement. Gold along with tobacco is a major foreign currency earner. This has prompted the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) to pursue a “no questions asked policy” to promote formal channelling of gold from artisanal miners. The “no questions asked policy is contrary to the Gold Trade Act (Chapter 21:03) which makes it illegal for one to possess gold without a valid mining registration permit or a gold buying licence.

RBZ’s “no questions asked policy” only suffices if one manages to evade the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) minerals and border control unit from mining right up to the point of delivering gold to Fidelity Printers and Refineries (FPR) according to Engineer Murove, the ZASMC President.

High costs and cumbersome processes or paper work like the Environment Impact Assessments (EIAs) are pushing artisanal miners to operate outside the law. In other instances, a number of farmers who are not necessarily miners are discovering alluvial gold nuggets in their fields. Since the law criminalises illegal gold possession, they are at risk of being arrested and face a 2-year jail sentence.

Illegal possession of gold

Twitter comment by Deprose Muchena responding to the imprisonment of  small holder farmers who discover and mine gold in their plots without a valid mining title.

Coming up with a special permit for artisanal mining operations will prevent a free for all scenario if gold decriminalisation is pursued “cate blanche.”  Benefits of decriminalising gold possession through a special permit for artisanal mining are not only economic but also a significant livelihood boost to millions who depend on artisanal mining for jobs and income generation.

Of course there is more to formalisation of artisanal mining than a special mining permit which recognises the ability to pay principle among other issues. Exploration services must be provided to establish viable mining areas for artisanal mining. This will avoid unnecessary environmental challenges arising from digging of holes in areas that have no profitable gold deposits.

Artisanal miners will also need some support to come up with bankable business plans to access capital and how to manage windfall revenue. It is very common for artisanal miners to squander their wealth through poor investment choices like luxury cars. Occupational health and safety standards is another important area to focus on to promote responsible growth of the artisanal mining.

EASE OF DOING BUSINESS IN THE MINING SECTOR (ZVISHAVANE MBERENGWA MINERS ASSOCIATION).

njabulosibanda

On the 4th of August, Zvishavane-Mberengwa Miners Association with the help of ZELA managed to conduct a meeting on the ease of doing business in the mining sector given the current working environment and prevailing legislature and fees required. Below are the talking points which came out of the discussion.

Challenge Responsible Authority Solution Time frame Explanation
High prospecting licence fee at $200 Min of Mines Reduced to $50 3 months (end of Nov 2017) Fees are generally too high. They should be reduced for affordability to increase compliancy.
Time for pre-registration and inspection of beacons is too long, 2 months Min of Mines Time should be reduced to 1 month 2 months (end of Oct 2017)
$200 is required to complete the final registration process is high Min of Mines Reduced to $50 3 months (end of Nov 2017)
Explosives License fee (permit) at $500 each (Purchasing & Storage)

View original post 896 more words

The Curse of the Gold Rush

High compliance costs are impeding ease of doing Business for artisanal and small scale miners

WP_20131123_070.jpg

Bubi Small Scale Miners Association (BSSMA) held their general meeting on the 10th of August 2017 at Ndwangwana shopping centre in Bubi district of Matebeleland North province. The meeting was attended by sixty people including the Senator of the area, Honourable M Bhebhe and the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association (ZELA).  Main issues discussed were the process of transferring 81 claims ceded by John Muir; challenges with $5 million Gold Genius investment agreement; treasurer’s report on subscription fees; dispute between miners and farmers, engaging with Bindura Nickel company for release of mining claims; and the on-going mining ease of doing business reforms.

Artisanal and Small Scale Mining (ASM) is generally perceived as informal which makes it fundamental for players to organise to strengthen their bargain hand. This is one of the cornerstone to the promotion of formalisation of the ASM sector according to best practice like Fairtrade gold standard. At the recently held Mining Entra conference, the deputy minister of mines challenged ASM associations to take lead on documentation process that will help the engagement process with policy makers. If the above concern is taken into consideration, BSSMA’s is a step ahead of several small-scale miners’ associations in Zimbabwe.

BSSMA has about 320 members of which 185 members are fully paid up. A monthly subscription fee amounting to $5 is required.  That 58% of the members are fully paid up is a testimony of the confidence that the members have in the association. Commendable progress like engaging with large scale miners for the release of claims to artisanal and small miners and engaging with Environmental Management Agency (EMA) for group Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) has been scored by the association.

The meeting started with the discussion on progress pertaining to the transfer on 81 gold claims acquired from John Muir through a negation process initiated by BSSMA. The 81 gold claims comprise of 41 gold claims from the 2 base metals blocks which have been allocated to beneficiaries. The Ministry of Mines is in the process of regularising the sub divided blocks. The remaining 40 gold were legitimate and half of claims have not been transferred to their owners. 

