Prosperity unto Death

Is Zambia Ready for Uranium Mining?

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Prosperity unto Death: Is Zambia ready for Uranium Mining?
© 2010 Published by the Council of Churches in Zambia Financed by Norwegian Church Aid

Acknoweledgements Our deepest gratitude goes to the following people without whom this report would not be in your hands; the Chiefs in the Sikoongo, Simamba, Sinadambwe, Mumena, Makumbi and Matebo chiefdoms. This we do, not forgetting the Headmen and the community members who were instrumental towards unveiling the information and taking the study team to the areas where more facts could be found. This report shows that it was not a mistake for the General Conference, CCZ Board Members, and Heads of Churches to give their blessings on the programme on the Extractive Industry and Ecological Debt – EIED, the Social and Economic Justice Programme Committees in the areas which are covered by this study and the Churches in the same areas who gave both their valuable time and moral support to bring this study to you. We would also like to direct out appreciation to the Norwegian Church Aid Zambia for both moral and other logistics support to enable us carry out this important study, to Dr. Daniel Nkhuwa and Mr Sakwiba Musiwa of the University of Zambia – UNZA; for their readiness and commitment to conduct the study. Last but not least, we want to thank all who were involved at one point or the other in the consultative discussions on the findings of this report before going to Print NOT forgetting the tireless efforts and dedication of the staff members at the Social and Economic Justice programme office. It is our hope that the facts presented on this report will compel us all to action against injustice. To all of you we say a heartfelt; TWALUMBA KAPATI! TWASANTA MWANE! ZIKOMO KWAMBILI! THANK YOU!!! PEACE, LOVE & JOY THE COUNCIL OF CHURCHES IN ZAMBIA – CCZ Seeking Justice for ALL... Proverbs 31:8 – 9 All pictures were taken at the respective Chiefdoms were Uranium operations are scheduled to take place by the CCZ team. Front page - photos by Evans Rubara Design & layout by Alain Kayihura Printed by Mission Press- Ndola, Zambia For more information contact: The Council of Churches in Zambia - CCZ

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Contents
Acronyms Foreword Executive Summary About the Authors Introduction Background Objective of the study Scope of the study Deliverables Methodology of the Review Desk review Field work Facts about Uranium General Radioactivity Fission Radon and Radon Daughters Status of Uranium Mining in Zambia Introduction Denison Mines Zambia Limited (DMZL) African Energy Resources (AER) Lumwana Mine Company (LMC) Institutional and Legal Framework of Uranium Mining in Zambia Institutional Framework Policy, Legal and Regulatory Framework Introduction The Mines and Minerals Development Act No. 7 of 2008 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act No. 12 of 1990 Ionising Radiation Protection Act, 2005 The Land Act of 1995 and the Land Acquisition Act of 1970 v vi viii xi 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 7 8 8

iii

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Current Levels of Adherence to Legisation by Mining Companies Operating in Zambia Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) Commitment to Environmental Protection and Land Rehabilitation Adequacy of Legislation fro Uranium Exploration and Mining Introduction Community Concerns and Safety Chief Sikoongo’s Area – AER Chief Sinadambwe’s Area – DMZL Chiefs Matebo’s, Mukumbi’s and Mumena’s Areas – LMC Worker Safety Community Participation in the Mines’ decision-making Process Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Dangers of some CSR programmes Capacity of Zambia to Oversee Uranium Exploration and Mining Introduction Experience from other countries Canada Namibia Institutional set up Technical Expertise Advantages and Disadvantages of Uranium Mining in ZAmbia Introduction Advantages of uranium mining Disadvantages of uranium mining and Possible pitfalls Discussions Conclusion Recommendations iv References Appendices Appendix 1. Decision letter for Denison Mines Zambia Limited Appendix 2. Decision letter for Lumwana Mine Company’s Uranium Project Appendix 3. Environmental Project Brief (EPB) submitted by African Energy Resources Appendix 4. Minutes of the Denison Mines Zambia Limited EIA Public Consultation Appendix 5. Minutes of the Lumwana Uranium EIA Public Consultation Appendix 6. Lumwana uranium awareness document

9 9 9 11 11 11 11 13 14 16 17 20 22 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 25 25 25 25 27 29 29 30 31 32 35 39 49 60 72

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Acronyms
AER AMEX ASX CCNR CCZ ECZ EIA EPB IAEA LML LMC NRMG OML PWYP RPA TSX UNZA WNA WNTI ZCCM African Energy Resources American Stock Exchange Australian Stock Exchange Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility Council of Churches in Zambia Environmental Council of Zambia Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Project Brief International Atomic Energy Agency Large Scale Mining Licence Lumwana Mining Company Natural Resource Management and Governance OmegaCorp Minerals Limited Publish What You Pay Radiation Protection Authority Toronto Stock Exchange University of Zambia World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines v

