Lower Zambezi National Park Chronology
I.P.A. Manning
Lower Zambezi National Park Zambia Chronology and question provided for a TV interview of the Minister on 2 Feb 2014
Information taken from the draft of Out of Zambia : guardians and plunderers of the ecological state by I.P.A. Manning, former member of the Zambian National Parks & Wildlife Service (1966-1967; 1973-1976; 1988 – 1989)
INTRODUCTION
The present area of the Lower Zambezi National Park (LZNP) was settled c.1908 at Chakwenga (the place of plenty) by an Nsenga tribal group under Chief Mburuma. Gold was discovered at Chakwenga and mined until 1948. In 1952 Mburuma and his people were forced to move by the Provincial Administration because of severe sleeping sickness in the area, settling at Chitope near the Luangwa-Zambezi confluence. Promises made by the Provincial Administration for them to be moved back once the tsetse fly were cleared out were not kept, their sacred groves left untended. From that time it remained largely uninhabited but cared for by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. From 1971 to 1983 it was established as the International Game Park (International Game Park and Wildlife Act of 1971) and leased to the NGO Wildlife Conservation International. In 1983 the International Game Park was replaced by the Lower Zambezi National Park and duly gazetted. However, the Act was only repealed by the Wildlife Act No. 12 of 1998.
National parks are category II protected areas managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation, defined by the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas as a ’Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible.’ Any mining is therefore exploitation and occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area.
Section 13 of the Wildlife Act of 1998 allows mining provided an EIA is submitted and passed. It does not allow for appeals to the Minister – contradicting the Environmental Management Act of 2011.
Notes
2007 – Prospector’s license for park issued to Zambezi Resources Limited (ZRL) Bermuda registered Australian company, although they had started prospecting at least two years earlier. In the environmental brief accompanying their application mention is made of a World Heritage property (Mana Pools) but no impacts on it are dealt with. ZAWA - legally in charge of the national park and the adjoining game management areas - approved the issue of this license
On 24 April 2008, a draft of the amended Wildlife Act of 1998 prepared by ZAWA read as follows:
13(1) Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in this Act or in any written law, no prospecting or mining or such other related activities of any nature shall be undertaken on land within all National Parks, bird and wildlife sanctuaries and Community Partnership Parks
The May 2008 draft of the LZNP general management plan stated, ‘ZAWA is bound to permit these activities (mining) if they are considered to be in the national interest’.
June 2008 – ZAWA’s Policy for National Parks and Wildlife in Zambia, under section 2.3.8, states ‘All geological features in any protected area will be protected’.
18 Oct 2008 - the Zambezi Basin chiefs, Chiawa, Chipepo, Simamba, Sinadambwe and the Luangwa chiefs, Mupuka and Mburuma, in obeisance to their living ancestors and guardians of the land, met and issued an historic declaration against mining for 17 chiefdoms of the Zambezi Basin.
http://www.wild.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/zambezi-mining_chief-call-to-action.pdf
2008 – the Mines and Minerals Development Act of 2008 introduced laying out the requirements for environmental reports at the prospecting, large scale licensing and exploitation and post exploitation phase.
5 Nov 2008 - the head of the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), Lewis Saiwana, wrote to Andy Fleming of Zambezi Resources Ltd (ZRL) saying that ‘National Parks and Game Management Areas should not be subjected to mining activities’.
