Report on the Anglo American AGM, 30 April 2025
On 30 April 2025, London Mining Network, together with Action for Southern Africa UK, hosted community members and representatives from Peru, Chile and Zambia for the Anglo American AGM. Collectively, they tore through Anglo’s greenwashing narrative, exposing the injustices spanning decades and continents that the company is responsible for.
With its roots in British colonialism, and at its peak the largest industrial profiteer from South African apartheid, the company is attempting to transform their image by shedding coal and diamond assets, with a rebrand focused on delivering ‘minerals of the future’, supposedly needed for decarbonisation.
But as communities testified, Anglo’s so-called “sustainability” is a smokescreen for the same extractive violence that has defined its operations since the early 20th century. While executives talked up sustainability reports brimming with pledges of “net-positive biodiversity”, we were there to expose their recent meeting with the US Government to discuss exploiting Greenland’s mineral resources in the pursuit of military expansions.
The ‘demerger’ of Anglo American Platinum, which will be rebranded as ‘Valterra Platinum’ and dual-listed on the London and Johannesburg Stock Exchange, is a cynical attempt to abandon accountability for unresolved crises. From broken promises and undelivered Social and Labour Plans in South Africa to the disgraceful failure to clean up historic lead poisoning in Kabwe, Zambia, communities across southern Africa are clear that the company must be brought to justice.
Widespread lead contamination that the company failed to clean up decades ago was the focus of Lydia Moyo’s question, a mother and community advocate from Zambia who asked the company about the resulting lead pollution in Kabwe – now one of the world’s most polluted towns – which affects crops and results in serious lead poisoning of children.
We heard from Lucio Flores, president of the Regional Farmers Federation of Moquegua, about how the company’s ‘future-smart’ Quellaveco mine has dried up rivers and threatened communities’ water supplies in Peru. In Chile, the Los Bronces expansion continues to accelerate glacier melt, jeopardizing water security for Santiago’s 6 million residents, even as Anglo dismisses scientific evidence of its role in climate destruction.
These struggles are not new. LMN’s 2022 report, We’re saving the world too!, exposed Anglo’s greenwashing playbook, noting how “sustainability” claims often mask water hoarding and community displacement. The 2024 AGM further revealed systemic evasion, with technical failures, like a lack of headsets for translators, a fitting metaphor for its selective hearing. In 2025, Anglo’s script remained unchanged: executives celebrated a 24% shareholder return while deflecting questions about lead-poisoned children in Kabwe and air pollution in Catemu. Outside the AGM, we protested with a coalition including We Smell Gas, and on Thursday 1st May 50 people were in attendance for our event ‘from poisoned legacies to greenwashing the energy transition: resisting Anglo American’. We were honored to hear from our friends and comrades of their struggles and resistance, and will continue to work to build a united movement, in the UK and globally, to resist Anglo’s colonial crimes.
Questions and Answers
Greenland
Professor Schwöbel-Patel, Professor of International Law at the University of Warwick and Bye-Fellow at Darwin College Cambridge asked: “Greenland has of course lately been receiving a lot of attention due to President Donald Trump’s statements about getting Greenland ‘one way or another’. And it’s not only Trump who is interested in Greenland. The EU has opened an office in Nuuk, with a view to advancing its securing of critical minerals for the Green Deal. Russia is also, according to Denmark, positioning itself for increased access to Greenland. Various billionaires have backed mining ventures in Greenland. But, new frontiers of extraction are also antagonistic spaces. And Greenland is no different. There is pushback by Greenland and Denmark against the US, but there are also tensions between the indigenous population with Denmark, the former colonial master. It is also widely known that Greenland is a part of the world that is particularly vulnerable to climate change. The Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world, and the Greenlandic people’s lives and livelihood are already affected by this. Overall, Greenland is a place extremely vulnerable to exploitation and extractivism.
As I understand, Anglo American has four exploration licenses in Greenland. Is Anglo American planning on expanding its involvement in Greenland through additional applications? If so, will this include the minerals designated as so-called ‘critical’ in the green transition?
If so, what is Anglo American doing to ensure that Greenland and its people with a substantial indigenous population are not further affected by pollution, in light of the fact that there has already been significant resistance to mining?
The former Greenlandic government had strict anti-mining legislation due to indigenous resistance to mining and its adverse effects. How does Anglo American intend to navigate these restrictions if it continues its exploration and potentially development?