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Foreword
“We of this generation are the stewards of the land in which we live. The next generation will call upon us to give and account of our stewardship.” Anonymous Should Christians care about the way in which the God-given wealth in the natural realm is managed, the social welfare of fellow human beings, the economy and environment? Christians are sometimes reluctant to take governance and natural resource management issues seriously, leaving all these issues under the oversight of politicians. In some cases this is because we do not understand governance with regards to natural resource management, socioeconomic and environmental issues from God’s perspective. Or out of fear of the dynamics on the way and the fact that the political environment in the African soil always sees such engagement from the Church as opposition. Let’s therefore, take a moment to reflect upon stewardship as individual Christians, Churches and as a nation with respect to Natural resource management and the entire environment that houses us – mother earth. The three general principles of a Christian environmental ethic namely; Stewardship and Creation value, Stewardship, sustained order and Purpose, and Stewardship, Universal corruption and redemption have practical implications for the role of people as caretakers, or managers of nature. The Bible teaches that as caretakers or managers of nature, people are to practice good stewardship. The word “steward” and “stewardship” is used throughout the Old and New Testaments of the Bible (Genesis 15:2; Genesis 44:1; 1 Chronicles 28:1; Matthew 20:8; 1 Corinthians 4:2; Luke 12:42; Luke 16:1-2). The word used for steward in the Bible can also be interpreted as manager or servant. The general characteristics and responsibilities of a steward include being faithful, wise and responsible. The steward should be concerned with meeting daily needs and is not to abuse or waste what he or she has been put in charge of managing. The steward is to maintain self-control (not overindulging), be a “problem-solver”, and follow the household or estate owner’s wishes and instructions with respect to management (Luke 12:4246; Luke 16:1-9). Under the Principle of Creation Value, all of God’s creations are important and valuable to God. People hold a special particular value to God as living beings created in His image (Genesis 1:26-30). Part of God’s provision for the well-being of people is the use of plants, animals, minerals and other elements of nature for meeting our material needs.

vi

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

When using elements of nature for human benefit, the Christian natural resource [manager] keeps in mind that all of creation ultimately belongs to God and is valuable to God independent of human use (ref. Psalm 24:1) Godly respect and love for elements of nature leads the Christian natural resource manager to be a responsible caretaker of nature who does not abuse or misuse what has been entrusted into his or her care by God. Respect, love, care and realistic use of the natural wealth God has given to humanity are overarching facts that encompasses all mankind irrespective of religion and race. Genesis 1 establishes that although both people and nature are created works of God and under God’s authority, God has given people dominion over nature. But, how are people to exercise this dominion? God created people in His own image - as His representatives on earth. Specific instructions pertaining to managing nature are given in Genesis 2: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it”(Genesis 2:15, NIV). The phrase, “to work it” means “to till it” or “to cultivate it”; the general meaning is to use productively. To “take care of” means “to keep”, “to guard,” and “to exercise great care over”. The intent of “keeping, guarding, caring over” is to sustain the function for which the element of nature or natural system being cared for was originally designed, namely; to cater for the present and future generations. The “good steward” according to the Bible will therefore, manage nature in a wise, self-controlled, and nonwasteful manner, always taking care to sustain the original functions of elements of nature and natural systems. The “poor steward”, in contrast, lacks self-control, is wasteful and irresponsible, and cannot be trusted to take proper care of what he or she has been put in charge of managing. The “poor steward” allows the original functions of elements of nature or natural systems to be degraded or ruined. Unfortunately, the poor management or stewardship model often describes how men and women of the world improperly exercise their dominion over nature. Examples of poor management of natural resources can be seen among us – Zambians and other mineral rich countries in Africa in the way the mining developments are contracted leading to the land being totally “burned out” and incapable of further production and the environment becomes poisonous to mankind. In the current state of affairs in the Mining sector and the general management of the God given natural resources in Zambia; we clearly find ourselves at fault with God. We have forgotten the sole responsibility that was given to us by God and turned to heaping up His wrath for disobedience. To carry out [our] responsibilities and properly utilise the natural resources God has given us, the Church and other stewards of nature must learn as much as [we] can about the God-intended order and purpose of nature. This effort includes learning about individual elements of nature, and how these elements of nature function within natural systems created and sustained by God (ref. Jeremiah 6:16). If high levels of poverty among the people of Zambia in the rural, peri-urban and urban areas and corruption named within the decision-making offices in the government on mining development agreements leading the country into more social, economic and environmental woes and will not make us rethink the way in which [we] utilise the natural resources then let this report challenge [our] understanding and be a means to tracing back our paths to better decision-making and ensure that the God given wealth benefit the people of Zambians to achieve the TRUE One Zambia, One Nation. vii