http://www.wild.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/zawa-letter-of-support.pdf
Nov 2010 ZRL report states that they have decided to apply for a large scale mining license (LSML) and have engaged GeoQuest to do the EIS for the project, building on a previous baseline assessment by GCS in Joburg
http://www.zambeziresources.com/_content/documents/831.pdf
January 2011 – the ZRL subsidiary Mwembeshi Resources Limited was issued a large scale mining license. ZAWA, as required under section 26:1 (f) of the Mines Act, had to have given their permission for its issue – a massive dereliction of their duty as stewards of Zambia’s national parks. The Mines Act under Part IX: section 115, directs that the Director of Mines or the Director of Geological Surveys, ‘in the matter of a mining right shall take into account the need to conserve and protect a) air, water, soil, flora, fauna, fish, fisheries and scenic attractions and b) to ensure any mining activity prevents adverse socio-economic impacts or harm to human health’. It would appear that the Ministry of Mines, ZAWA and the Mining Advisory Committee (members being the three Ministry of Mines Directors, the Zambia Environmental Management Agency (ZEMA), and representatives of the Ministries responsible for environment, land, finance, labour and community development, the office of the Attorney-General, the Zambia Development Agency, the Citizens Economic Empowerment Commission and the Geological Society of Zambia) are in serious breach of their responsibilities under the Act where mining is taking place in the Chiawa GMA, the Lower Zambezi National Park and the Zambezi Valley as a whole. Crucially, the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection – governed by its own Environmental Management Act No. 12 of 2011, was party to the issue of licences to a mining company to operate in a national park, knowing that such an activity can only cause irreversible damage. Under the 2011 Act the Environmental Council had been re-named ZEMA, the country given comprehensive legislation to protect the environment for present and future generations, all of it guided by the precautionary principle.
In July 2011 the World Heritage Committee (35 COM 7B.8) of UNESCO reported that they:
Welcome the decision of the State party of Zambia not to approve the proposed mining operations in Chiawa Game Management Area and Lower Zambezi National Park nor the original proposal for a tourist conference facility in the Chiawa Game Management Area across the river from the property, which could have impacted the property’s ‘Outstanding Universal Value’. The WHC encourages the State Party of Zambia to consider nominating the adjacent Lower Zambezi National Park in order eventually to constitute a joint transboundary inscription on the World Heritage List…
20 September 2011, the PF party win the election and form a government. Their manifesto states the PF government ‘will empower the Environmental Council of Zambia (ZEMA) to carry out effective environment and resources controls’.
On 14 March 2012, Mwembeshi submit an environmental impact statement to ZEMA who make no mention of it on their website. The report was not made available, and the meeting sites were in the bush and without the mandatory period of notice. The government and chiefs Mburuma and Chiawa allegedly had a sudden change of mind and supported the scheme, their people not. As the shrines and sacred groves of Mburuma’s people are located in the proposed open-pit mining area, one can only imagine the financial incentives given him to support the mining. ZRL’s annual report for 2012 did not mention that the proposed Kangaluwi mining project was in a national park, neither does their map in the 2013 annual report.
31 August 2012, ZEMA reported on the EIA:
The development of the Kangaluwi mining operation will be over a period of two and a half years and see the construction of a 90,000 tonnes per annum copper sulphide concentrator and maintenance workshops, fuel storage depots, mining facilities, tailings storage and water storage facilities for a mine production of about 8 million tonnes per annum, a waste rock dump, water supply facilities (most water will be supplied through various as, yet not defined and finalized dewatering schemes) and administration offices. The site access road will be upgraded to provide secure access to all mining and processing areas throughout the year. Additional infrastructure required will include cooking and sleeping facilities at sites, waste facilities and a self sustained camp. Apart from the stated components above, other items, including offices, accommodation for employees and sewer treatment facilities are not considered under the scope of this report. They will be subject to a different study when the feasibility is conducted on the appropriate designs and also sites for the infrastructures.
1) The Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) will be located in the Zambezi escarpment. The area is prone to earthquakes and it is therefore risky to put up a TSF as the chances of failure are high. If the TSF was to fail, the impact would be significant and would extend to neighbouring countries.
2) The mine is located about 30 km from the Mana Pools World Heritage Site in Zimbabwe. Any possible failure of TSF or abnormal discharge of effluent would affect negatively the World Heritage Site.
3) The issue of Acid Rock Drainage (ARD) and consequently the metal leaching has not been addressed. The EIS states that level 112m to 116m contains material that has the potential to generate acid and yet no mitigation measures both in the short and long term have been outlined. The impact of ARD would be significant especially after the mine has been closed.