Beneficiaries of the gold claims are struggling to raise $510 required by the Ministry of Mines to transfer claims. Because of this challenge, BSSMA is urging Ministry of Mines to reduce claim transfer fees to $100 from $510. This recommendation was made in light of the on-going mining ease of doing business reform process initiated by the Office of the President and Cabinet.

Also, the meeting noted that the EMA had agreed that about 24 small scale gold miners from the Zoo can carry out a group EIA and share the associated costs. This move is remarkable in that ASM players have generally complained of high costs associated with EIAs. Group EIAs will certainly lower the costs as the burden is shared amongst the miners unlike a scenario where each miner has a separate EIA.

The meeting was informed of the stunted progress of the $5 million investment agreement between Gold Genius, a South African company and BSSMA. This investment was meant to finance a state of the art service center for artisanal and small scale gold miners in Bubi. A gold mill, equipment like compressors and a gold buying office were part of the infrastructure to be developed under the centre.

 Due to some challenges faced by the investors, the investment has been scrapped and the construction of the service center has been halted. BSSMA resolved that it would get some legal services to go through the agreement to have a fair understanding of its rights and obligations pertaining to the failed investment agreement. So far, about 7 miners had benefited from the agreement through the provision of working capital like explosives, diesel and hiring of compressors.

Farmer miner disputes were discussed as one of the challenges affecting ASM in Bubi. It seems that disputes between miners and farmers are more pronounced in new settlements. According to one established small scale gold miner, Mr Timothy Ndlovu, disputes between miners and farmers dates back to the colonial era. Mr Ndlovhu faced challenges in 1975 when he tried to start mining operations in one of the farms owned by a white farmer.

 Another small-scale miner, Mr Kwanele Nyathi, recommended that artisanal and small scale miners must be capacitated with skills to negotiate with farmers. Furthermore, the meeting resolved that an awareness raising campaign is needed so that farmers are clear that legally, their rights are restricted to tilling the land and the minerals belong to the state.

Lastly, the meeting discussed the various impediments faced by ASM in Bubi to contribute to the ongoing mining ease of doing business reforms. On 26 July 2017, a mining Technical Working Group on ease of doing business reforms was established. ZELA as a stakeholder to the TWG is promoting grassroots participation in policy making process. As such, ZELA helped BSSMA to document the impediments they are facing and to suggest concrete solutions that will enable productivity of the gold miners. 

Overall, BSSMA felt that the various fees paid by ASM were too high and many hands are involved in the administration of fees paid by ASM. Currently, ASM are paying fees to the local government, Ministry of Mines and Environmental Management Agency among other government departments. Payments to the Ministry of Mines include prospecting license $200, mine registration  $200, mine annual inspection $100 and ore removal permit $20. 

CSOs have a seat at the table: Mining Technical Working Group on Ease of Doing Business reforms launched

WP_20140110_008

Generally, mining sector reforms have proved to be elusive in Zimbabwe. This has been the case despite the pivotal role of mining to the country’s socio-economic development outcomes. The archaic Mines and Minerals legislation and outdated mining title management system, for instance, point to a stagnant policy and practice reform process.

Under this context, the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association (ZELA) welcomes the new initiative to bring about policy and practice reforms in the mining sector. Under the leadership of the Office of the President and Cabinet, on 26 July 2017, the inaugural mining sector Technical Working Group (TWG) on ease of doing business was convened at Crowne Plaza hotel.

Stakeholders to the TWG include relevant government Ministries, Departments and Agencies, Business, small scale miners associations and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs). ZELA as the lead organisation on mineral resource governance in Zimbabwe is part of representatives from civil society including the Publish What You Pay (PWYP) campaign.

Professor Ashok Chakravarti coaching the TWG on mining ease of doing business. There are two team leaders, Isaac Kwesu, Chamber of Mines of Zimbabwe CEO  and Minerals Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe’ general Manager, Masimba Chandavengerwa.

The mandate of the TWG is to identify priority areas for policy and practice reforms that enables the business environment to enhance mining sector contribution to economic growth and sustainable development. This entails recommendations to remove impediments to production, export earnings, beneficiation and value addition.

Evidently, Zimbabwe performs poorly in terms of World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Index, ranking number 161 out of 190 countries in 2017.  Government started the ease of doing business reforms 2 years ago, so far, several legal and practice reforms have been successfully implemented.