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Executive Summary
Background The advent of uranium exploration/mining activities in Zambia in the early to mid 2000s has generated discussions focused in two main areas of concern, especially for the affected communities in these areas. One such concern pertained to whether or not the economic benefits accruing to, and the health effects related to these activities on local communities justified some of the associated risks created by such activities. In an attempt to get some clear understanding of this concern, the following needed to be answered:  Does Zambia have the technical expertise to regulate and supervise the exploitation and mining of uranium?  the socio-economic benefits accruing to the affected communities justified, considering possible some Are known and unknown health risks associated with uranium exploitation and mining activities?  What role does the rural communities that are directly affected by uranium exploitation and mining played in the decision-making processes of these mines? It was against this background that the Council of Churches in Zambia (CCZ) commissioned this study. The study documents outcomes of a review of policies and laws that govern the extractive industries in the mining sector in Zambia and how these policies/laws address issues of transparency, equitable distribution of benefits accruing from the extractive industries in these sectors, and management of the environment. Objectives of the study The main purpose of the study was to comprehensively review the uranium policy and related statutes in Zambia with respect to health issues, environmental protection, transparency, accountability and equitable distribution of benefits realized from the exploitation and mining of uranium. Methodology The study was undertaken in two stages, namely: a) Desk review that comprised identifying and reviewing existing relevant documents, and b) Fieldwork involving visiting areas affected by uranium exploration and mining activities of Siavonga and Solwezi to discuss with District Commissioners, Chiefs and their Headmen and subjects, and concerned citizens. Uranium exploration/mining areas in Zambia Currently, three major exploration companies – African Energy Resources (AER), Denison Mine Zambia Limited (DMZL) and Lumwana Mining Company (LMC) – have acquired concessions for uranium exploration and subsequent mining in Zambia.

viii

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

AER is operating in the Chirundu area, where it holds a 70% interest in the Chirundu Joint Venture project, with Albidon Limited (ASX: ALB) holding the remaining 30%. The Company is also involved in another venture called the Kariba Valley Joint Venture Project, where it holds a 30% interest, with Albidon Limited holding 70%. DMZL is currently developing its Mutanga-Dibwe Project located in Siavonga District of Southern Province. LMC uranium mining activities fall within the confines of the Company’s copper exploration and mining operations at Malundwe and Chimiwungo copper, cobalt, gold and uranium deposits 95 km west of Solwezi. So far, these companies have reported findings of commercially viable deposits, with AER and DMZL having delineated some commercial deposits in their Siavonga District concessions, and the latter targets to commence production in 2012. LMC, on the other hand, is already stock-piling uranium ore that comes as a by-product of its copper mining activities. has delineated commercial deposits in Siavonga. Facts about Uranium Uranium is the heaviest naturally occurring element on earth. It is concentrated in certain types of rocks. It is classified as the deadliest metal on earth because it is:  Radioactive – emits (gives out) radiation (energy), when it breaks down. This radiation is in form of streams of particles – alpha and beta – with very high energy.  Fissionable – spontaneous or induced splitting of an atomic nucleus into smaller parts, usually accompanied by a significant release of energy – about 400 times as much energy as is produced by a radioactive disintegration event. Thus, the radioactivity and fissionability of uranium is responsible for introduction into the human environment a tremendously large range of radioactive materials which are all very unfavourable to biological organisms. Since these particles are like fragments, they eventually get into water, food, and air that the humans drink, eat and breathe, respectively. And because of their high energy, they can be damaging or fatal to health of people exposed to them, especially when ingested or inhaled. Institutional Framework The administration and regulation of all mining activities are the portfolio responsibility of the Ministry of Mines and Minerals Development (MMMD). Three line departments - Geological Survey Department (GSD), Mines Development Department (MDD) and Mines Safety Department (MSD), perform the techni-