4) The proposed site is not suitable for the nature of the project since it is located in the middle of a national park. The adverse impact of open pit mining would therefore permanently destroy the landscape of the Park, thereby reducing the tourism value of the Lower Zambezi National Park. Lower Zambezi National Park is one of the four major national parks according to the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) which earns the country a lot of money.
5) The footprint of the mine would increase when the road is widened and the power line is constructed. The integrity of the national park will therefore be compromised and in the long term the ecological value would be affected.
6) The estimate of mine life is not based on verifiable facts as the EIS is full of contradictions. The benefits from the mining operations may be for a very short period of time but the consequences may be far more reaching.
The Zambia CBNRM Forum revealed that the developer would transport
all the copper concentrate from the mine site to smelters on the
Copperbelt, ‘moving 160 tonnes of concentrates per day using 6×30 tonne
trucks. This is likely to lead increased pressure on and damage to roads. In
addition, this has a very high risk of hazard waste spillage and increases
accident risks throughout the transportation route’.
In September 2012 - notice was placed on the ZRL website halting share trading. Their CEO lamented that ‘senior ministers and the Minister of Mines were surprised’ at the EIS’s rejection and that, ‘Zambezi were acutely aware and supportive of the social and economic benefits which the development of the project would bring to the uninhabited and underdeveloped Luangwa district in particular’.
19 September 2012, ZRL appeals to the Minister of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
On 30 October the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) - quoting from the September quarterly report of ZRL concerning a meeting of their Zambian subsidiary with the Minister on 10 October - announced that the Minister had requested a more detailed environmental management plan. As ZEMA had not requested an enlarged impact statement, it was a strange political decision for the Minister to make. However the market was satisfied that nothing would stop the mining. On 18 October 2012, Bergen Global out of New York made available $5.8 million over two years for ZRL to complete its work. Eugene Tablis the MD of Bergen Asset Management LLC, said, "We have been impressed with the management team thus far and hope that our funding will assist in unlocking the value of the Kangaluwi Copper Project."
On 6 November 2012, ZRL submitted an environmental management study to Minister Simuusa as requested, although the mining is planned for the Lower Zambezi National Park which falls under the Ministry of Arts & Tourism. ZRL declared that if they were refused they would appeal to the Supreme Court. Mining Weekly quoted the CEO of ZRL: ‘Vilensky said that he was confident that the company had addressed all concerns in relation to the EIS, and had been advised of Presidential and government support for the project to move ahead’. Clearly ZRL had been made promises that emboldened them to raise a loan of $10 million, the Bergen loan falling away by mutual agreement.
In March 2013 I learnt that the Zambia CBNRM Forum were about to make a presentation on Kangaluwi to the Parliamentary Committee on Lands, Environment and Tourism. I therefore sent them a précis of the legal issues. The Forum reported back that: ‘We had a very good meeting with seven members of parliament, chaired by Professor Lungwangwa. They were all surprised with the events developing in Lower Zambezi National Park and also the communication we all have done with the Minister without response…the committee was surprised that a mining licence was issued before the EIA was approved by ZEMA and also the issue of ZAWA involvement as provided by the ZAWA policy of 1998. We were promised action by the committee to the Executive over the matter and expect feedback’.
In April 2013 ZRL reported that the committee ‘expressed support for it’ (the mining). The ZRL CEO Vanspeybroeck reported in his March 2013 Quarterly Operations Report that: ‘Since the beginning of the year, ZRL has continued to receive the wider support of stakeholders including higher authorities in Zambia, who are very keen to promote the development of such projects thus creating employment opportunities which are limited; During the months of February and March 2013, consultants have continued with the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection on the finalization of the EIS appeal for its successful award; During April 2013, the company made a presentation on the Kangaluwi Copper Project to a Parliamentary Committee on Lands, Environment and Natural Resources. The presentation was very well received by the Parliamentary Committee which as a result visited the site of the project a week later’.
