The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Extractive Industries and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/exis

Mining at the crossroads: Sectoral diversification to safeguard sustainable

mining?
⁎
Willem de Langea, , Benita de Weta, Lorren Haywooda, William Stafforda, Constansia Musvotoa,
Ingrid Watsonb
a
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, South Africa
b
Centre for Sustainability in Mining and Industry, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Green economic principles call for a broadening of the scope of mine planning and operations to incorporate
Integration sectoral diversification as a formal part of the life cycle of mines. In this opinion piece we argue that sectoral
Diversification integration of mining holds promise to improve the long term business resilience of the mining sector. We
Mining explain this notion for the case of diversification to agriculture in South Africa. The challenge is certainly not
Agriculture
unique to South Africa and whilst the mining sector has become more socially and environmentally conscious, it
remains a challenge world-wide. Ample opportunity remains for innovative interventions that go beyond mi-
tigating risk of the post-mining landscape, towards socially and economically inclusive development solutions. It
is hoped that this contribution ignites more debate on finding new ways to develop the complex relationships
between sectors into mutually beneficial and cooperative coexistence based on true sectoral integration, so as to
improve the long term sustainability of developing economies.

1. Introduction companies have been slow to incorporate green economic principles in

The greening (UNEP, 2011, 2012) of economies is increasingly be-
coming the mainstream approach for the practical implementation of
the sustainable economic development ideal. Consequently, green
economic objectives increasingly direct current global economic de-
velopmental pathways via so-called “green economic principles” (Allen,
2012; Nahman et al., 2016; Stoddart et al., 2012). Although there are
many viewpoints regarding these principles, it is inevitable that coun-
tries and businesses need to redefine their competitive advantage in
terms of the green space, i.e. in terms of green economy principles, if
their economies and businesses are to remain competitive.
However, adopting such green economy principles as an over-
arching economic development paradigm has sector-specific require-
ments and impacts (Nahman et al., 2016), and each sector faces unique
challenges in adapting its mainstream operations in accordance with
green economic principles. Primary sectors such as agriculture, fish-
eries, forestry and mining which generally have significant negative
impacts on the environment, are often in conflict with green economic
principles. In particular, future mining operations will have to be
conducted very differently from the current mainstream practice in
order to remain in business (Digby et al., 2018). Yet, evidence suggests
that in some countries such, as South Africa multi-national mining
their core business because, firstly the very nature of the business is
based on the extraction of finite resources (Digby et al., 2018). Sec-
ondly, the mining sector as a whole has to great extent, confined itself
to a mono-sectoral approach to business, often missing out from ben-
efiting from catalytic development in the value chains of non-mining
industries (Campbell, 2012). Thirdly, mining companies tend to apply
globally standardised corporate systems for the design, construction,
operation, and decommissioning of their mines, and hence find it dif-
ficult to adjust their businesses given the lack of flexibility in these
systems. In effect, this “one size fits all” approach to mine planning,
development and operation, is often an impediment to adaptation that
could ultimately compromise the resilience of the very same mining
company it supports (Hilson, 2012). All three of the above-mentioned
reasons imply the need for broadening the scope of planning and op-
erations to incorporate an eventual transition to other sectors as a
formal part of the life cycle of a mine (Digby et al., 2018). In this
opinion piece we suggest that sectoral integration of mining answers
this need. We present some supporting arguments that diversification
holds promise to achieve such integration in order to improve the long
term business resilience of this sector. Although, we discuss this notion
for the case for integration with agriculture within the context of South
Africa, the challenge is not unique to South Africa and whilst the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wdelange@csir.co.za (W. de Lange).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2018.06.005
Received 23 March 2018
2214-790X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: De Lange, W., The Extractive Industries and Society (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2018.06.005
W. de Lange et al.
mining sector has become more socially and environmentally con-
scious, it remains a challenge world-wide. Ample opportunity remains
for innovative interventions that goes beyond mitigating risk of the
post-mining landscape and more towards socially and economically
inclusive development solutions.
2. Mining at the crossroads
Thus far limited diversification has been thought of within a post-
mining context only - mainly due to legislation that motivates planning
with mine closure in mind (Digby et al., 2018). However, we argue that
planning for sectoral diversification to achieve such integration needs
to happen from the beginning of a mining operation, to ensure that such
integration becomes part of the core business of the mining company,
i.e. not at the post-mining phase. I.e. the question could be asked as to
whether or not mining companies would mine differently if their ob-
jective includes sectoral diversification. We argue that this is an im-
portant question since such integration could not only provide potential
opportunities for increasing profits, but could expand and diversify
mining companies into other sectors, potentially far beyond their cur-
rent scope of business, so as to create a legacy of sustainability for the
local social ecological system in which it operates (Digby et al., 2018).