cal functions of the MMMD. The GSD is a national depository of all geological information in the country, while the MDD issues all prospecting, retention and mining licences. The MSD enforces mining regulations. Other institutions include: a) Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ), which is mandated to do all such things as are necessary to protect the environment and control pollution, so as to provide for the health and welfare of persons, animals, plants and environment. This mandate is fulfilled by:  Ensuring developers submit mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports for all major projects (both new and existing).  Collecting and disseminating environmental and social information, and improving the public’s environmental awareness. b) Radiation Protection Board (RPB), which is responsible for the management of all potentially harmful sources of radiation thru occupational and/ or environmental exposures. Another mandate for the RPB is issue licenses for processing, storage, transportation, importation, exportation and use of radioactive material within specified levels. Policy Framework Zambia has no specific policy framework on uranium. Issues of uranium exploration/mining are only embedded in the Mineral resources development policy. However, the extra-ordinary characteristics of uranium require mining policies that are specific to it. Legal and Regulatory Framework The main law that is specific to uranium exploration/ mining is contained in the Mines and Minerals Development (Prospecting, Mining and Milling of Uranium Ores and Other Radioactive Mineral Ores) Regulations of 2008. These Regulations (i) form the major basis for uranium exploration and mining, and (ii) are intended for the protection of the environment, as well as health and safety of workers and the general public. Other Legal Regulatory Frameworks include: a) The Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act No. 12 of 1990, which provides guidance on the development of Environmental Project Briefs (EPBs) and/or the Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), depending on scale of project. b) The Ionizing Radiation Protection Act, 2005, which provides for the protection of the public, workers and the environment from hazards generated by use of devices that produce ionising radiation. c) Land Act of 1995: • Is intended to guarantee peoples’ right to land,

ix

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

while enhancing national development. • Recognises the holding of land under customary tenure, while legally recognising the Chief’s role, wherein land may not be converted or alienated without the latter’s approval. d) Land Acquisition Act of 1970 sets out regulations for the compulsory acquisition of land and property and compensation for such acquisition. It also stipulates that compensation for acquired property, losses and damages shall be paid as may be agreed upon between the parties. However, it also states that the president may acquire any property in the interest of the Republic. Gaps and weaknesses in Legislation and Enforcement 1. The lack of a specific policy on uranium exploration and mining in spite of its peculiarity and dangers. The absence of a policy on uranium may have led to some of the inherent weaknesses in the current legislation, resulting in inadequate attention to communities’ interests. Issues that indicate inadequate attention to communities’ interests include:  Approval of an EPB report, which lacked assessment of socio-economic and environmental impacts.  Drilling of exploration holes very close to people’s houses. 2. According to the Land Act, no land can be converted without approval of chief. However, chiefs complained about investors invading their chiefdoms without their permission. This may arise from the fact that the president may acquire any property in the interest of the Republic 3. The Land Acquisition Act sets regulations for the compulsory compensation for all acquired land and property. In spite of this stipulation, people appear to have been forced to relocate from areas of their ancestral inheritance, without any commensurate compensation. 4. Inadequacies of information to communities – People to be relocated were not informed that this was permanent, and they would not return to their land again. 5. Signed Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) – Although chiefs sign MoUs with investors that promise, among others, to create jobs for the local communities, most of these jobs have remained casual and of a general-workers’ nature. 6. Worker Safety – storage of drill holes cores in some of the exploration camps poses great challenges to workers’ safety 7. Community Participation in decision-making – some clauses in the Mines and Minerals Development Policy like ‘to encourage mining companies to develop a participatory & collaborative approach

to mine planning, development and decommissioning’, are loose, ineffective and noncommittal. Possible health and environmental effects Mining leaves behind waste rock, while crushing and chemical winning processes for uranium leave behind pulverized material in form of tailings. If mismanaged, especially arising from some gaps and weaknesses in legislation and enforcement, most of the waste rock and tailings may get washed by rain into water systems and/or inevitably spread into the environment. Therefore, radioactive materials will be introduced into the air, water, and food that man breathes, drinks and eats, respectively, thereby introducing into the human environment materials that are very inimical (foreign) to body. Consequently, there might be an extraordinarily high incidence of lung diseases – cancer, fibrosis, and other lung diseases – all of which take decades to manifest. Available scientific evidence indicates that every dose of radiation is likely to cause a corresponding increase in cancers and other diseases. With the current arrangements, where there is no policy on uranium, and enforcement of existing subsidiary pieces of legislation still requires strengthening, the following questions arise:  Who becomes responsible to look after such material forever once mining companies close down?  How does anyone guard millions of tonnes of radioactive sand safely forever, and keep it out of the environment? Transparency, Accountability and Equitable distribution of Benefits So far, no deliberate policy/legislation addresses equitable distribution of wealth that accrues from mining activities. Thus:  Communities, where mining activities take place, only benefit from national programmes, if at all included in those programmes.  The only statement in statutes is where government encourages investors to carry out some community work in their areas of operation. Recommendations On the basis of some gaps and weaknesses in legislation and enforcement, the need for a policy on uranium is imperative as this will set the pace for:  The revision of the current Regulations that, among others, adequately address community concerns.  The educational and awareness programmes for communities ahead of any uranium exploration and mining operations.