Clearly the PF government under Sata intended that the national park should be mined. The EIS process was therefore a collaborative ‘stitch-up’ effort between ZRL and the Ministry. No strategic environmental assessment, required under the Acts, had been called for. The old-fashioned word for this is collusion. The market responded with confidence. ZRL persuaded its major shareholder and lender, Auctus Resources Fund (formerly LinQ Resources Fund), to underwrite $6 million of the $10 million conditionally underwritten by Paterson Securities Limited.
In The Post 24 May 2013, Minister Simuusa finally admitted that there had been no environmental pre-qualification in Zambezi Resources’ application and issue of mining licenses by the Ministry of Mines, saying, ‘that two fundamental requirements were overlooked when a large-scale mining license was issued to the developers of the proposed mine. The issue was being addressed’.
In July 2013 the Parliamentary Committee on Lands, Environment and Tourism for the Second Session of the Eleventh National Assembly of Zambia (September 2012 - July 2013) declared:
Your Committee recommends that the proposed mining project at Kangaluwi in the Lower Zambezi be rejected for the following reasons: (i) the mining licence that Mwembeshi Resources holds was issued without following the requirements of the law and procedure and is invalid and should be revoked; (ii) there should be no mining in the Lower Zambezi National Park which should be reserved and preserved as a conservation area and heritage for purposes of tourism development; (iii) the Government should ensure that the issuance of mining licences follows the legal and laid down procedures; further, the work of the inter-Ministerial Committee should be strengthened.
In November 2013 ZRL gave notice of a debt restructuring with Auctus Resources Fund by increasing the loan amount by A$400,000 to a total of A$1,900,000, and extending the date of the Facility Agreement to 1 July 2014. ZRL undertook to pay A$2.5 million of the Convertible Note Deed by 30 January 2014. Auctus also declared that it was willing to exchange A$5.5 million of its debt for ZRL shares, with the right to nominate two directors to the ZRL board.
On 6 November ZRL submit an environmental management study (EMS) to the Minister
25 Oct 2013, ZRL announces that Borniface Nguni, a Zambian geologist employed by ZRL, agreed to take shares in lieu of money owed to him. On 23 October 2013, ZRL issued ordinary shares to Robert McPherson and the Chairman of Chambeshi, Willie Sweta in lieu of creditors/fees and without disclosure to investors
http://www.zambeziresources.com/_content/documents/1013.pdf
The Mineral Resource Development Policy issued by the by Ministry of Mines, Energy and Water Development in July 2013 (Minister Christopher Yaluma and his Permanent Secretary Victor Mutambo) – and used by them for an aggressive mining stance - states under section 7.4 (e) : ‘Exploration and mining in protected areas will only be allowed when rehabilitation is guaranteed’. How does the Minister propose that this can be done for 250 km2 of a national park in which are placed four mines, two of them open-pit copper mines. The Zambia Environmental Management Agency on its website states: ‘Open pit mining is a major form of mining in Zambia; however pits are never rehabilitated when minerals are exhausted’.
On 17 January 2014, Minister Harry Kalaba of Lands etc wrote to Chambeshi Resources - the Zambezi Resources subsidiary, informing them that he had upheld their appeal of 19 September 2012 against the ZEMA rejection of the mining. Kalaba made it clear that he accepted the word of the Australian miners that the 250 sq. km. mining operation with its four mines (two open-pit) and the daily removal of ore in massive trucks to the Copperbelt would provide employment, that technology could deal with the negative effects, and that wildlife management would be enhanced by the management scheme suggested in the appeal – a scheme not made available for public appraisal. Clearly this was a ‘Big Man’ decision.