This will of course imply fundamental changes to current mining op-
erations and changes to the mainstream mining business model, be-
cause mining companies will need to plan such diversification as an
integral part of mining operations. It does, in effect call for sectoral
integration by means of diversification to internalise mining ex-
ternalities to maintain the long-term financial sustainability of mining
companies. Because such diversification will then be done within a
company, revenue streams from the company will be used to catalyse
the diversification alongside its current mining operations. If done in a
financially acceptable way the sector will maintain its important cata-
lytic role within a green economy; essentially by becoming ‘develop-
ment- companies’, rather than merely an extractive industry with a
socio-ecological deficit at mine sites once its operations are concluded.
This is a radical departure from current mainstream practice in mine
planning and development, to an approach which embodies increased
awareness that a mine has a context in a broader social ecological
system, and one that is better aligned with the need to build socio-
economic resilience in that system; leaving a positive legacy. It will also
enable the mining sector to access potential benefits, which are cur-
rently not within its reach. Such diversification will have profound
impacts on the way current mining operations are conducted. Profit-
ability in the short/medium term may be marginally lower, but long
term business resilience of the mining company could be increased due
to avoided externalities from its mining activities. This potential should
be juxtaposed against the backdrop of a steadily declining mining
sector: as mineral resources are depleted and opportunities for new
mine development dwindle, long term solutions for financial sustain-
ability for mining companies need to be found. One option lies in di-
versification.
Bringing about such diversification would be challenging and de-
signing suitable incentives to enable such diversification will not be
easy. For example, in the context of legal and financial accounting
frameworks mining infrastructure is unique in that it is the only asset
class which is not depreciated to a zero value when mines close. This is
because mining infrastructure becomes a liability to its owners due to
the requirement that the company needs to restore the mining site to a
stable, non-mining condition, preferably one resembling the status quo
prior to mining. Such legislation aims to avoid (in theory) threats to the
integrity of the social ecological system of the broader area, from re-
sidual impacts in the post-mining landscape which have not been re-
mediated. However, the liability may be sold or transferred to another
entity, but only after it has been determined that the new owner pos-
sesses the means to do the required restoration. Typically, mining
companies transfer these liabilities to other mining companies, often
2
The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
with little consideration to the potential from other sectors such as
tourism and agriculture, to not only contribute to the restoration effort
but also to reap benefit in doing so. There are indeed many examples
around the world where redundant mining infrastructure has been re-
used in creative ways to generate a competitive advantage for new
businesses (all of the following are for post-mining landscapes with new
owners):
• Mining and agriculture: Re-use of mining infrastructure in agri-
culture and acid mine drainage for irrigation.
• Mining and manufacturing: Re-use of mine equipment in manu-
facturing and mine tailings for manufacturing of stone paper.
• Mining and services: Treated acid mine drainage to augment mu-
nicipal water supply.
• Mining and tourism: Pitlakes from open pit mining transformed into
tourist/entertainment attractions.
Maintaining ownership after mine closure along with a migration
from one sector to another (as being called for here), presents major
challenges for mining companies. Not only can the financial cost of the
negative impacts of mining operations no longer be avoided, but the
requirements of diversification must be incorporated into mine plan-
ning and design - something which mining companies have not done
before. We discuss diversification towards agriculture, as one example
of a pathway to achieve integration.
3. The mining – agricultural nexus
Although both the mining and agricultural sectors are embedded in
a larger socio-cultural context, with both being polluters and major
transformers of land, these two primary sectors remain the main cata-
lysts of economic development in most economies - particularly in the
developing world (Ross, 2015; Weng et al., 2013). Unfortunately,
mining and agriculture are most often seen as competitors (Pijpers,
2014, Van der Burgh et al., 2012) and although we acknowledge this
perspective, we argue that the relationship between mining and agri-
culture is more diverse and complex than merely competition. The re-
lationship between mining and agriculture could be explained by many
variables other than competition and in order to understand and use the
mutual dynamics between the sectors (including competition) to the
benefit of both, mining and agriculture should be considered as com-
plimentary sectors. However, this requires profound insight into the
interconnectedness of the two sectors and new research and policy
development should examine mining and agriculture beyond current
typologies of competition, in order to secure a more sustainable future
for both.