Will Anglo American gain an advantage from Trump acquiring Greenland, one way or another? Have Anglo American representatives met with the Trump administration to discuss mining operations in Greenland, and if so where does Anglo American stand in terms of annexation being illegal under international law, and this being a violation of the right to self determination of the Greenlandic people?
Response: Duncan Wanblad, Chief Executive, stated that exploration licenses in Greenland are specifically focused on copper and nickel. While drilling for those it is ‘not impossible’ that they will find other minerals. Chair Stuart Chambers stated that Anglo ‘do not and would never’ conduct exploration activities without the expressed consent of Indigenous peoples. Stated they have a ‘very rigorous’ application of their Free, Prior and Informed Consent policy. Those policies ‘trump’ any Government. Has no idea if there is any advantage of Trump owning Greenland. The company has not met the Trump administration to discuss Greenland and have no plans to ‘at this stage’, although they did meet with the Biden administration on this topic.
Zambia
Lydia Moyo, community member from Kabwe, Zambia, said “My name is Lydia Moyo, I’m here as proxy shareholder. I am the mother of two girls, under 12 years of age, who live in one of the villages in Kabwe, Zambia, to be specific. We are affected by the so-called ‘black mountain’ dust, by the lead poisoning arising from the canal built by Anglo American. This canal was built as a disposal for mining waste and much of our soil and water is contaminated, and it’s really making it difficult for us to grow vegetables and even our staple, maize.
Given that Anglo American South Africa knew about children’s death from lead poisoning back in the late 1970s, what is stopping you from turning your attention towards the ongoing suffering of the people of Kabwe, to keep the promise of your own promises to remedy where you have done harm, and to do no harm? You may be gone in Zambia, for now, but we see you are in Chile, Peru and you are doing the same thing that you did to Kabwe 50 years ago. And lastly I also want to find out why you are contesting the ongoing legal case of Kabwe?”
Response: Duncan Wanblad said the company has ‘every sympathy’ for the community of Kabwe, but denied any responsibility. He blamed the ‘industrial activity taking place there currently’ which is ‘exacerbating the situation’, and said the company ‘never owned nor operated’ the mine. Shifted the blame to others, saying he doesn’t ‘believe it is correct to attribute legal responsibility to Anglo American South Africa’, and going as far as to accuse the claimants of progressing with a ‘hopeless’ legal case. Emphasised the company sold their share in the mine in 1974, and blamed the state owned operator which later took over the mine for the pollution.
Tricia Sibbons, ACTSA: “The court considers that the claim has a chance of succeeding on at least one aspect, according to the judgement that I’ve seen. In those circumstances there are concerns of selling off some of the assets of Anglo American South Africa and so the question is – it would cost Anglo American nothing to underwrite any financial obligations imposed on Anglo American South Africa by the court while providing immediate reassurance to hundreds of thousands of gravely affected people in Kabwe that any compensation would be paid. Such an assurance would uphold your own stated principles about remediating harm, it would enhance the company’s reputation and build confidence that it is indeed a mining company of the future, so I ask will you give such an assurance?
Response: “We are far from a point where Anglo American South Africa has any liability in relation to this matter”. Referenced the previous High Court judgement. Acknowledged that grounds for appeal were granted, but dismissed chances of success. In any event, Anglo American South Africa “will remain a substantial company that can meet its obligations”.
Christabel Gurney, ACTSA: “Could you tell us if Anglo American’s restructuring decisions would reduce the assets which Anglo American South Africa would have in the case that there was a call to order against it. We have to admit, as the case is going to be appealed against, it is possible that Anglo American could lose and what would happen then?
My second question is a much more general one. Regardless of the merits of the arguments of legal ownership, I do not think that you or anyone can deny that Anglo American did profit very greatly from the lead mining operations in Kabwe, and it’s very clear from this meeting this morning that Anglo American is very concerned about its reputation. So is there not a moral case that you should do something to remedy and help the people who without denial have suffered so greatly from these lead operations, as a reputational question?
Response: Stuart Chambers started by saying “oh dear” to a third question on Kabwe being asked. Said that Anglo American South Africa remains as a statutory company within the group, and that “we don’t walk away from subsidiaries”. On the second question, Duncan Wanblad said “it’s a fair question” but denied Anglo American have a moral responsibility to address the situation. “We are not responsible for the situation that Kabwe is in today”, claimed most of the lead contamination occurred either before or after Anglo American’s involvement in the mine.
Stuart Chambers said “we can always entertain” suggestions on a moral basis to help the situation, but said it would be inadvisable to do that during a legal case against them. “There may be a day for that, but we’re going to have to wait until the legal process has run its course”.
