You can also listen to this podcast at iono.fm.
advertisement
Continue reading below
Download the free LiSTN audio app on Google Play, Apple, or here.
Jimmy Moyaha: We are looking at a deal that we thought could be good for South Africa, but it doesn't seem to be happening. The application was refused. I am referring to Jindal Steel and Power's deal to build an iron ore mine in KZN, which did not go very well.
I joined Janice Tooley, an environmental attorney who is representing All Rise in this case, by phone to investigate this. Good evening, Janice. He really appreciates his time. Obviously, in a deal like this, a lot happens before the deal closes.
When the announcement was made that this would not proceed, it was cited that there were significant gaps in the environmental assessment in relation to the constitutional rights associated with this agreement. What does that mean in English?
Janice Tooley: South Africa has a constitution and its Bill of Rights protects the environment and gives people the right to an environment that is free from harm to their health and well-being.
Many environmental laws have been enacted to realize this right.places like activities [those of] Because large mines have significant environmental, cultural, and socio-economic impacts, applicants must obtain environmental clearances as well as various permits such as water use permits and waste management permits.
I believe Mr. Jindal started this process in 2013 and the current process that led to the denial has been in place since 2021.
It also requires the appointment of a number of experts to conduct research on the regulations and to consult with all stakeholders and affected parties.
So after two and a half years with all these experts, we ended up with a report of over 3,000 pages, but there were significant gaps.
So basically what the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy, DMRE, said is that they cannot make an informed decision to enable the Article 24 constitutional right, because they cannot make that decision. This is because there is not enough information.
Jimmy Moyaha: Janis, before we get into the community side, let's start with DMRE because you mentioned it earlier. I read the report they sent when they rejected the application. [said] Part of the reason for the refusal is the fact that an independent expert is a no-no in certain respects, as there is a prescribed expert that the department must use to obtain a certain level of assurance from its perspective. did.
I think that speaks to what you just alluded to, when you said that DMRE also acknowledged that there was not enough confidence on their part in this matter. Is there a workaround for this? Is it something where Jindal can come back and say, “Okay, we're going to hire experts aligned with DMRE to get this done,” or is it something where independent experts or independent Will this report ever be recognized?
Janice Tooley: Well, I think one of the first gateways to acceptance is to do a full assessment, to see if it fully meets the reporting standards of the law.
So to get a final recommendation – those gaps that still need a lot of work – Jindal will have to either reappoint the same experts or have other experts come back and actually complete the work. I need to have it done.
I know you said you would come to consult with the community, not just specialized research.
Jimmy Moyaha: yes. Let's take a look at it. As you mentioned, apparently Jindal cited on their side in the expert report that it was a result of access restrictions.
But let's look at the community aspect. We are talking about more than 20,000 hectares of space being considered for this particular mine, and this is what we are dealing with.
However, there are also schools involved, families involved, and…
Janice Tooley: clinic.
Jimmy Moyaha: Clinics and other things that need to be relocated. Do you know how much of that needs to be moved in order for this strategy, this deal to go forward? A report compiled by Jindal estimated that about 350 homes would need to be relocated. But I think that number is from their estimates and may not be fully reflective.
Janice Tooley: Yes, because they have not actually consulted or informed the people who may need to be relocated. These fall under mine health and safety regulations, which require special permission from the ministry to be obtained for blasting within 500 meters of infrastructure, including residential buildings. Therefore, mines usually install fence lines on their 500 meter boundaries, making it a practice to relocate.
However, 350 people will be family members. This is just an estimate.
They never actually talked to people in the area. They have no relocation action plan in place. And that's only phase one.
So, although we have applied for mining rights over 202 square kilometers, only the first stage has actually been assessed in detail. There are two blocks. This will be somewhere southeast of the south block. There are 350 of his families there.
And if we take an average of 10 people per family, that means about 3,500 people live there. There are people living outside the area but still using the area. They may not have homes there, but they still graze cattle, have fields, and use clinics and schools. So just 350 is a very conservative estimate because we haven't considered all the other phases of the upcoming project yet.
advertisement
Continue reading below
And 20 villages across the region will be affected.
So the number 350 is just a starting point and is a very small estimate at this stage.
Jimmy Moyaha: I get your point about the fact that I think there's a lot of subsistence farming going on there. There may be a positive side to this as well. I mean, there's a chance that the communities involved there might find some employment opportunities and things like that. But obviously that would need to be included in the agreement and so on.
At this point from a community perspective, from an All Rise perspective, are they against Jindal coming into space and operating a mine, or do they want to ensure the safety of the community? Not that you've rejected the project completely, but have all the other boxes and other concerns been addressed before proceeding?
Janice Tooley: I think this is a mixed reaction. There are communities in the northern block that have just been cut off from professionals accessing the area.
They say they don't want to mine there. Their land is their ancestral land. Their graves, their homes, their culture cannot be bought or replaced.
Therefore, some communities are completely opposed to mining, as the effects of resettlement and its impact on their livelihoods and culture cannot be avoided.
And then there are other community members who are saying, “So what's in it for us?” they are not convinced. The mine estimates there will be only 800 permanent jobs a year, most of which will be skilled employees.
So it doesn't really lead to employment for local people. Such scenes can be seen in mines all over the country. Most mining jobs are for skilled labor, and that skill base does not exist in local communities.
Jimmy Moyaha: I see. So there's no doubt that communities are very hesitant at this stage because they don't understand the benefits of letting go of their land, which is a legitimate concern. We've seen it in the past too.
Where do we go from here, Janice? What happens here? I think Jindal Steel & Power, as well as the community and DMRE in this case, have other remedies they can pursue. What is the next step from this point of view?
Janice Tooley: The immediate remedy would be to file an administrative appeal against the department's decision. They will appeal to Minister Barbara Creasy, Minister for Forests, Fisheries and Environment. She is the appellate authority and they have a 20-day deadline.
Next, register all stakeholders and affected parties who participated in the EIA in a database. [Environmental Impact Assessment] You will need to send them a copy of your dispute and they will also have an opportunity to respond.
However, given the lengthy and detailed reasons for the department's decision, it is unlikely that Mr. Jindal will prevail on appeal.
The review may take more time. But in my view, these gaps are undeniable, and experts and environmental consultants themselves admit it, but this mine has caused so many conflicts that they need to start over and do it properly. You will need to work on this and try to deal with conflicts.
People's lives are at risk and people are hiding. It caused division in families and communities. This is another spin-off when mining infiltrates local communities. Because not everyone has the same views on mining sustainability.
But certainly our customers are against this development. Because it has a massive, irreversible impact on their lives.
And then there are commercial farmers.
One of our clients employs 4,000 farmers for local food production and export. This mine will also destroy its economy.
So we're talking about net job losses. [makes it] I can understand why people would oppose this project, never mind the impact on other big issues like water quality, water supply, and the effects of climate change.
Jimmy Moyaha: Well, it looks like they still have quite a way to go.
It should be left alone. Janice, thank you for your valuable insight. That's Janice Tooley, an environmental lawyer at Allrise, who gave the latest update on Jindal Steel & Power's attempt to obtain a mining license in KZN, which was refused by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy. Share trends.