Realising that mining is pivotal to drive export earnings, infrastructure development, job creation and industrialisation through linkages, government intends to put in place measures to promote domestic and foreign investment into the sector.

Although World Bank has a hand in ease of doing business reforms, strong domestic ownership is quite important. A point that was stressed by Solomon Mhlanga, senior principal director for public sector modernisation and performance management from the Office of the President and Cabinet. That is the reason why all stakeholders must take advantage of the policy platform to turn around policy and practice changes with 100 days. Stakeholders will be meeting weekly, on Wednesdays at the Ministry of Mines boardroom.

World Bank’s Rapid Results Approach (RRA) that has successfully been used in other countries has been customised to guide the ease of doing business reforms in Zimbabwe. To hit the ground running, the TWG agreed to make recommendations on several policy and practice reforms such as the draft Mines and Minerals Amendment Bill, Gold Trade Act, Precious Stones and Trade Act, mining title management system and royalties, levies and fees.

The involvement of CSOs in the TWG is certainly a game change and there is an opportunity to government and mining companies’ processes.

What does the 2016 annual budget review and 2017 outlook tell us about mining and development finance

WP_20140110_020

  • Mining’s impressive contribution to economic indicators like export earnings has little bearing on the welfare of poor and marginalised communities residing in areas in which mineral wealth is extracted from.
  • Mining contributed $2.2 billion in 2016, constituting more than half of total export earnings. Yet mining paid $75,74 million to government, a figure that accounts for only 2.2% of total revenue generated by mining.
  • Although the budget disclosed total revenue received by government from mining, without a breakdown of mineral revenue contribution per revenue head and project, it is difficult for the publicly to ask pointed questions on how government is generating revenue from mining.
  • Likewise, government must make it mandatory for mining companies to disclose the various payments made to government. We own the resources and yet we are relying on countries like Canada to know the various payments that Blanket Mine made to government through Caledonia’s ESTMA report.
  • Tax incentives given to the mining sector are a cost must be accounted for in the budget and eliminated if they are harmful.
  • Disclosure of projects per province undertaken by the likes of Rural Electrification Fund offers opportunities for CSOs and CBOs to carry out social audits through verification of budget outcomes with the results on the ground.

Mineral wealth blessings often boost expectations of improved funding for social protection programmes that cushions poor and vulnerable groups of society. However, the signature performance of many countries endowed with mineral wealth is abject failure to share mining benefits with citizens. A scenario known as the “Resource Curse.”

Against this background, the 2016 annual budget review and 2017 outlook presented by Hon Patrick Chinamasa, the Minister of Finance and Economic Development on 20 July 207 deserves public scrutiny on how the country’s significant mineral wealth is being managed to promote the progressive realisation of socio-economic rights (SERs). Rightly so, the Minister indicated in his introductory message that budget accountability and fiscal transparency are critical elements to enable policy engagement and accessibility for a wider range of public and targeted audiences.

A budget is fundamental a tool that governments use to promote development. Critically, a budget reveals government’s priorities on how it intends to generate, allocate and spend public resources. All this has a telling effect on progressive realisation of SERs guaranteed by the Constitution. The Constitution stipulates that realisation of SERs is subject to the limits of the resources available.

Poor revenue generation, inefficient allocations and expenditure can therefore hurt the provision of social protection programmes that are integral to the fight against inequality. Hence budget analysis and following the money is a signature programme of the tax justice campaign in Zimbabwe. Certainly, how government generates, allocates and spend money from finite mineral resources has gained some pre-eminence in the tax justice campaign.

Mineral resources form a critical component of public wealth. Their exploitation loses legitimacy if citizens are not getting their fair share. This is the reason why the African Mining Vision, a key policy document agreed to by the African head of states in 2009, that seeks to enhance socio-economic transformation hinged on minerals strongly envisage domestic mobilisation of development finance from mining. Rightly so, the Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (Zim-Asset) (2013-2018) acknowledges the potential of mineral wealth to anchor finance for its development programmes.

Mining, undoubtedly is fundamental to Zimbabwe’s socio-economic development agenda. The country is blessed with over 40 known mineral deposits. Minerals exports contribute not less than 50% to the total export earnings. This makes our economy mineral dependent according to IMF’s standards. Countries that rely on at least 20% of their export revenue from minerals are classified as mineral dependent economies. However, such impressive economic indicators like export earnings have little bearing on the welfare of poor communities living in areas where mineral wealth is extracted.

Through paying a fair share of taxes, mining can have a positive impact on the welfare of resource rich communities. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance decried the fact that despite the impressive contribution by mining to export earnings, its contribution to national revenue is only a pittance as reflected by the table below.

