For Immediate Release

Following the proposal by government of Uganda to review the Mining laws in

2014, over 250 organisations have developed a position paper that highlights
key issues of concern under both the Mining Act, 2003 and Mining Policy of 2001
ranging from the community and human rights perspectives and have made
several recommendations for review.

While the mining industry in Uganda has a great potential to be a key growth
sector given the countrys vast and rich mineral resource deposits, it is still
hounded by various issues and challenges that include the social and
environmental costs, revenue sharing that is seen as unfair and inequitable, the
flawed provisions in the current mining laws, overlapping and weak enforcement
of these laws, among others. Mineral endowments are therefore regarded by
many, as a curse and counterproductive to long-term growth and poverty
reduction goals, and antithetical to sustainable development in Uganda.

According to Capson Sausi Programme Coordinator Safer World one of the

participating Civil Society Organisations, the position paper presented to the
Parliament Committee on Natural resources cites several weaknesses that have
been identified in the existing Mining Policy and Legal Framework as stipulated
below:

There are no measures to regularize or formalize artisanal and small scale

mining (ASM), and the Policy is silent on the environmental management of ASM
activities in the country.

The policy is weak on promotion of non-fiscal strategies to harness nonmonetary socio-economic benefits, for example it does not cover procurement of
local goods and services from a local/national content perspective.

There is also no requirement for a clear policy or regulations on local content

which in itself could lead to transfer mispricing between transnational mining
companies with peer entities from their home countries or tax heavens.

The policy is also weak on community engagement and participation, mostly

restricting it to awareness raising and information dissemination, and through

indirect means such as, recognizing the environmental laws that require
community participation in conducting Energy Information Administration.

The Principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is lacking in the access
of surface rights by mining entities. There weaknesses in the protection of
privately owned land against mining activities, which is an avenue for land
conflicts between mining companies and land owners.

There is no strategy for developing a robust institutional mechanism to ensure

compliance with key provisions of the law. Government relies on the good will of
the companies to declare their revenues and royalties and to comply with the set
environmental regulations and lacks an investigative audit framework.

Gender mainstreaming is inadequately addressed under the Mineral Policy. For

instance, objective 5 stipulates that women can be employed in the mining
sector, but fails to address the inclusion of women and the youth in all aspects of
the mineral development process.

There is no requirement for mining companies to adhere to human rights

standards and principles espoused in the Constitution and other international
human rights treaties of international application. Rights such as, the right to
non-discrimination, ownership of property and land, social and health services
employment, education and access to information are conspicuously missing
within the policy and legal framework.

The mining industry is susceptible to conflict due to the diverse competing

interests of the various stakeholders and the overlapping mineral and land
access rights between mining companies and mineral rich host communities.
Unfortunately, the policy framework lacks a clear framework for addressing
emerging conflicts between these parties.

Transparency and accountability are central to good governance and

management of the mining sector. There are no specific government strategies
designed to facilitate the adoption of Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative (EITI) peer lessons and practices into the Ugandan mining industry.

Janser Bussey, Regional Head Safer World further noted that this position paper
on the Mining ACT was developed out of an exercise conducted in form of a

public consultative workshop involving 70 members of civil society, media,

mining experts, local government officials, local community representatives and
artisanal miners drawn from the Karamoja and Mubende artisanal and smallscale miners.

Therefore, the Civil Society Organisations (CSO) recommend the

following Mining ACT Policy changes:

There is need for the Mining ACT to establish detailed guidelines and
regulations for Artisanal and Small scale Mining and ensure formalization of the
sector detailing the relationship between ASM and Large Scale Mining
Companies.

There is need to reduce the costs involved in obtaining the location license, for
example by decentralizing the licensing process to the district level There is
need for government to setup strategies for local community engagement and
development, and cater for obtaining community consent, regular information
flow, and inclusive and effective community participation.

The Africa Mining Vision recommends that states improve the legal and
regulatory framework and increase public awareness and participation. This is
critical for the acquisition of the Social License To Operate (SLTO), and conflict
mitigation.

The Policy should widen the scope for local content to also include
procurement of local goods and services and the promotion of technological
transfer as a long-term strategy.

The Policy should also require the streamlining of local content throughout the
various stages of mining a mining project.

Environmental management and mine closure require that a socio-economic

Impact Assessment be carried out alongside the Environmental Impact
Assessment.

 There is need for financial benefit optimization to promote community and subnational development, such that the percentage royalty rates at the district and
sub-county level should be increased from the current 20% to 50% percent for
the local government: 40% for the Local government and Sub-county level in
equal proportion and the remaining 10% for the landowners as compensation for
loss of their land and source of livelihood.

For more information, contact Agatha Angwech on 0789944226