Peru, Quellaveco Mine
Lucio Flores, President of an Agrarian Federation in Moquegua, Peru, said “The Quellaveco project, located in Moquegua, has been presented as a model of modern and responsible mining. However, environmental impacts have been documented, such as air pollution from particulate matter (PM10), diversion of the Asana River, which has affected aquatic biodiversity, and loss of habitats of vulnerable species such as the Telmatobius Peruvianus frog.
Added to this are legal complaints raised by Anglo American against local peasants, such as the cases of the Tobala family (Chilota), the land conflicts at Coscore, and the sentences imposed on five farmers in the Tumilaca Valley for grazing practices.
What concrete actions is Anglo American taking to remedy these socio-environmental impacts and ensure a respectful and non-criminalising relationship with local communities? How do you ensure that the company practices comply with the principles of corporate due diligence on human rights and that affected communities can access effective mechanisms for reparations and participation?”
Response: Stuart Chambers says we “can’t recognise that as a portrayal of the situation on the ground”. Denies there are any such negative socio-environmental impacts from the Quellaveco mine. Says Anglo American establishes “very high” environmental standards, and an active citizen participation programme, and that they have “very detailed” human rights protocols to avoid potential negative impacts. Concerned about this “difference of perspective that we have”, urges engagement through local engagement channels. If there are areas where we can improve, we will surely do so.
Bladimir Martinez, from Red Muqui, Peru, said: “The Quellaveco project, located in Moquegua, has been presented as a model of modern and responsible mining. However, 100% of the copper and molybdenum concentrate produced is exported unrefined to countries such as China, Japan and Spain, limiting the possibilities for industrial development in Peru. In addition, there are indications of the probable presence of rare earths, key strategic minerals for energy transition technologies, in the copper concentrate.
It should be noted that the development of the project has been marked by multiple modifications in its design and operation. Since its initial approval in 2000, with an estimated useful life of 44 years, at least four amendments to the Environmental Impact Assessment (MEIA) have been submitted. In 2024, Anglo American has initiated procedures for a new expansion proposal, which includes the expansion of the pit from 420 to 662 hectares and the deposit of sterile material, which could again modify the scale of exploitation and its impacts. In this context, it is important to publicly disclose the updated projection of the project’s useful life.
Can Anglo American advise whether it has formally identified the presence of rare earths at Quellaveco and whether these form part of its future mining strategy, and can it also detail the full corporate composition of Anglo American and the other companies linked to the project, including traders and refiners? Finally, which companies or industries are currently receiving the copper, molybdenum, silver and gold mined in Peru, in which global supply chains are they being used, and what is the updated and actual projected life of the Quellaveco project?”
Response: Stuart Chambers emphasised that Anglo American only owns 60% of the Quellaveco mine. On rare earths – stated there are “no economically traceable level of rare earths” that the company is currently mining or have discovered, rare earths “do not feature in our understanding”. On the environmental assessments and permits, claimed they have nothing to do with expanding the mine. Said that Mr Martinez is “quite right” to say that minerals are exported outside of Peru, but claimed the mine is “hugely beneficial” to Peru’s economy and that the company “desperately attempt” to source products locally in Peru and Moquegua wherever possible. Duncan Wanblad said concentrates typically sold to smelters, often in China, who then sell them on to other customers, but that the company take their role “very seriously” in making sure the products are responsibly sold.
Chile
Claudio Rojas, representative of Movimiento No+ Anglo, a coalition of environmental organisations and communities directly affected by Anglo American’s operations in Chile, stated, “Today I am here to expose a reality that your sustainability report omits: the human and environmental cost behind your profits.
In Los Bronces (Lo Barnechea, Colina), Los Andes, Catemu and El Melón, your operations have dried up watersheds, polluted the air and violated basic rights. While you consume 1,380 litres of water per second in Los Bronces alone, entire communities survive on water trucks. While you promote green leadership, studies by the University of Zurich and Fribourg (2022) confirm the irreversible destruction of glaciers, vital ecosystems for Chile, a country in water crisis. Are your mines sustainable or pretending to be sustainable?
In Catemu, the Chagres Smelter intoxicates families with sulphur dioxide, exceeding international standards. In El Melón, El Soldado mine is grabbing water rights while the town lacks drinking water. Worse still, Anglo American sues local farmers to take land at unfair prices, taking advantage of their vulnerability.