Mining Sector Revenue

  2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Government Revenue (US$ Millions) 934 2,339 2,921 3,496 3,741 3,727 3,737 3,502
Mining Revenue (US$ Millions) 50.6 154 161.3 245.8 185.2 335.9 139.9 75.74
Mining Revenue Share (%) 5.4 6.6 5.5 7 4.8 9 3.7 2.2

Source: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

Budget transparency is critical to enable public accountability in the handling of public resources. Transparency carries more weight considering that opacity in the management of mineral wealth is one of the major reasons for poor mineral tax revenue. The budget must be commended for revealing mining’s total contribution to national revenue on annual basis from 2009 to 2016. Despite raking in $2.2 billion in 2016, mining contributed $75.74 million constituting a 2.2% share of mining revenue. Taking into account that mineral royalties contributed $61.9 million in 2016, it implies that other revenue heads contributed $13.84 million to the national purse.

Whilst the disclosure of total revenue paid by mining to government is an important step, huge transparency gaps inhibit public accountability concerning mineral revenue generation.  The budget must disclose disaggregated data such as mining revenue contribution per revenue head and per mining project. Revenue heads include royalties, corporate income tax, customs duty, withholding tax, rural electrification levy among others. On disclosure per mining project, government should be guided by materiality. For instance, a minimum revenue threshold can be set on what qualifies a mining project for disclosure of what government receives from a particular project e.g. $1 million and above annual revenue per project is subjected to disclosure.

If implemented, the above move must be complemented by company disclosure of various payments made to government per project. This is not too much to ask. Already such information has already available for major mining projects in the country such as Blanket Mine and Unki mine, respectively owned by Caledonia and Anglo American. Such information has been made possible by mandatory disclosure rules for listed companies in Canada and EU that are operating in the extractives sector. Mimosa mine has also voluntarily disclosed the various payments made to government.

Disclosure of payments made to government by mining companies and what government receives from mining companies will lay the stage for public reconciliation of mineral tax revenue data. Such levels of transparency can deter corruption as rogue projects that are not paying taxes are exposed and whilst corporates that are paying a fair share of taxes earn their social license to operate.

Currently the poor performance of the mining sector in terms of tax revenue contribution is tarnishing the whole sector although we know that there are different players in the sector. Multinational corporations, state owned entities and other private players among others. Through the ESTIMA reports, we can tell what Blanket mine paid to government. The same cannot be said in terms of payments made to government by other large gold mining projects like How mine and Fredda Rebecca for example. Lastly, without contract transparency, it is difficult for the public to know how good are the deals between government and mining sector.

Another important issue regarding budget transparency and good mineral resource governance is the disclosure of the cost of tax incentives in line with best practice. For instance, government is giving 5% export incentives. Since mining is the largest export earner, it follows that mining is the largest recipient of the 5% export incentives. In the first half of 2017, mineral export earnings surpassed the $1 billion revenue mark. It can be deduced that government paid over $50 million as export incentives to the mining sector, constituting 66% of what the government received from mining in 2016.

Earmarking of mineral revenue to enable investments in human and infrastructure projects is an important aspect of sustainable budget practice. The budget is silent on earmarking of mineral revenue. However, it is known that mining companies are heavy consumers of electricity which makes mining contribution to the Rural Electrification Fund significant. Blanket mine alone paid $466,322 in 2016 according to the Caledonia’s 2016 ESTMA report.

Taking into consideration $18.9 million was disbursed to the Rural Electrification Fund in 2016, Blanket Mine’s payment accounted for 2.6% of the total funds disbursed to Rural Electrification Fund. So, there are opportunities for communities residing close Blanket mine to track how they are benefiting from this fund. Such opportunities gain traction from the budget disclosure of projects that were funded by the fund in 2016.

For instance, we can tell that 45 rural electrification projects were implemented in Matabeleland South, where Blanket mine is located. The electrification projects included 16 primary schools and 9 secondary schools among others. CSOs and CBOs can therefore carry out social audits to fact check the results of the rural electrification fund as reported by the 2016 annual budget review statement against what is obtaining on the ground.

Government must embrace best practice on mineral revenue transparency and accountability if minerals are to benefit all citizens. For many years, the treasury has been on record that mining sector is not paying a fair share of mining taxes. Yet government is giving mining companies incentives that are hurting the flow of development finance from mining.

Contract transparency critical to enable public accountability in the extractive sector

WP_20131124_008

While the global transparency movement for the extractive industries has made important gains on the questions of how much companies pay and governments receive for the exploitation of natural resources (payment transparency) and who ultimately benefits from or controls extractive industry activities (beneficial ownership disclosure), information about the agreements on which these industries are based remains scant in many countries.

