A mining story from Zvishavane caught my attention this week. According to a report by a local daily publication, Sabi Gold Mine has awarded mining tributes to more than 100 artisanal Miners. The stated objective is ambitious but practical; increase production, reduce leakages from the Company’s claims and bring informal activity into a safer, more formal structure. The Mine has also invested US$1.2 million in a milling plant to support the initiative. [1]
By Namatirai Ruzvidzo
The report says the model is intended to improve safety and reduce exposure to tuberculosis and silicosis associated with unsafe mining procedures. It also links the initiative to PlanetGOLD Zimbabwe’s work promoting mercury-free processing. The article reports that artisanal and small-scale Miners now contribute more than 60 percent of national Gold production.
As I read the story, I imagined a conversation in a corporate Mine Manager’s office. The Production Manager is excited because the ore is already being extracted. The Security Manager is relieved because fewer unknown Miners are entering the Company’s ground. The Finance Manager is calculating the possible increase in Gold deliveries. Then the Legal Adviser asks one question: “What exactly have we created?”
The answer may be a productive partnership. It may also be a Mine within a Mine, with a separate group of operators, separate risks and a legal relationship that must be designed carefully.
The Sabi initiative is therefore more than a production story. It is an opportunity to examine how large mining Companies can integrate artisanal Miners without losing control of their title, Mineral output, safety systems or legal responsibilities.
The clever idea must first pass the legal test
The commercial logic is easy to understand. A large Mine may have ground that it cannot immediately develop because of capital constraints, operational priorities, low-grade sections or the need to preserve larger deposits for future development. At the same time, artisanal Miners may already be working informally in or around the Company’s mining area.
A structured arrangement can turn trespass into authorised work, leakage into recorded production and unsafe activity into supervised mining. It can create employment and a route into the formal economy. However, the Company should not begin with the question, “How many Miners can we put on the claim?” It should begin with, “What legal right will each person have, over which area, under whose supervision and subject to which conditions?”
In Zimbabwe, a tribute Agreement is not simply a friendly permission to dig. It is a legal arrangement under which the holder of a registered mining location grants another person a tribute or a limited right to work the mining location. The Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] provides for registration of tribute Agreements and for their approval. Section 280 deals with registration, while Sections 284 to 289 address submission, approval, records and the consequences of acting under an unapproved Agreement. [2]
That statutory framework matters because the wrong label cannot cure the wrong substance. Calling the arrangement a “community partnership”, “production scheme” or “co-operative project” does not avoid the legal requirements if the reality is that another party has been given a right to work a mining location.
Do not put 100 Miners on one handshake
The first safeguard is to identify the parties properly. A large Mine should not sign one vague document with “the artisanal Miners” as though they were a single legal person. The Company should know whether it is dealing with individuals, a registered co-operative, a partnership, a Company or a community structure. It should verify identity, registration documents, beneficial ownership, tax details where applicable and the authority of the people signing. If a group has a committee, the Company should establish whether the committee can bind every member.
A schedule should list each approved operator or team. It should state who may enter the site, who may supervise the work and whether members may be replaced. It should prohibit informal subletting, the sale of working rights and the introduction of outsiders without written approval.
This may sound bureaucratic. It is actually a protection against the sentence that appears in many mining disputes: “I was part of the original group, but they later removed me.” A large Company must also consider whether the arrangement creates employment, contracting, partnership or agency relationships. The document should not pretend that labels answer every legal question. The practical relationship who controls the work, supplies the equipment, bears the risk and receives the output must be examined.
Draw the line before someone crosses it
Every tribute arrangement needs a map. Not a description such as “the eastern side near the old shaft”, but a properly identified area with coordinates, beacons, access routes and exclusion zones.
The Agreement should distinguish the tribute area from the Company’s active workings, future development area, blasting area, infrastructure, tailings facilities, water sources and emergency routes. It should specify the depth, method and Minerals covered by the arrangement. If the artisanal Miners are authorised to work only shallow alluvial material, they should not later claim a right to follow a reef underground.
The Company should maintain a site register showing when teams enter and leave, where they work, what equipment they use and what material they produce. A map is not only a legal document. It is a safety document, a security document and an accounting document.
The Agreement should also state that no party may extend, relocate or deepen the workings without written approval and the necessary regulatory permission. An informal extension of a working area can become a title dispute, an environmental incident or a serious accident.
Who owns the Gold when it leaves the ground?
This is the question that turns a promising scheme into a courtroom battle.
The parties should agree when Mineral-bearing material is measured, who takes samples, who conducts the assay, how disputes over grade are resolved and where the Gold must be delivered. They should state whether the tribute holder receives a percentage of production, a royalty, a payment per tonne, a processing deduction or another agreed return.
The arrangement must also address the Company’s statutory obligations. A private Agreement cannot be used to conceal production, bypass lawful Mineral marketing channels or avoid royalties, taxes and reporting requirements. The Company should maintain auditable records from extraction to processing and sale.
A sound system may include numbered delivery notes, witnessed weighing, independent or check assays, sealed samples, daily production sheets and reconciliation between ore extracted, ore processed and Gold delivered. If the Company provides the milling plant, it should record recoveries, tailings and any Mineral retained for reprocessing.
The phrase “we will share the Gold fairly” belongs in a conversation, not in a corporate mining Agreement. Fairness must be converted into a formula.