The notion has been illustrated at the household level (Pijpers,
2014). Both mining and agriculture have long been a source of liveli-
hood for millions of people in Sub-Saharan Africa, with people from the
same household often working in both sectors. Nevertheless, despite the
co-existence and importance of mining and agriculture in the everyday
lives of many people, the interconnectedness of the two activities has
received relatively little attention (Hilson, 2002 and Pijpers, 2014;
Digby et al., 2018). This is most pronounced in the context of com-
mercial scale operations. It is evident from the literature that artisanal
mining and agriculture are often employed as complementary economic
activities as a livelihood strategy for rural households across Africa
(Pijpers, 2014; Hilson and McQuilken, 2014). Individuals are able to
combine working in these two sectors in a strategy to increase their
standard of living (McHenry et al., 2015; Hilson and McQuilken, 2014).
However, Bill Turner (AAMIG) has argued: “One of the most im-
pressive legacies a mining company can leave behind following mine closure
is a local community with a productive agricultural capacity; one that is run
on a commercial basis rather than subsistence farming and one that is sus-
tainable. This is the kind of result that contributes to making a mining
company a partner of choice and an employer of choice and helps build a
W. de Lange et al.
truly competitive advantage” (IMDC, 2014). Could the inherent compat-
ibilities and fundamental similarities between the two sectors be em-
ployed on a commercial scale to identify and design diversified catalytic
development pathways that support both sectors? What are the possi-
bilities of realising the same level of integration between these two
sectors on the commercial scale as that has occurred between mining
and agriculture at the household level of the household (Barrett et al.,
2001; McHenry and Persley, 2015)? It is our contention that there is
substantial potential in exploring this integration, the purpose of which
would not be to steer mining companies away from mining, but rather
to approach mining differently, i.e. within the context of a trans-sec-
toral integrative approach to mining. We argue that the above-men-
tioned commercial scale integration could be realised via the diversi-
fication of mining to agriculture in such a way that agriculture is
planned into and becomes part of mainstream mining operations right
from the outset of mining operations. From a commercial perspective,
these two sectors share similar needs for capital (natural, manu-
factured, human, financial and social), which, often leads to competi-
tion (Chen and Randall, 2013). However, the mutual dependency and
impacts of these two sectors also imply that they rely upon one another
to prosper, and we argue that this reliance can create common ground
for not only engaging the competition-based conflict between the two
sectors, but also for increasing its resource use efficiency and business
resilience. By exploring the inter-dependencies and impacts between
mining and agriculture in more detail, we argue that the means ways
can be identified to not only design incentives (beyond conventional
taxes and royalties) for mining companies to diversify to agriculture,
but also to avoid mining legacy problems. This nexus between mining
and agriculture consisting of the mutual inter-dependencies and im-
pacts, includes (among others):
Agriculture supplying food (mostly imported) to mine workers
(Weng et al., 2013).
Mining supplying intermediate agricultural inputs such as fertiliser
and feed supplements (Robbins, 2013).
Mining often decreases agricultural potential of land. Although not
always the case and although mining operations often have a small
above-surface footprint (in terms of total land use, relative to agri-
culture), conflict can arise at the local level where mining is per-
ceived as competing with agriculture (Hilson, 2002; McHenry et al.,
2015).
Mining decreases water quality and hence its usability for agri-
culture (McHenry et al., 2015; Yibas et al., 2013).
Perceived higher income potential of mining can draw labour away
from agriculture – particularly in Africa where the declining viabi-
lity of agriculture has led to migration of labour from agriculture to
mining (Pijpers, 2014).
Agriculture benefits from improvements in infrastructure associated
with mining operations, in particular access roads and electricity
supply (Weng et al., 2013).
Some similarities that could play an important role (International
Mining and Development Centre (IMDC, 2014):
• Mining and agriculture share similar needs in terms of capital
(natural, manufactured, human, financial and social), and this often
leads to sectoral competition.
• Both sectors are catalysts for growth in the secondary and tertiary
sectors.
• The sectors have similar negative impacts on the natural resources
base, e.g. both decrease water quality.
• Similarities in labour intensity per unit output and commonalities in
labour profiles.
• Similarities in terms of location, i.e. mining and agriculture are ty-
pically situated in a rural context.
3
The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
The question could be asked whether mining-derived investment in
agriculture is adequate for the development of a mutually beneficial
relationship between these two sectors. Here we would argue that the
mere presence of mining is usually not sufficient to catalyse the de-
velopment of commercial scale agriculture. If agriculture were to ex-
pand significantly due to the direct presence of mining activity, the
criteria for catalysing such mining-derived investment in agriculture
would need to be investigated. It has been argued that the removal of
typical barriers such as a lack of infrastructure, and unfavourable
markets for the agricultural sector, would incentivise such investment.
