By Sean Tembo
1. In the past couple of weeks, our public discourse has been dominated by the issue of the proposed mining activities in the Lower Zambezi national park. Of course, this issue was brought to the fore when the High Court lifted the injunction that had been imposed against the promoters of this mining project; Zambezi Resources Limited, way back in 2014. The injunction came about when four NGOs and an individual appealed against the decision of the then Minister of Lands & Environment to allow mining activities to take place in lower Zambezi national park. Upon filing the appeal, the then late High Court judge granted an injunction against any mining activities in the Lower Zambezi.
2. The injunction lasted for an inordinate period of about 5 years, primarily because the High Court judge who initially handled this matter passed away (MHSRIP) and the matter needed to be allocated to another judge. However, when the matter was finally reallocated and it came up for a hearing before the High Court, it was found that the appellants made up of 4 NGOs and one individual, had not filed the Record of Appeal, ever since the case arose about 5 years ago.
It is worth noting that the record of appeal is what would have outlined the grounds of appeal, or the reasons why the 5 appellants felt that mining activities must not take place in the Lower Zambezi national park. Understandably the High Court dismissed the case for want of prosecution, due to the failure by the appellants to give their grounds for appeal. What l find strange also is why the High Court issued an injunction in 2014 without the Appellants filing into Court any grounds for the appeal? Or perhaps there is a provision somewhere in the ZEMA Act which states that once an appeal is filed to the High Court against a Minister’s decision, then such appeal shall act as a stay until it is discharged? I am not too sure as l have not yet read the ZEMA Act in its entirety. Otherwise, if there is no such provision, then it would have been extremely unusual for the High Court to grant an injunction without any grounds of appeal being filed into Court.
3. After the huge uproar that arose after the High Court lifted the injunction on mining in the Lower Zambezi national park, and typical of the lack of leadership that exists on both aisles of this country’s two major political parties; the ruling but incompetent PF and the not ruling but equally incompetent UPND, a blame game gradually ensued between the two delinquents. On one part, the PF accused the UPND leader of having received a payout of $14 million for selling his stake in the holding company of Zambezi Resources Limited, the company that seeks to undertake mining activities in the Lower Zambezi national park. On the other part, the UPND accused the ruling PF of disregarding the welfare of our wildlife and the environment by allowing mining activities to take place in the Lower Zambezi national park. Others even insinuated that the PF influenced the judiciary throughout the injunction so that certain individuals within the Government could benefit.
4. This debate about the proposed mining activities in the Lower Zambezi national park has been so protracted and heated that it has even attracted the voices of our former leaders; KK and Ala Bee, to speak out and issue formal statements on this matter. Of course, both of our former Republican Presidents are strongly opposed to any mining activities taking place in the Lower Zambezi national park, adding to the many other voices including those from civil society organizations and international NGOs such as WWF, CITES, etc. Notwithstanding the fact that all the arguments that have so far been advanced by both our two former Republican Presidents and the NGO fraternity, as well as the main opposition UPND (which by the way never has a concrete stand on any national matter but rather goes with the loudest voices so as to look good), are simplistic.
5. Speaking for myself as Sean Tembo, my view on this matter is that the information currently available is not sufficient for me to take a stand, whether in support or in opposition to the proposed mining activities in the Lower Zambezi national park. I am not a man to go with the loudest voices just so that l can look good in the eyes of the majority, no. Similarly, I am not a man with an inferiority complex such that when other notable individuals like KK and Ala Bee or notable institutions like WWF, CITES, etc., take a stance on a matter, then l would be shy to express a contrary view, no.
6. Among some of the key information that l would want to peruse on this matter before l render my opinion would be the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report which was undertaken by the project promoters. Specifically in the EIA l would like to see the submissions made by stakeholders such as residents of lower Zambezi national park, Ministry of Tourism, NGOs, Ministry of Mines, etc. Here l will focus on how extensive the stakeholder consultation process was during the EIA and that each stakeholder was able to make their submissions without any let or hindrance.
I will also be interested to see if the project promoters satisfactorily addressed each and every submission made by stakeholders. Obviously some of the common concerns of stakeholders would be how the project promoters intend to dispose of poisonous water that is pumped out of the mines without this poisonous water affecting the wild animals, how many people are to be displaced from the envisaged mining area and how the welfare and livelihood of these displaced citizens will be addressed, what proportion of the Lower Zambezi national park the mining activities will affect (it is worth noting that the park and related GMAs consists of more than 30,000 square kilometers and also that a typical mine in Zambia consists of less than 100 square kilometers), the impact of the noise pollution on wildlife and the ecosystem and how it will be mitigated, etc.
7. Indeed, without scrutinizing the questions above, anyone commenting on the proposed lower Zambezi mining project is doing so from a point of ignorance and out of emotions. Suffice to mention that you can never hope to build a prosperous nation by making emotional decisions. You need to make decisions based on facts and evidence. That is not to say that the nation must be rid of all crybabies, no. We need the crybabies like most NGOs and certain unemployed former Ministers cum self-styled environmental activists who will scream blue murder over each and every proposed development whether it is a shopping mall in woodlands or grain silos along Cairo Road, just so as to sound relevant and concerned, but when time comes to make oral and written submissions during an EIA, on why they are opposed to a given development project, they shy away because they lack substance.