Safety cannot be outsourced to the smallest operator
The Sabi report refers to reducing TB and silicosis and improving safety. That is one of the strongest reasons for integration. It is also where a large Company must be most disciplined.
The Company should establish minimum safety standards before anyone enters the tribute area. These should cover ground stability, shaft depth, ventilation, personal protective equipment, explosives, electrical installations, water ingress, machinery, emergency response, first aid and reporting of incidents and near misses.
There should be an induction process and a written operating procedure in a language the workers understand. Training attendance must be recorded. Supervisors must be identifiable. The Company should have authority to stop unsafe work and should exercise it consistently.
A tribute Agreement can allocate responsibilities between the parties, but it should not be treated as a shield against every legal claim. If the large Mine controls access, provides equipment, directs work or knows of a serious danger, it may face scrutiny when an accident occurs. The Company should obtain advice on the applicable mining, labour and occupational-safety framework rather than assuming that artisanal status removes responsibility.
The most dangerous sentence in a safety file is “the Miners were independent, so it was not our problem.” Independence is a legal conclusion, not a safety system.
Mercury-free processing must be a condition, not a slogan
The arrangement should specify the permitted processing method and prohibit unsafe or unauthorised use of mercury and other hazardous substances. This is particularly important in light of PlanetGOLD Zimbabwe’s current work to support mercury-free processing and formalisation. A recent report on the PlanetGOLD stakeholder conference noted that formalisation, finance and technology must work together if Miners are to adopt safer processing methods. [3]
If the large Mine has invested in a milling plant, the plant should operate under a clear access and processing protocol. That protocol should address who may use it, what ore may be accepted, how material is identified, who pays processing charges, how tailings are stored and what happens to contaminated material.
The Company should also confirm that its environmental approvals cover the processing activity. A mining certificate does not automatically authorise every plant, chemical, waste stream or discharge. Environmental impact assessment, waste, water, effluent and other approvals may be relevant depending on the operation.
The Company should make compliance commercially realistic. If the authorised plant is too expensive, too far away or unable to process the Miners’ ore, the informal market may quickly return. The legal model must therefore be supported by a workable operating model.
The environment remains part of the deal
The tribute area should have an Environmental Management Plan that is understood by the operators. It should identify prohibited areas, water protection measures, waste controls, topsoil handling, rehabilitation standards and responsibility for closing shafts and pits.
The Environmental Management Act [Chapter 20:27] provides for environmental impact assessment, environmental audits, pollution controls and measures requiring rehabilitation of mining sites. Environmental responsibilities should therefore be addressed before work begins, not after a complaint reaches the Environmental Management Agency.
The Company should conduct baseline inspections and periodic audits. Photographs, coordinates and condition reports can later show what existed before the arrangement and what changed during operations. Progressive rehabilitation should be required where practicable rather than leaving every obligation to the end.
The contract may require the tribute holders to rehabilitate areas they disturb and may provide for deductions, bonds or other security. However, contractual allocation does not necessarily prevent regulators or affected third parties from pursuing the legally responsible parties. The large Mine must retain oversight.
Governance: one Mine, two operating cultures
A large Mine operates through systems. Artisanal mining often operates through personal relationships and rapid decisions. Integration will fail if the Company assumes that issuing a permit has changed the operating culture overnight.
The Company should create a small governance structure for the scheme. It should include a named Company representative, a tribute committee with defined authority, regular production and safety meetings, an incident-reporting channel and a complaints process.
There should be rules for disputes within a group. Who decides when members disagree? How is a new member admitted? What happens when a member dies, leaves or is accused of stealing? How are women and younger workers protected from exclusion or exploitation?
The arrangement should also contain audit and inspection rights, suspension procedures, termination grounds and a fair handover process. Termination should not mean abandoning workers beside open pits. It should address stockpiles, equipment, outstanding payments, records, rehabilitation and safe closure.
The real measure of success
The Sabi Gold Mine initiative is important because it recognises a reality that cannot be wished away: artisanal Miners are already a significant part of Zimbabwe’s Gold economy. The question is whether their work will remain outside corporate systems or be brought into a structure that improves production, safety, traceability and community benefit.
For large mining Companies, integration is not charity and it is not merely a security strategy. It is a regulated commercial model. If properly designed, it can reduce leakages, preserve future Mine development, improve working conditions and create a lawful production channel. If poorly designed, it can create disputes over title, accidents, pollution, unpaid workers, missing Gold and responsibility for every informal promise made at the gate.
A Mine within a Mine must not become a law within a law. The large Mine remains responsible for knowing who is on its ground, what they are authorised to do, how Minerals move, how hazards are controlled and what happens when the arrangement ends.
The best tribute Agreement is therefore not the one that gets Miners onto the claim fastest. It is the one that makes the operation understandable, measurable, safe and defensible when production rises, a worker is injured, an inspector arrives or the parties disagree.
References
[1]: https://www.masvingomirror.com/sabi-Gold-Mine-integrates-100-artisanal-Miners/ “Sabi Gold Mine integrates 100 artisanal Miners”
[2]: https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/act/1961/38/eng@2016-12-31 “Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05]”
[3]: https://miningzimbabwe.com/planetGold-conference-to-address-mercury-use-in-zimbabwes-Gold-sector/ “planetGOLD conference to address mercury use in Zimbabwe’s Gold sector”