Whilst it may be true that removing these barriers would support the
creation of agricultural value chains, it is not yet evident whether their
removal will be an incentive for mining companies to diversify and
invest in agriculture. Although some of these barriers are indeed re-
moved when mining moves into an area, this is a secondary effect of the
mining activity, with the primary purpose being to mine in order to
make money. This implies that the financial viability of the mining
operation and the mining company must be improved via such invest-
ment. This in turn implies the need for a business case to incentivise
investment in agriculture and the development of such a business case
requires profound insight into the mining-agricultural nexus. So what
will incentivise mining to invest in agriculture?
4. Sectoral integration between mining and agriculture
One can assume that the primary objective of maintaining financial
the viability of the mine will remain. Given that most players in the
agricultural commodity markets are price takers, it implies that prof-
itability gains are unlikely to be found with price premiums for unique
product features or superior quality, but rather in cost savings. Cost
savings and economies of scale goes hand-in-hand in the agricultural
commodity market, which implies that a mining company will need to
employ cost saving and economies of scale as two main strategies to
improve the financial viability of its agricultural divisions. This is
nothing new for mines. In theory, mines can realise cost savings by
leveraging its competitive advantages over their agricultural based
competition. Sources of such competitive advantage can be found by
comparing and matching the needs of agriculture with the current
properties of mining:
• Capital intensity - both sectors are capital intensive at the com-
mercial level. A competitive advantage for mines could lie within
the extent to which mining infrastructure can be used for agri-
cultural purposes (production and processing).
• Labour cost – the extent to which mining personnel could be re-
trained for the agricultural sector could become a competitive ad-
vantage if such retraining realises cost savings.
• Procurement channels – the extent to which established procure-
ment channels of mines can be used for agricultural purposes could
be a potential cost saving.
The above can be developed into competitive advantages when
mining enters agriculture and ideally the requirements of these should
to be accounted for via changes to current mining operations, such as
the integration of various agricultural commodities to augment the
supply of food to mining companies. The bulk food supply for mining
companies is serviced via external procurement, i.e. mining companies
tend to view the supply of food to their labour force purely as a pro-
curement challenge (International Mining and Development Centre
(IMDC, 2014) and often ignore local agricultural procurement and
consequent development options when opting for import-suppliers
known to them. This approach does not consider how mines can con-
tribute to long term regional development through developing forward
and backward linkages with agriculture; or even better, diversifying
into agriculture to produce the food themselves. If this could change via
diversification towards agriculture to enable local procurement of bulk
W. de Lange et al.
food supplies, the mining company will not only improve its financial
viability, but also overcome many of the entry barriers of agriculture.
The mining company could do this by presenting the infrastructure
solutions that agricultural investment requires to open new markets for
agriculture and improve the livelihoods of people. However, this pro-
cess needs to be planned in such a way so as to allow agriculture to
continue from mining once a mine has reach the end of its viable life.
The above-mentioned again requires improved integration between
these sectors. Sectoral integration of value chains requires changing the
developmental ideal from being an extractive based sector to a di-
versified sector. Although farming is not a core skill of mining per-
sonnel, and although mining and agriculture have distinct industry
cultures, mining companies can create farming divisions within the
company by either training their own personnel or by employing
farmers. Such obvious dissimilar divisions (mining and farming) within
the same company could create the kind of tension necessary for mining
companies to successfully diversify and improve agricultural pro-
ductivity and competitiveness in the region they operate by:
• • How will mining companies use business innovation to transform
○ Providing much needed direct investment in agriculture;
○ Improving the coordination of investments along agriculture
value chains;
○ Leveraging the mine as a secured market for the agricultural
sector;
○ Securing supply and quality of produce to mines
Several examples exist in the literature where limited integration of
mining with other sectoral value chains has been achieved albeit as a
means of managing post-mining responsibilities. Examples include:
(Hilson, 2002, 2012; McHenry et al., 2015) :
• the use of redundant mining and associated infrastructure as zero
cost assets to create a competitive advantage for new business
ventures;
• the development of business structures and operations in a way that
capitalises on the characteristics of the redundant infrastructure,
thereby providing a competitive advantage for the new business;
• the use of mining waste as an input for manufacturing.
