Land and Mineral Rights in Uganda Naima Hasci, Don Binyina and Bryan Land

Mining in Uganda Despite significant contributions to the national economy in the 1950s-60s, mineral development is currently rudimentary and faces a number of challenges In 2013 Government launched Uganda Vision 2040 to transform the country from a low-income country to upper middle- income country within 30 years. Mining development integral part of this development agenda.

Policy Reform GoU (with technical assistance from the WB) has initiated a review of the policy framework for mining Multi-stakeholder consultations have taken place to inform a green paper, aimed at developing a number of policy statements to guide further legal and regulatory reform Key topic of this process is the situation of land and access to mineral rights

Split Estate Rights to Land and sub- surface resources such as minerals separate Cause for contestation and conflict in recent years, particularly in mineral-rich Karamoja.

Legal Situation (Land) Uganda’s constitution (and the 1998 Land Act) recognize four land tenure regimes: customary, freehold, mailo and leasehold. About 70-80% of Uganda’s total land is under customary tenure, the majority of which is in the in the resource rich north. Land Act silent on sub-surface rights (apart from reference to Mining Act).

Legal Situation (Minerals) 2003 Mining Act provides for royalty sharing between government, local governments, owners and lawful occupants of land as form of compensation for the loss of finite resources. Mining companies are required to exercise their mineral rights reasonably in such a manner as not to adversely affect the prevailing interests of any owner of occupier of the land on which the rights are being exercised. Mining Act also provides for fair and reasonable compensation for disturbance/damage of/to land rights

National Land Policy 2013 i) protect the land rights and land resources of customary owners, individuals and communities owning land in areas, where mineral and petroleum deposits exist or are discovered; ii) allow the possible, co-existence of customary owners, individuals and communities owning land in areas, where minerals and petroleum are discovered; iii) provide restitution land rights in the event of minerals or oils being exhausted or expired depending on the mode of acquisition; iv) guarantee the right to the sharing of benefits by land owning communities; v) recognize the stake of cultural institutions over ancestral lands with minerals and petroleum deposits; and vi) adopt an open policy on access to information to the public and seek consent of communities and local governments concerning prospecting and mining of these resources.

Benefit-Sharing

Cultural Heritage Management Addressing cultural issues require long-term consultation processes and specialized expertise Rio Tinto has documented some of its experiences in dealing with cultural heritage. Resource Guide: “Why Cultural Heritage Matters”, Examples from Africa involved the culturally acceptable relocation of ancestral graves in Zimbabwe or the support for a cultural memorial in South Africa

FPIC Free, prior and informed consent has gained widespread recognition as a fundamental principle underpinning community engagement ICMM 2013 Position Statement on Indigenous Peoples and Mining highlights the importance of FPIC as both a process and outcome, and should be “respected to the greatest degree possible in development planning and implementation”.

Conclusions Uganda has enabling environment to address some of the critical social issues that are likely to increase with the “New Dawn in Mining”. Current Mining Policy reform great opportunity to align/harmonize rules on the “split estate”. International good practice to inform key issues such as benefit-sharing and free, prior and informed consent.