Million-dollar fines by Chilean state agencies to Anglo American for environmental non-compliance (such as those of the SMA in 2023) reveal a pattern of Anglo American’s behaviour where communities are sacrificial.
Does Anglo American want to create a sustainable future?
How do Anglo American explain to their shareholders that the wealth they receive is built on children sickened by pollution, glaciers destroyed and villages without water?
And to the shareholders, Anglo American’s social licence in Chile has run out. It is not just a reputational risk; it is an ethical crisis. The question is clear: will you continue to fund a model that privileges profit over life, or will you demand real change? Chilean communities no longer believe their promises. Do you?”
Response: Stuart Chambers criticised Mr Rojas for “rhetorical questions” and said the points were “not necessary for how an AGM should be run”. Said the company does not share the negative views expressed. Said Anglo are “conscious of the drought that has been affecting Chile” but claimed they are taking many steps in relation to this, including the introduction of using desalinated water for the Los Bronces mine from 2026. Again said it is about “local engagement”. On glaciers, said Los Bronces “does not have any measurable impact on glaciers near its location”. However, acknowledged “significant concerns” regarding glaciers, said Anglo will conduct a large-scale glacier monitoring project, and when that is completed the information will be made available publicly. Said “we would love to do more”.
Claudio responded that “there is already research” on the impact of mining on glaciers around Los Bronces, and that there is black carbon impacting the glaciers. Stuart Chambers said “we do not deny that at all”, but denied that it was caused by mining. Said that if it is mining causing glacier melt “we will stop it” and “if there is a way we can help with the community we will do so”.
Diana Salazar, LMN’s Latin America Coordinator, on behalf of Luis Acevedo in El Melón, said: “I represent El Melón Farmers and Cattle Owners Association. Our members hold the rights to use two common plots of land, part of which is occupied by the El Torito tailings dam. The dam is part of the El Soldado operation, owned by the subsidiary Anglo American Sur.
A few years ago, Anglo American Sur filed an injunction with the Chilean Constitutional Court to stop the alienation and subdivision of the communal lands. The argument was that such alienation was incompatible with the current Chilean constitution.
The question is as follows: in the event that the Constitutional Court of Chile – the highest court in the country – rejects the request of inapplicability on the grounds of unconstitutionality, we would like to know if the company will terminate the appeals filed in the ordinary courts in Chile?
We believe the answer should be affirmative. We expect that the company will comply with the decision of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the remaining lawsuits are no longer necessary or relevant, as they also relate to the subdivision and sale of the aforementioned land.
We also believe that the withdrawal of the lawsuits is in line with your company’s ‘Social Way’ policy, which states the need to establish favourable and beneficial relations between the parties involved, including, first and foremost, the inhabitants of El Melón.”
Response: Duncan Wanblad said that “we will certainly respect all applicable judgements’, but that their intention is for the agreements to be sanctioned with the court. If a legal judgement is made that they don’t agree with, did not rule out a further appeal.
Brazil
Diana Salazar asked a question related to Minas Rio, an iron ore mine in Brazil, and the forced relocation communities are facing in this area: “Due to the presence and risks that the tailings dam in this mine poses to the lives of the people living below it, the communities of Passa Sete, Água Quente, Beco and Jassem are undergoing a process of relocation.
For the effective implementation of the social development plan, one of the foundations of the resettlement agreement done with the communities; how does the company intend to differentiate the application of that plan between rural, urban, individual resettlement and those who are not eligible to be relocated, according to the company but are in the area of social mapping done by the company?
Today, various communities, such as Gondo, are being resettled again, which means they are being displaced for the second time, due to AA’s mining in the Middle Espinhaço region.
In addition, we have communities being separated or even families suffering social isolation as the resettlement programme has not included the community as a whole. These areas will be neighbours of the project, living with it and becoming as affected as those in the hypothetical area, but without being recognised by the company.
These are examples of non-compliance with the standards contained in the IFC, with which AA claims to comply. So, what is AA’s non-compliance with IFC regulations for resettlements that are occurring in communities affected by the Minas Rio project?
Response: Stuart Chambers stated that the resettlement is undergoing consultation at the moment. If a different course needs to be taken it will be. Nothing has been decided and settled. Concerns are understood, we will follow up locally with our teams. Does not know the answer to the first question raised, will take it back and come back with a considered answer on that question.
South Africa
Jake Simms, LMN’s Just Transition Worker, on behalf of Mining Affected Communities United in Action (MACUA) and Women Affected by Mining United in Action (WAMUA), raised 5 questions in turn.