In fact, l would not be surprised to find that the four NGOs who filed that appeal to the High Court on the proposed lower Zambezi mining project actually did not make any submissions during the EIA for the project, and just woke up from slumber, which ostensibly could explain why they failed to file grounds of appeal for 5 years. Be that as it may, in as much as the nation needs these crybabies, the nation also requires sober-minded men and women who will scrutinize national matters on their merits and make an objective and sober determination accordingly. Men like me. Otherwise, if sober-minded men and women become shy and are not able to stand up and object to the populist opinions of crybabies, then this nation can never prosper.
8. Perhaps it is now time to look at the pros and cons of proceeding with mining activities in the Lower Zambezi national park. To a large extent, the cons include the risk of environmental pollution. Here, we are talking about a catastrophe similar to the pollution that KCM did to the Kafue river in Chingola. Now, if such pollution happened to the Zambezi river, the catastrophe to people and wildlife would be immeasurable. Suffice to mention that KCM polluted the Kafue river because they were discharging their effluent into the river.
If they were not discharging their effluent into the river, then the river would not have been polluted. Suffice to mention that mining effluent does not have to be discharged into a river and that KCM was just lazy and negligent to discharge that poisonous water into the Kafue River in Chingola. That’s why all the other mines in Zambia don’t have an issue of polluting any river in the manner and fashion that KCM did. In fact, there is readily available technology to recycle the poisonous water that comes out of a mine. I remember l had a client in Botswana who made a fortune specializing in recycling mine effluent water for DEBSWANA mines and supplying it back to mine townships for decades.
The technology is readily available and well-proven. Therefore, the pollution of the Kafue river was as a result of the callousness of KCM and the incompetence and possible corruption of the Ministry of Mines and its failure to properly monitor and regulate the activities of KCM. But simply because KCM polluted Kafue river we are not going to say let’s shut down Mopani, let’s shut down First Quantum Minerals, let’s shut down Chibuluma, etc., or are we?
9. On the other hand, it is an undeniable fact that this country is dependent on the mining sector. Mining is the backbone of our economy. We might wish that it wasn’t but the fact is that it is. KK made efforts to diversify the economy away from mining about 50 years ago, but it did not materialize. FTJ, LPM, Ala Bee, MCS and now ECL all sang or are singing the same song, but the diversification dream has not materialized to date. Mining is and shall remain the cornerstone of our economy for the unforeseeable future. Mining is a sole forex earner.
These other so-called non-traditional exports are nothing much to talk home about. That is the reality on the ground, and if we are going to make progress and prosper as a nation, we need to face the reality on the ground. We wish our economy was manufacturing-driven or agricultural driven or technology-driven but it is not. Instead, it is mining driven. Of course, self-styled environmental activists and other crybabies might not understand this fact, but it’s their job to be emotional crybabies. Just like it is the job of sober-minded statesmen and women to make tough decisions that might not be popular, but are in the interest of the Republic.
10. Given the indisputable fact that our economy is dependent on mining and it is likely to remain dependent on mining for the unforeseeable future, it might interest you to note that our mining capacity has been dwindling over the past years, for a number of reasons. Most of the old mining sites have gradually depleted and have been shut down by mining houses because such sites became uneconomical to mine.
Mopani alone shut down two mining sites this year alone. On the other hand, there have been no new mining sites opened in the recent past, again due to a number of reasons which include the PF government’s unstable policies for the mines including the now-abandoned proposed sales tax project. You see, mining is a capital-intensive undertaking and before an investor can come and pump money into a mining project, they want to be assured that they will be able to recoup their investment, and such recouping of investment can only take place in a stable policy environment.
So if there is an opportunity to open a new mining site in lower Zambezi national park, then such an opportunity must not be dismissed offhand. It deserves to be objectively scrutinized, not using emotions like UPND and its affiliated NGOs, but by using facts. Obviously the starting point to scrutinizing this project is for a fresh Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken, given that an inordinate period of time has elapsed since the last one. That is assuming that the project promoters are still interested in pursuing the project.
During such an EIA, all stakeholders must be given an opportunity to make their submissions in a convenient manner. The project promoters must then clearly outline in the EIA how they will address each of the issues raised by stakeholders. From there, the Government should be allowed to make a decision on whether to approve the fresh EIA or not and furnish us with the reasons for whatever decision is made. As we continue to debate this matter however, my appeal would be for all stakeholders to desist from adopting a simplistic view.
This matter is far from simple. On one hand, we are talking about protecting and preserving our fauna and flora and on the other hand, we are talking about enhancing the productive capacity of our mining sector, which is the cornerstone of our economy. Just to put it into perspective, if our mining sector was shut down today, our economy would collapse within a month. When l say collapse, l mean that we would start printing K100 billion notes within a month!
The Author is the leader of the Patriots for Economic Progress(PeP), an Opposition Political Party in Zambia