Recent developments including the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) and mandatory disclosure laws under which EU and Canadian oil, gas and mining companies must disclose the payments made to governments have changed the transparency landscape. After revenue transparency, beneficial ownership information is now becoming public. But without the contracts, licenses or permits that outline the rights and obligations agreed by government and companies, how can civil society effectively monitor extractive industry projects.

At a Publish What You Pay Data Extractors Workshop last week in Accra, Rob Pitman of the Natural Resource Governance Institute summarised the situation, “we may know now what mining companies are paying to government as well as who is benefiting from mining activities. But without the knowledge of the reasons why mining companies make payments to government, we cannot know for certain whether countries are getting a fair share of taxes from mining companies”. The workshop took place on the side of the Africa Open Data Conference running from 17 to 21 July under the theme “Open Data for Sustainable Development in Africa.”

In most countries contracts, licenses, and permits lay out the rights and obligations between government and a mining company on the exploration or exploitation of oil gas or mineral wealth. Given that contract transparency is a very topical issue in the agenda of curbing corruption in the extractive sector, PWYP had several questions for Rob Pitman who keenly shared fascinating perspectives on the issue.

Mukasiri Sibanda who works with the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association (ZELA) was keen to learn more on contract transparency under licensing regimes like Zimbabwe. South Africa’s PWYP coordinator’s interest was on contract transparency and open contract basics.

Jessie Cato, National Coordinator for Publish What You pay Australia wanted to understand how contract transparency applied in different country contexts, how it fit within the larger conversation about extractives transparency, particularly for countries like Australia where they are campaigning for a mandatory disclosure reporting regime.

Quentin Parrinello, National Coordinator for Publish What You Pay France wanted to hear more about concrete best practices around Open Contracting; which country are doing it? How much human resources are they using? How are local communities already using it?

As a starting point, Rob explained that contract transparency is about ensuring transparency of the legal framework. In almost every country in the world, when laws and regulations are established they are made public so that government employees, companies and citizens know what the rules are and can check if they are being followed. A big exception for this practice exists in the extractive industries, where many of the rules that govern big projects are hidden away in contracts, licenses or permits, which are not accessible to the public. Contract disclosure is about making these documents publicly accessible.

While much needs to be done, important gains have been made. There are now more than 39 governments that have officially published contracts, with 17 jurisdictions now publishing all or nearly all contracts. Triangulating the results of the recently released Resource Governance Index with the findings of Past the Tipping Point – an NRGI enquiry of contract disclosure practices within EITI release earlier in 2017 – we see that there are now at least 27 jurisdictions with laws requiring the disclosure of contracts. Several companies including Kosmos Energy, Tullow Oil and Rio Tinto, have made public statements in support of the contract disclosure and many more make disclosures contracts in stock exchange filings in their home countries.

In recent years, people are beginning to see contract disclosure as an essential part of the process of open contracting. This is the movement that aims toward transparency of processes by which contracts are developed. Initially, open contracting was developed to make public procurement more open for citizen accountability. Standards have been developed in this field.  The trend on open contracting can also be used in the extractive sector to promote disclosure across the whole contracting process like public procurement processes.

Mexico is an interesting example of open contracting best practice in the extractive sector. Its online platform provides information concerning the tendering, contract and performance of the contract like revenue generated by a company and payments made to government.

Standards such as EITI have been influential to bring on board mandatory disclosure of payments made to governments by corporates listed in Canada and EU. It is now possible for citizens in resources rich countries that have not embraced best practice on company payments to government to access such information through the ESTIMA reports, Zimbabwe is a case in point. It is important to take note though that such information can be only accessed provided the company in question is listed directly or indirectly in Canada and EU.

Right now, EITI is targeting for public disclosure of beneficial ownership by 2020. EITI should also move with speed on contract disclosure to influence a broader scope on mandatory disclosure..

The corruption risks in the award of extractive sector have been compiled by NRGI here. Such studies help CSOs and the citizens to have a better understanding on why open contracting is important. That said, laws on transparency are not enough. Corporates must promote ethical conduct by paying a fair share of taxes in countries where they are extracting resources. It must never be forgotten that the history of companies and exploitation of Africa’s natural resources is quite dirty.  Countries such as Zimbabwe were colonised by a company, the British South Africa Company.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why governments must share data?

Community Data Extractors

Picture taken by Mukasiri Sibanda under the PWYP data extractors programme

Without information, it is like suffering a power blackout. Confidence is eroded. We are dependent on power for light, cooking, heating and entertainment among other needs. This blog focuses on why governments must avoid information black outs, a major talking point that helped to kick start the second day of the Africa Open Data Conference #AODC17, currently being held in Accra, Ghana from 17 to 21 July 2017.