Question 1: “The MACUA-led social audit at Mogalakwena revealed Anglo American Platinum’s mining and planned hydrogen operations have worsened severe water scarcity, with one-third of residents lacking access to clean water.
Given that water-intensive hydrogen production is expanding at Mokopane, what binding commitments will Anglo make — before the demerger of Amplats into Valterra Platinum — to guarantee affected communities’ access to clean, sustainable water?
Response: Stuart Chambers stated that water and environmental conditions are monitored very closely. Mogalakwena follows strict grievance procedure which will continue. Generally on this point, “we have enormous confidence in the management of Anglo American Platinum and also the board that governs and oversees them… I am very confident that if there are issues such as these which are not being addressed I am confident they will be”.
Question 2: “The communities around Mogalakwena have endured broken promises, undelivered Social and Labour Plan (SLP) projects, and exclusion from decision-making under Anglo American Platinum and further relocation and losses as a result of expansions at Mogalakwena.
How will Anglo American ensure that corporate accountability for historical and extant harm is not simply “spun off” into Valterra Platinum — a new entity without the resources, capacity, or incentive to remedy past injustices?”
Response: Stuart Chambers said that whenever we demerge, for our own reputation we are very keen that these businesses thrive, “we take a great deal of care in that”. Anglo American Platinum will have the resources to step up if needed if something is not going well. Anglo American are maintaining a stake of nearly 20% for a period, but it will have independent governance who will oversee it.
Question 3: “The “Hyped Hydrogen, Hidden Harm” report and MACUA social audits show that Anglo’s green hydrogen projects serve export markets while communities remain locked in energy poverty and worsening social conditions.
Will Anglo American — before finalising the demerger — commit to enforceable community benefit-sharing mechanisms, verified by independent bodies, as a precondition for any green hydrogen-related operations in South Africa?”
Response: Duncan Wanblad said, “clearly the development of a hydrogen economy is one of the Government of South Africa’s strategic objectives”. This will require a “massive amount of collaboration and partnerships” with local communities and local governments to make it successful. There are many positive impacts of a hydrogen economy. We would have engaged in the context of our sustainability commitments and engaged transparently with communities to come up with solutions.
However, there is currently not an implementation of a hydrogen economy around Mogalakwena. We did trial a hydrogen truck and had a small hydrogen facility in mind but that was postponed or changed. If the demerger is approved that will no longer be our decision.
Question 4: “The MACUA audit at Mogalakwena documented gender exclusion, grave removals without consultation, and extremely low compensation for affected families.
Will Anglo American disclose the full scope of grave relocations and compensation related to Mokopane operations — and will it commit to repairing harm before transferring these obligations to a new entity (Valterra Platinum)?”
Response: Stuart Chambers said that we are active with the Mapela traditional council. “We have had positive engagements with the next of kin, and a number of the next of kin have now further registered graves for themselves”. “As of today we have relocated 90% of the graves with the approval of the next of kin”. We treat the issue very seriously. On making the information available, Duncan Wanblad said the engagement is directly with the next of kin and the information is private to them. Information has been shared with the Mapela traditional council who could share the information. Could not make any disclosures outside of meetings with next of kin directly. Stuart Chambers said “if it is not disallowed and the next of kin are comfortable with it then we will certainly look at it”, in terms of making the information public.
Question 5: “71% of community members surveyed reported that their priorities were ignored in consultation processes under Anglo’s control.
Will Anglo American, before spinning off Valterra Platinum, publicly adopt a binding FPIC policy for all mining and hydrogen operations — ensuring that communities can genuinely give or withhold consent to projects affecting them?”
Response: Anglo American Platinum is committed to respecting these rights and on upholding a Free, Prior and Informed consent policy. Decisions on that going forwards will be a matter for the board of Valterra. Shareholders of that company will be able to address the board going forwards if needed.
Richard Solly, former London Mining Network Coordinator, asked 5 questions.
Question 1: “Relocation processes in Limpopo province have been a recurring feature of Anglo American’s mining at Mogalakwena. This is a very serious concern because community relocations impact generations. According to the Skimming community, Anglo American Platinum has frustrated them with poor consultation. The reluctance to consult meaningfully and properly has led to the Anglo team being creative and manipulative with this process. This process is characterised by randomness, and a haphazard consultation process which lacks integrity and is conducted under the veil of secrecy.
The process is barely adequate to meet the acceptable standard. The Skimming-Leruleng communities relocation will potentially see a thousand households relocated to a place not yet known. Currently, the muscling of the Seritarita school relocation has caused tensions. The school is amongst the heritage of the Mapela community, with a rich heritage going back to the 70s. How is Anglo American London going to intervene?