ZRL announced this on 20 January - http://www.zambeziresources.com/_content/documents/1027.pdf
21 January Australia’s ASX (Elizabet...@ASX.com.au) immediately wrote to ZRL about her concerns of dodgy trading
http://www.zambeziresources.com/_content/documents/1028.pdf
We have until 17 February to appeal to the High Court . News has just filtered in that some Zambians who had been peacefully demonstrating outside the Pamodzi Hotel in Lusaka where were gathered some Australian miners meeting with the Veep Guy Scott, had been arrested. Zambia has a fearsome array of security legislation allowing it to snuff out any kind of opposition.
http://zambiareports.com/2014/02/01/advocates-seek-injunction-lower-zambezi-mine/
Interview of Minister
Herewith a few questions provided at the request of campaign members for a television on Sunday 2 Feb 2014 of Minister Kalaba.:
- Lower Zambezi National Park is a category II protected area defined by the IUCN Commission on Protected areas as a 'Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible.’ Question: Does mining therefore not negate the reason for its creation?
ZAWA’s Policy for National Parks and Wildlife in Zambia of June 2008, under section 2.3.8, states ‘All geological features in any protected area will be protected’. Question: Why is this policy now ignored?- On 18 October 2008, 17 chiefs of the Zambezi basin issued a declaration against mining in the basis. Question: Why does the PF government ignore this?
- Why is the paramount precautionary principle put forward by the Environmental Management Act of 2011 being ignored?
- Why has the PF government gone against its Manifesto in which it stated they will will 'empower the Environmental Council of Zambia (ZEMA) to carry out effective environment and resources controls’ by ignoring the decision of ZEMA to refuse open-pit mining in the park?
- The Mineral Resource Development Policy issued by the Ministry of Mines, Energy and Water Development in July 2013 (Minister Christopher Yaluma and his Permanent Secretary Victor Mutambo) – and used by them for an aggressive mining stance - states under section 7.4 (e) : ‘Exploration and mining in protected areas will only be allowed when rehabilitation is guaranteed’. How does the Minister propose that this can be done for a de-forested 250 km2 of a national park in which are placed four mines, two of them open-pit copper mines. The Zambia Environmental Management Agency on its website states: ‘Open pit mining is a major form of mining in Zambia; however pits are never rehabilitated when minerals are exhausted’. Question: Does Minister Kalaba disagree with ZEMA?
- As a 160 tonnes of concentrate will be removed from the mines per day and trucked to the Copperbelt, how does the Minister propose that the area can be reclaimed?
- In The Post of 24 May 2013 Minister Simuusa, your predecessor, stated that there had been no environmental pre-qualification in Zambezi Resources’ application and issue of mining licenses by the Ministry of Mines, saying, ‘that two fundamental requirements were overlooked when a large-scale mining license was issued to the developers of the proposed mine. The issue was being addressed’. Question: Why have the mining licenses therefore not been cancelled?
- In July 2013 the Parliamentary Committee on Lands, Environment and Tourism for the Second Session of the Eleventh National Assembly of Zambia (September 2012 - July 2013) declared:
Your Committee recommends that the proposed mining project at Kangaluwi in the Lower Zambezi be rejected for the following reasons: (i) the mining licence that Mwembeshi Resources holds was issued without following the requirements of the law and procedure and is invalid and should be revoked; (ii) there should be no mining in the Lower Zambezi National Park which should be reserved and preserved as a conservation area and heritage for purposes of tourism development; (iii) the Government should ensure that the issuance of mining licences follows the legal and laid down procedures; further, the work of the inter-Ministerial Committee should be strengthened. Queston: Why has the PF government ignored the recommendations of this parliamentary committee?
- Why has your Ministry not made public the details of the reclamation and wildlife scheme put forward to the Minister, which persuaded him to agree to the mining?
- Questions have been asked by the Australian Securities Exchange concerning the miners delay in announcing the letter of permission of 17 January, a period in which they took advantage of non-disclosure and saw an increase in share prices not announced to the market.
http://www.zambeziresources.com/_content/documents/1028.pdf.......Question: Does this not concern the Minister about the people with whom Zambia is doing business
- Allegations have been made that you have benefitted financially from your decision (the sudden funding of your newspaper business). Question: what do you have to say about the allegations?
- Has the PF government carried out their own assessment of the impacts of such an unpopular and unscientific decision on their electoral prospects for 2016?