The AODC’s theme is “Open data for sustainable development.” Befittingly, the health, education, agriculture and extractive sectors are on hand to discuss how data can contribute to the achieving of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Africa by 2030. According to the open data hand bookopen data is data that can be freely used, re-used and redistributed by anyone – subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and sharealike”.

Governments have an obligation to publicly share data. The right to information is a fundamental human right embraced by many progressive Constitutions. Basically, citizens must be able to participate in the formulation and implementation of development plans that affect them. Information, without a doubt, is a catalyst to citizen participation in governance. Citizens have a right to know information such as how government generates, allocates and utilises public resources to deliver public services like health and education.

Corruption is a major challenge in Africa. The costs of corruption are disproportionately felt by the poor.  One of the major reasons why corruption thrives is secrecy, lack of information. Through open data, African governments can show their commitment to fight corruption and help to plug the leakage of public resources mainly through corrupt procurement practices. Open contracting is one pathways which governments can use to fight rampant corruption in public procurement of goods and services. In the extractive sector, the Resource Governance Index reveals that countries that have not embraced the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) tend to perform poorly on managing resource wealth for the benefit of their citizens.

Open data can also have a positive effect on efficiency of service delivery. A speaker from Uganda highlighted the benefits that data has brought to the fight against diseases. Data enables the health sector to map some hot spots and to have a fair idea of the resources needed to control disease outbreaks. CSOs can also pressure government to ensure that expenditure is pro-poor if data is public accessible on how governments manages public funds.

Innovation and economic growth can also be spurred by open data. In the mining sector, the Cadastre system, an online platform that has potential to promote efficient management of mining claims by avoiding allocation of one claim to multiple owners. Investors in the mining sector are attracted when they have confidence in the management system of mining claims that is open and transparent. Knowing the quantities and qualities of Africa’s vast mineral wealth fundamental to the negotiation of good contracts that creates better opportunities for domestic resource mobilisation as envisaged by the African Mining Vision (AMV).

Open data alone is not a magic bullet. Data access is the first step to promote accountability. Citizens must demonstrate the ability to use data to hold to account government and business on how their socio-economic rights can be fulfilled. That being the case, civil society campaigns such as Publish What You Pay (PWYP) must be applauded for equipping communities with data literacy skills to demand the change that they want to see on how their resources are managed by government and mining companies.

Great Dyke Alternative Mining Indaba: A Focus on Tax Justice Campaign

“Certainly, local government’s fiscal capabilities to deliver quality services like schools, clinics and roads will be enhanced if national government share revenue with local government as desired by the constitution.” Mr G Moyo, Runde RDC CEO.

CSOs and communities should take advantage of the upcoming national budget public consultations to attend in numbers and to make their voice count on how national resource revenues are generated, allocated and utilised to meet their needs” Hon John Holder

This will enable us to follow our money so that we can promote accountability in the management of mineral revenue to get schools, clinics, roads, water and sanitation from our government” Eunica Pabwakavungana, a PWYP community data extractor on disclosure of payments made to government by mining companies and disclosure of minerals revenue raised and spent by government.

“Tax is an important tool to redistribute wealth. Some areas that are not so blessed with mineral wealth should also get a fair share of revenue from mineral wealth extraction” Tinashe Gumbo with ZIMCODD

This article shares some key discussions and recommendations that emerged during the tax justice break away session of the 5th edition of the Great Dyke Alternative Mining Indaba held in Gweru on 4 and 5 July 2017. The discussants included a Publish What You Pay (PWYP) community data extractor, a legislator, local government CEO and an activist from the Zimbabwe Coalition on Debt and Development (ZIMCODD). Critical issues that were discussed during the Tax justice break away session were the regressive local mining tax system, revenue sharing between national and local government, experiences of a community data extractor and opportunities presented by the upcoming national and local budget consultations.

The indaba’s theme was “Responsible and accountable governance of minerals”. Over one hundred people participated at the indaba. Participants came from various stakeholder groupings like mining impacted communities from Zvishavane, Shurugwi, Mhondoro Ngezi and Gwanda; traditional chiefs, legislators, artisanal and small scale miners, media and government. This indaba was organised by the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association (ZELA) in partnership with ZIMCODD and the Zimbabwe Council of Churches (ZCC). Some of the topical issues that were discussed are; Enhancing business linkages, investments and diversification; Promoting responsible and sustainable growth of artisanal and small scale gold mining; Tax justice, Business and human rights and Community engagement and local development.