Response: Duncan Wanblad said “I’m really disappointed to hear the perception” in the way the engagement process works. Claims the engagement process has been well formed, and that the company holds themselves to the highest standards in relation to relocation. We haven’t as yet been able to reach agreements with the communities or get a plan together for the resettlements to happen in a way acceptable to all involved, this work is ongoing. On the Seritarita school, have been discussing with the Department of Education as well as local communities, the relocation won’t occur until there is agreement from all involved.
Question 2: “The same goes for the Sekuruwe community, which is impacted by the Blinks water tailing facility and has not found any joy with their grievances around the tailing activities not being attended to. Anglo has interpreted their lease agreement as a license to fence off and clear the vegetation without sufficient consultation in Sekuruwe. The community that faces the lifetime risks of a tailing facility know little about the Global Industry standard on tailings management, thus all grievances around Blinks water are perceived as general grievances for the mine. No special attention is paid to this tailing facility context. How do we make sure that the company does not confuse their training management obligations with general grievances?
Response: Duncan Wanblad said, “all of our tailings dams are governed by a tailings standard which is at an extremely high level and completely consistent with the GIS Tailings Standard”. Work on standards for tailings dams is ongoing. Added: “absolutely no confusion at all between grievances procedures and engagement procedures”. Continuous reviews and assessments will continue, as well as continuous engagement with the communities. On ensuring grievances are not confused within training management obligations, Stuart Chambers added “I am quite happy to give assurances that that is not going to be the case”.
Question 3: “The Phafola community have raised concerns about the company’s exhumation of graves without thorough consultation. This has also led to community protests that have led to the arrest of some members of the community. The recent Anglo American demerger process, coupled with the contested IRMA audit in the Mogalakwena operations and now news of the proposed name change to Valterra Platinum, has been playing out only in the media. The communities affected by this operation know little about this unfolding and are left confused about the process and its impact. Given the potential implications this can have for the affected communities, for example restructuring or loss of employment, what will Anglo American London do to ensure that this transition does not have dire consequences for the communities?”
Response: Duncan Wanblad said that the ownership of Mogalakwena does not change as a result of the demerger. Said “it will continue to be operated by Valterra in the same manner and under the same standards as under Anglo American ownership, and also under the same leadership”. Argued it is “not fair” to say community is not aware of what’s happening. Claimed there has been “extensive engagement with the community” to explain what is happening with the demerger.
Question 4: “The issue of concern raised by the Mapela Executive Committee (MEC) is the attitude of the leadership of Anglo American Platinum about engagement. The current attitude is problematic: there is no appetite to meaningfully engage with the directly affected mining communities. The company has been playing a diplomatic game which does not involve changing its practice. The Bench Marks Foundation’s intervention has not succeeded in persuading Anglo American Platinum to engage with the communities. The question, therefore, is what will Anglo American plc’s management in London do to ensure that Anglo American Platinum treats communities in Limpopo with sufficient respect to deal with their concerns, engage with them honestly, transparently and share information about relocation plans fully and promptly?”
Response: Stuart Chambers says he has already answered the question, to ensure that the demerged business has sound governance structures. Claims “a publicly listed company that is funded by public markets is not able to ride roughshod over these things” and that they “have every incentive themselves in being successful”.
Question 5, from the Bench Marks Foundation in South Africa: “We are asking a question as the Bench Marks Foundation in South Africa and the communities with which we work. The question concerns the company’s impacts on the Mapela communities in Mogalakwena, including Skimming, Sekuruwe, Sterkwater, Phafola and many other communities represented by the Mapela Executive Committee (MEC) in Limpopo, South Africa. Anglo American Platinum has built a lucrative business portfolio on the back of growing community grievances, ranging from botched community relocations facilitated for mine expansion. However there is still little value for the communities. [Following] Anglo American Platinum’s previous botched relocations, the communities are feeling that there has been no substantial change. There are still outstanding demands and many unfilled promises. The current project is anticipated to relocate 1000 households in Skimming but is being pursued with little transparency.”
Response: Stuart Chambers said “I’m very happy to give reassurance on this. We will ensure that Anglo American Platinum / Valterra… we are an almost 20% shareholder in this business and therefore in its early days through that I will ensure that there is serious effort and resolve in settling these outstanding concerns on relocations. Yes I’m happy to take that on and ensure that responsibility is taken and adhered to”.