The above-mentioned examples stem from the mainstream ap-
proach adopted by mining companies to manage their post mining re-
sponsibilities according to a rather narrow interpretation of the prin-
ciple of private cost minimisation. This implies an objective of
complying with legislation in order to avoid fines and typically involves
restoration activities such as land and soil stabilisation and establishing
vegetation cover. The private benefit associated with such an approach
relates to the extent of avoided fines, while the social benefits asso-
ciated with such an approach relates to the decrease in negative impacts
on society associated with these restoration efforts. Although there is
nothing fundamentally wrong with such an approach, it is a poor in-
centive for improved integration and more than often sub-optimal from
a social benefit perspective and certainly not an effective way to make
money. The question could rightly be asked how can mining increase its
benefit when avoiding / mitigating post mining impacts? The above-
mentioned cost minimisation approach gives little, if any, consideration
to the idea of transforming and managing the post mining landscape as
a potential asset / opportunity with the aim of increasing both private
and social benefits.
5. Further research
Current incentives for mining companies to engage with local
economies on a commercial scale beyond the mining sector itself are
poor (Digby et al., 2018). The resulting missed opportunities associated
with diversification seem to be significant (Robbins, 2013 and Digby
4
The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
et al., 2018). Although understandable given their risk-averse nature,
this is starting to affect the long term financial viability and planning of
mining companies.
It is becoming increasingly clear that mining should consider op-
tions outside the sector to maintain viability. We argue that, tradi-
tionally, too much is invested in extraction efficiencies, cost optimisa-
tion, and other strategies that provide short-term benefits only. For
example the sector currently invests quite heavily in reducing labour
intensity of the sector and although such a trend may increase profit
margins, this is not appropriate for many developing countries strug-
gling with low economic growth and unemployment. Mining companies
will need to find creative ways to serve their corporate social respon-
sibility requirements while maintaining or even improving their fi-
nancial viability (Hilson, 2012; McHenry et al., 2015; International
Mining and Development Centre (IMDC, 2014). Mining leaders should
think about the sector’s future development pathway far beyond merely
achieving financial targets and their corporate social responsibility
goals, for example:
the fundamentals of their operations and supply chain to become
more resilient in their business?
• What role will mining companies take in leading the world corpo-
rate social responsibility?
These questions and others inevitably begin to frame the discussion
about the future of mining. Perhaps the most profound insight we can
draw is that the smarter mine of the future will extend much further
than the mining sector itself, leading a transformation from being an
extraction-based sector to a development-focused sector. Such a
strategy involves the incorporation of the United Nations sustainable
development goals in mainstream mining protocol. This implies that
mining companies will have to adapt their business models and prac-
tices to capitalise from opportunities emerging from new challenges.
We argue that the need for diversification is such a challenge; and have
discussed the case of diversifying to agriculture.
We argue for diversification of mining to agriculture as a particular
way of not only avoiding post-mining responsibilities, but also to im-
prove the long term business resilience of mining companies. Although
mining and agriculture are critical to many people’s lives the mutual
dynamics are, despite their importance, often poorly understood and
consequently often undervalued and underestimated. It is hoped that
this opinion piece ignites more debate around the relationship between
these two sectors. It argues that the case for the long term sustainability
of the mining and agricultural sectors is to be found in cooperative
coexistence based on true sectoral integration. We have discussed some
of the challenges to accomplish such integration via diversification and
argued that integrating mining and agriculture with a skilled workforce
and sourcing local goods and services can create an economic multiplier
much bigger than the multiplier of each individual sector.
This kind of work could provide a framework for an integrative
decision-support process that guide mining’s pathway to diversify into
other sectors during the planning phases of mines. In this example the
framework can also contribute towards transforming the current com-
petitive relationship between mining and agriculture into a synergistic
relationship where both sectors work together to not only address the
mining legacy problem of countries, but to avoid mining legacy pro-
blems altogether and to also increase the long term business resilience
of both sectors. This could have significant implications because the
mining legacy problem is not unique to South Africa and whilst the
mining sector has become more socially and environmentally con-
scious, it remains a major problem world-wide. Ample opportunity
remains for innovative interventions that go beyond mitigating risk of
the post-mining landscape, towards socially and economically inclusive
development solutions remains.
W. de Lange et al. The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Acknowledgements content/uploads/2015/09/CF_Bread_and_Stones_low-res.pdf.