Regressive local mining tax system.
Local government is empowered by the Third Schedule of the Rural District Council Act and the Constitution to use tax as a tool to finance local economic and social service delivery. If mining companies pay their fair share of taxes to rural districts councils, mineral revenues ideally should largely finance local service delivery. However, the regressive local mining tax system inhibit the flow of development finance from mining activities.

The local tax system for the mining sector is regressive in that where precious minerals liked diamond, gold and platinum are exploited, labour is used a unit to calculated taxes to be paid according to the Third Schedule of the RDC Act. As an example, the first unit ranges from 1 to 99 workers and the second unit ranges from 100 to 149 workers. In the case of base metals like chrome, unit taxes are based on production volumes. Room is left in the Act for RDCs to negotiate with mining companies the price to be paid per each unit. This negotiation process is annual since it is tied to the annual local government budgeting process. Depending on the bargaining power of the local government, a good deal or poor deal can be struck.

Since production in the mining sector is now capital intensive, employment opportunities in the mining sector are now limited. This renders labour a regressive unit for calculating local taxes. Whilst technology has boosted mineral production, the number of employees is still being used to calculate local mining taxes. As a result, when those that are earning more are paying a lesser share of their income, the tax system is deemed to be regressive. The tax burden will be shouldered disproportionately by those that earn less in society. A situation that perpetuates inequality. In the end, women and other vulnerable groups are hit hardest. Regressive tax systems are a violation of the constitutional principle on public financial management which states that the tax burden must be shared fairly.

Constitutional revenue sharing formula between national and local government not being followed
Section 301 of the Constitution provides for allocation of revenue between national, provincial and local government tiers. Subsection 3 prescribes that “not less 5% of national generated revenue in that financial year must be allocated to provincial and local governments as their share in that year.” However, since the new Constitution was passed in 2013, the national budgeted has failed to share with local governments national revenues as provided for by the Constitution.

Given that the 2017 national budget projected national revenue at $3,7 billion, at least $185 million was supposed to trickle down to local governments. “Certainly, local government’s fiscal capabilities to deliver quality services like schools, clinics and roads will be enhanced if national government share revenue with local government as desired by the constitution”  Runde RDC CEO. It is disheartening to note that Parliament has been passing budgets which clearly violates the Constitution on revenue allocation concerning the three tiers of government. Civil society have also not coalesced to pressure Parliament and the executive to uphold the Constitution.

Innovation is key to mitigate mired mineral revenue transparency reforms
For the past 6 years, Government through the national budget statements has been consistent in its calls for the adoption of the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) or its domestic version the Zimbabwe Mineral Revenue Transparency Initiative (ZMRTI). Still, mineral revenue transparency reforms have not come to fruition. Therefore, CSOs, community data extractors, legislators and the media must make use of data coming from mandatory disclosure of payments made to government by Multi National Enterprises (MNEs) listed in Canada, UK and EU.

In addition, innovation is key. CSOs and communities can work with local governments and mining companies to push for voluntary disclosure of payments made by mining companies to local government and payments received by government. In Zvishavane, Mimosa Mines has shown commitment to disclose various payments it makes to government. Likewise, Runde Rural District Council has indicated willingness to disclose payments received from mining companies and mining agreements under its jurisdiction.

“We are open to work with stakeholders to follow best practice on mineral revenue transparency at local government level” Runde RDC CEO

Whilst Zimbabwe is lagging on embracing international best practice on mineral revenue transparency, the is room for CSOs and Communities to exploit low hanging fruits through engaging with progressive local governments and mining companies. Off course, payments made by mining companies to local government are meagre when compared to national government which limits the impact of transparency at local government level. However, should these improvised local versions of EITI materialise, small as the victory might appear to some, it is an important step towards citizens driven mineral revenue transparency policy and practice reforms.

Community data extractors and demand driven transparency and accountability
Eunica Pabwakavungana (female) a community data extractors shared her experience on community data extraction. “We want to know how much taxes are being paid to local and national government by mining companies and why they are paying. That is why we are saying to mining companies publish what you pay and the reasons why you are paying, that is, the disclosure of tax agreements. Local and central government should publish what they earn from mining companies and how they spend. This will enable us to follow our money so that we can promote accountability in the management of mineral revenue to get schools, clinics, roads, water and sanitation from our government. Lastly, we want mining companies to publish how they extract. This means that information like Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) should be made public.

