/ MEDIA STATEMENT / The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

This week the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources held its last public hearings on the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill (MPRDA). The Bill seeks to amend and remove ambiguities that exist in the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002
 
Presentations were made by various stakeholders such as South African Oil and Gas Alliance (SAOGA), Anglo American, Allan Gray, Actionaid, Lonmin and the National Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA). The Legal Resources Centre (LRC), Actionaid and the Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network (MEJCN) highlighted that communities must benefit from mining. They called for deep and meaningful engagement with communities as well as no mining on communal land without community consent.
 
Acting Committee Chairperson, Ms Faith Bikani, stressed that the manner in which the proposed amendments had been crafted addressed the needs of the community but noted the grievances expressed by some stakeholders. Another issue highlighted by Actionaid was that the Bill required mining companies to consult with communities but did not require the community’s permission in order to mine. The loss of agricultural land due to mining with little or no compensation resulting in the destruction of traditional life for many was a point stressed by the stakeholders.
 
The South African Oil and Gas Alliance (SAOG) said the amendments needed to be looked at in a global context because SA was competing with significant players in the industry. They urged the Committee needed to be cognisant of what competitors were doing and the models other countries were following.
 
The Committee pointed out that it was unfair to compare developed oil and gas industries with the developing industry in the country because the country was still in the process of correcting the wrongs of the past and so it was not a level playing field. Barrisford Brent Petersen Law Inc (BBP) noted concerns with the proposed amendments so far as it related to oil and gas exploration. Speaking as oil and gas lawyers, they said that the Amendment Bill if implemented in its current form would result in the loss of foreign investment in SA oil and gas industry. For the continued growth of investment in the country, BBP recommended that a separate oil and gas Act be established in order to keep up with current trends in Africa. The Committee acknowledged that in order to develop the industry, investment was important but questioned the recommendation of a separate oil and gas Act.  
 
Allan Gray noted that the amendments to the Bill were not investor friendly towards the mining industry as well as the country. Anglogold Ashanti, Impala Platinum Holdings (Implats), Anglo American, BHP Billiton and Lonmin all voiced their support of the submission made by the Chamber of mines. Beneficiation, ministerial discretion, residue stockpiles and removing ambiguity from the Bill were highlighted by the stakeholders.
 
The National Union for Mine Workers of South Africa (NUMSA) expressed that they were mindful of the fact that ownership patterns of the natural resources of the country were skewed and in the hands of multinational companies. They stressed that they would continue to campaign for a more collective ownership of resources so that the fruits of beneficiation were enjoyed by all. The Committee agreed that the country’s mineral resources should be vested in the state so that equal distribution was possible.   
 
The Acting Chairperson of the Committee, Ms Faith Bikani, thanked the stakeholders for their compelling contributions. Members of the Committee will now consider all of the submissions and deliberate on the matter.