Large trucks move in and out of rural communities daily, extracting sand with very little for local people to show in terms of tangible benefits.
Sand is a public resource, and its benefits should ideally flow back to the communities where it is extracted, whether through corporate social responsibility initiatives, community trusts, structured benefit‑sharing models or by creating employment opportunities for local residents.
However, an important question arises, do such models exist in practice, and are communities truly aware of how they work?
Equally important is the blurred line between private-sector sand miners and community members who participate in sand extraction.
When large private mining companies or individuals extract sand “for free” from rivers yet sell it at high prices, are they selling the sand itself or charging for transportation and related costs?
In many localities, the number of sand‑laden trucks moving in and out of villages increases daily as local entrepreneurs supply sand for residential construction, such as house building and plastering, in response to local demand.
In contrast, large private companies extract sand in rural communities primarily for bulk stockpiling in urban centres.
Once the sand reaches resale points in towns and cities, its price is dramatically inflated, despite having been extracted free of charge from rural areas.
While some mining companies do go through the formal process to obtain mining rights which come with legally binding obligations to support affected communities, the question remains, do communities fully understand the responsibilities that mining companies have towards them?
And more importantly, do these companies honour their commitments?
Oversight is often limited, especially when applications for mining rights exclude the involvement of local authorities.
Municipalities, in an attempt to play a role in sand mining, particularly in rural areas, require careful navigation of complex governance relationships with traditional leaders, customary land tenure systems, community expectations and the distinct responsibilities of sector departments.
Sand mining is legally recognised as the competence of the department of mineral resources and energy (DMRE), while the department of environmental affairs plays a similar yet distinct role, focused primarily on environmental protection.
A key source of confusion is whether municipalities can develop a bylaw to regulate sand mining, given this is a competence of the DMRE.
The development of bylaws by municipalities would influence the areas where mining takes place and how it occurs, but since the regulation of mining remains the responsibility of the DMRE, can the complex practical realities of sand-mining commercialisation truly be resolved?
Examples from places such as Cacadu (Lady Frere), and Komani (Queenstown) illustrate the complex practical reality of sand-mining commercialisation.
Companies extract sand in rural areas around Cacadu, stockpile it in Komani, and sell it at high margins.
People who were born and raised in these rural areas but now have homes in town must then buy the very sand mined from their own land at exorbitant prices.
In contrast, in urban areas, sand resources are governed more strictly, especially where extraction takes place on private land under clear legal conditions.
In most cases, especially in rural municipalities, large mining companies approach traditional leaders to support their applications submitted to the DMRE for approval.
Even if the municipality holds a different view, opposing the interests of traditional leaders, who may already have been persuaded, can create the perception that municipalities are anti‑developmental, even when their concerns are rooted in protecting communities from exploitation.
Community frustration is often dismissed as jealousy towards aspiring entrepreneurs.
However, the discomfort is justified because rivers and dams belong to everyone, and the public roads leading to sand sources degrade quickly, leaving communities to bear the consequences while others profit.
A critical question arises, can government interventions such as weighbridges help regulate this industry?
Some may argue that weighbridges could drive companies away.
However, if their primary business is sand, and accessing it requires compliance with regulated weighbridges, such a system could ensure accountability.
Currently, government is often blamed for poor road conditions, yet the heavy users such as sand trucks are not held financially accountable for the damage they cause.
Some sand-mining companies claim to “give back” by re‑graveling community roads, but this is usually limited to internal gravel roads near the mining sites.
The surfaced roads these trucks eventually connect to, which are critical for residents in areas far from the mining sites, remain neglected.
Perhaps the underlying problem lies in how the radius covered by social and labour plans is determined.
These plans typically focus only on the immediate area in which mining takes place, without considering that roads cut across multiple areas and that the damage caused by heavy trucks extends well beyond the sand extraction points.
This situation underscores the need for strengthened working relations between municipalities and traditional leaders.
Such collaboration is essential for municipalities to develop legitimate bylaws that influence the areas where mining takes place and development strategies that secure community support.
Masonwabe Tikana is a second‑year PhD candidate in development studies at the University of SA and serves as director of planning and economic development at Walter Sisulu Local Municipality. He writes in his personal capacity.