Spurred by the knowledge of opportunities presented by mandatory disclosure of payments made to governments by UK listed companies, Shurugwi data extractors successfully approached Anglo-American owned Unki mine for disclosure of payments made to their local government, Tongogara Rural District Council (TRDC). The data extractors are now waiting to engage with their local government during the upcoming 2018 budget public consultations on disclosure of payments received from mining companies per project. Also, data extractors will engage their local government on contract negotiations of tax rates to be paid by mining companies. This data will help communities to publicly reconcile payments made to local government by mining companies with payments received by local government from mining companies.

CSOs like the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association (ZELA) could have provided communities with this information from the website. However, the motivation was to empower communities to confidently drive demand for transparency targeted at duty bearers, mining and government in this case.

Often, communities and CSOs have been accused largely by mining companies that their demands were not specific and clear. This is what motivated Publish What You Pay campaign to pilot a community data extractors programme in Shurugwi and Marange. Overall communities were equipped with skills on how to extract data, analyse data and use data to demand the change that communities want to see. Community data extractors were urged not to use an adversarial approach when engaging with mining companies and government. Key areas of interest for community data extractors include taxes paid to both local and national government, employment and skills development, community enterprise development, community share ownership trusts, corporate social investments and environmental management.

Oversight role of parliament in the management of mineral revenues
Parliament, through the Portfolio Committee of Mines and Energy conducts public hearings and field visits to investigate loopholes in the management of mineral resources and then make some recommendations to the executive. The challenge is that Parliament has no power to enforce its recommendations to the executive.

“CSOs and communities should take advantage of the upcoming national budget public consultations to attend in numbers and to make their voice count on how national resources are generated, allocated and utilised to meet their needs” Hon John Holder

Communities however complained that poor public participation during national budget consultation meetings is caused by poor communication of the meeting dates and venues.

“This year Parliament is going to change the advertising of public budget consultation meetings and work with civil society organisations such as ZELA to mobilise the grassroots” Mr E Nyamuramba, Public Relations, Parliament of Zimbabwe.

Upon being asked if it is feasible for Parliament to block the national budget if it fails to allocate at least 5% of national revenue to local governments, Hon Holder explained that the whipping system presents challenges.

Tax justice issues for communities and civil society
This topic was shared by Tinashe Gumbo of the Zimbabwe Coalition on Debt and Development (ZIMCODD)
Roles of taxation are quite important to understand the nexus of tax and development. The roles include revenue raising, redistribution of wealth, representation and repricing. Zimbabwe’s abundant mineral wealth offers exciting opportunities for reliable domestic resource mobilisation (DRM) to finance development. DRM is important considering that official development assistance and foreign direct investment are unpredictable and dwindling. Therefore, government and mining companies must curb corruption, illicit financial flows and harmful tax incentives which inhibit optimal tax revenue flows. Redistribution of wealth is achieved through pro poor expenditure of tax revenue mainly generated from the rich.

Without efficient and transparent public financial systems, it is difficult for government to effectively redistribute wealth. That is why the Auditor General’s reports that have gory details of fruitless and wasteful expenditure, corruption and abuse of public resources should be fodder for CSOs and communities to hold government to account on fighting inequality. This point leads to another role of taxation which is representation. Since almost all citizens pay taxes to government one way or another, public scrutiny to hold government accountable on how revenue is generated, allocated and utilised is quite important. Follow the money. The last role deals with repricing. Government can deter consumption of certain goods like alcohol and tobacco by increasing taxes.

Recommendations
The regressive local mining tax system must be reformed to make it progressive by changing from labour to production volumes as a basis for computing taxes to be paid to local government.

The national budget must be expressive or reflective of the constitutional requirement to allocate at least 5% of national revenue generated in any given financial year to provincial and local governments.

If the national budget fails to comply with the constitutional requirement to allocate at 5% of national revenue to provincial and local governments, CSOs and communities must petition to Parliament or appeal to the constitutional court to enforce compliance.

The PWYP community data extractors programme must be broadened and be supported with tools and resources to drive community driven agenda for change on how their mineral resources should be managed and utilised to meet their needs.

CSOs and communities should take advantage of the upcoming local and national budget public consultations to attend in numbers and to make their voice count on how national resources are generated, allocated and utilised to meet their needs

CSOs and communities must innovate in the face of stalled mineral revenue transparency reforms and work with progressive government agencies and mining companies on mineral revenue disclosure.

Government must implement the office of the Auditor General’s recommendations to stop fruitless and wasteful expenditures, corruption and abuse of public resources that hurts the poor and vulnerable groups of society.

CSOs and CBOs must make use of mandatory disclosures of payments made to government by mining companies listed in UK, EU and Canada such Unki Mine owned by Anglo American.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