McHenry, M.P., Doepel, D., Zhou, E., Murray-Prio, R., Dixon, J., 2015. Agricultural land
use changes through inter-sectoral and international engagement: the interface of
This work was funded by CSIR (www.csir.co.za) parliamentary mining and agriculture in Mozambique. In: McHenry, M.P., Kulshreshtha, S.N., Lac,
grant funding. The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their S. (Eds.), Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Nova Science Publishers, pp.
invaluable comments to improve the quality of the publication. 135–147.
Nahman, A., Mahumani, B.K., De Lange, W.J., 2016. Beyond GDP: towards a Green
Economy Index. Dev. South. Afr. 33 (2), 215–233.
References Pijpers, R., 2014. Crops and carats: exploring the interconnectedness of mining and
agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Futures 62, 32–39.
Robbins, G., 2013. Mining FDI and urban economies in sub-Saharan Africa: exploring the
Allen, C., 2012. A Guidebook to the Green Economy. Issue 2: Exploring Green Economy
possible linkages. Local Econ. 28 (2), 158–169.
Principles. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA):
Ross, M.L., 2015. What have we learned about the resource curse? Annu. Rev. Pol. Sci. 18,
United Nations Division for Sustainable Development, New York.
239–259.
Barrett, C.B., Reardon, T., Webb, P., 2001. Non-farm income diversification and house-
Stoddart, H., Riddlestone, S., Vilela, M., 2012. Earth Summit 2012: Principles for the
hold livelihood strategies in rural Africa: concepts, dynamics, and policy implica-
Green Economy. A Collection of Principles for the Green Economy in the Context of
tions. Food Policy 26, 315–331.
Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. Stakeholder Forum, BioRegional
Campbell, B., 2012. Corporate social responsibility and development in Africa: redefining
and The Earth Charter Initiative, London.
the roles and responsibilities of public and private actors in the mining sector. Resour.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Program), 2011. Towards a Green Economy:
Policy 37 (2), 138–143.
Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. United Nations
Chen, C., Randall, A., 2013. The economic contest between coal seam gas mining and
Environment Program, Geneva.
agriculture on prime farmland: it may be closer than we thought. J. Econ. Soc. Policy
UNEP (United Nations Environment Program), 2012. Green Economy Indicators: Briefing
15, 1–30.
Paper. United Nations Environment Program, Geneva.
Digby, C., Bradshaw, D., Mostert, H., Chicksen, B., 2018. Green Mining: Beyond the Myth.
Van der Burgh, G., Meyer, M., Coertzen, L., 2012. Evaluating the Impact of Coal Mining
Perspectives on the Future of Mining. Mineral Law in Africa Occasional Paper Series,
on Agriculture in the Delmas, Ogies and Leandra Districts: With Specific Focus on
Issue 2. JUTA, Cape Town9781485127055.
Maize Production. Accessed 7 December 2017. . http://www.bfap.co.za/
Hilson, G., 2002. An overview of land use conflicts in mining communities. Land Use
documents/research%20reports/The%20impact%20of%20coal%20mining%20on
Policy 19, 65–73.
%20agriculture%20-%20a%20Pilot%20study%20focus,%20based%20on%20maize
Hilson, G., 2012. Corporate social responsibility in the extractive industries: experiences
%20production%20(2012).pdf.
from developing countries. Resour. Policy 37, 131–137.
Weng, L., Boedhihartono, A.K., Dirks, P., Dixon, B., Lubis, M.I., Sayer, J.A., 2013. Mineral
Hilson, G., McQuilken, J., 2014. Four decades of support for artisanal and small-scale
industries, growth corridors and agricultural development in Africa. Glob. Food
mining in sub-Saharan Africa: a critical review. Extract. Ind. Soc. 1 (1), 104–118.
Secur. 2, 195–202.
International Mining and Development Centre (IMDC), 2014. Mining and Agriculture:
Yibas, B., Netshitungulwana, R., Novhe, O., Mengistu, Sakala, E., Thomas, A., Nyabeze,
Strange Bedfellows or a Match Made in Heaven? International Mining for
P., 2013. A holistic approach towards best management practices of mine pollution
Development Centre, a Joint Venture between The University of Western Australia
impacts using a catchment area strategy, South Africa. In: Wolkersdorfer, Brown,
and The University of Queensland. Australian Government. https://im4dc.org/wp-
Figueroa (Eds.), Golden CO; USA “Reliable Mine Water Technology” IMWA 2013,
content/uploads/2013/07/Mining-and-Agriculture-Formatted-Final.pdf.
1179.
McHenry, M.P., Persley, G.J., 2015. Bread and Stones: Co-Investing in Mining and
Agriculture in Africa. available online:. https://www.crawfordfund.org/wp-