x

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

About the Authors
This research was carried out by Daniel CW Nkhuwa (PhD) and Sakwiba Musiwa (MSc), both of the Department of Geology in the School of Mines at the University of Zambia. Dr. Nkhuwa holds a PhD in Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology from Aachen University of Technology in Germany, which he completed in June 1996. He has worked for the then Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines (ZCCM) Limited, Luanshya Division from 1982 to the end of 1988. At the start of 1989, he joined the Geology Department in the School of Mines at the University of Zambia, where he is currently Senior Lecturer. During this period, he has supervised and graduated a PhD in Hydrogeology; he has researched and published widely within the repertoire of engineering geology, hydrogeology and mining geology and contributed Chapters in books, and published articles in peer reviewed Journals and refereed Conference Proceedings. In addition, he has made several presentations at national and international conferences, seminars and workshops. He has also made several Public Service contributions – consultancies and awareness creation programmes – to national and international institutions. He is a member of five local and international professional institutions. Mr. Musiwa holds an MSc in Mining Exploration from the International Institute of Aerospace Survey and Earth Resources (ITC) in the Netherlands, which he obtained in 1996. He worked for the then Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines (ZCCM) Limited, Chingola Division from 1979 to 1981. Between 1981 and 1982, Mr. Musiwa worked as Exploration Geologist with the Geological Survey Department. Between 1982 and 1992, he worked as Project Geologist and promoted to Senior Project Geologist at the Hydrocarbon Unit of the Ministry of Mines. From 1992 to 1996, Mr. Musiwa worked as a Senior Geologist at the Geological Survey Department in the Economic Geology Section. In 1996, he became Coordinator of the Mining Sector Reform Programme, a World Bank financed project, where he was involved in geological data acquisition, investment promotion, and institutional capacity building. Between 2000 and 2004, Mr. Musiwa was a private consultant and did part time lecturing in the Department of Geology at the University of Zambia. In 2004, he became the Coordinator of the Gemstone component of the Support for Economic Expansion and Diversification (SEED) Programme. In 2008, he joined the Department of Geology in the School of Mines at the University of Zambia, where he is currently lecturer.

xi

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Prosperity unto Death
Is Zambia ready for Uranium Mining?

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Introduction

b)

Background The advent of uranium exploration and subsequent mining activities in Zambia in the early to mid 2000s has generated discussions focused in two main areas of concern, especially for the affected communities in these areas, namely: a) Economic benefits of these activities accruing to them, and b) Health effects related to these exploitation and mining activities. To this effect, the following questions have been significant in the discussions and debates that have ensued: i) Does Zambia, as a country, have the technical expertise to regulate and supervise the exploitation of the deadly metal – uranium? ii) Do the socio-economic benefits accruing to the affected communities outweigh the health risks associated with these exploitation and mining activities? iii) What role do the rural communities, that are directly affected by uranium exploitation and mining, play in the decision-making processes leading to commencement and operation of these activities? It was against this background that the Council of Churches in Zambia (CCZ) commissioned this study, within the framework of the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) and Publish What You Pay (PWYP) umbrella, under the Natural Resource Management and Governance (NRMG) programme. The study gives the outcome of a review of policies and laws that govern the extractive industries in the mining sector in Zambia in order to assist in answering the numerous questions about transparency, equitable distribution of benefits accruing from the extractive industries in these sectors, and management of the environment. Objective of the study The main purpose of the study was to come up with a comprehensive review of the uranium policy and related statutes in Zambia that highlights gaps and weaknesses in health issues, environmental protection, transparency, accountability and equitable distribution of benefits realized from the exploitation of the mineral resource. Scope of the study The Consultants undertook the following tasks: a) To establish the existence or absence of Policies and/or Legislatures on Uranium mining in Zambia.

c)

d) e) f) g) h) i)

To identify and review legislatures in place that regulate the mining of uranium in Zambia with respect to; • Corporate Social Responsibility • Safety of local communities and manpower in the processing Unit • Health and Environment • Land Rehabilitation. To establish the existence of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports for Lumwana Mine Company and Denison Mines Zambia Limited, both of which are currently undertaking uranium exploration/mining activities in the country. To establish clauses in the Policies that promote participatory strategies in negotiations. To analyse Zambia’s capacity to oversee the mining of Uranium. To assess advantages and disadvantages of uranium mining in Zambia. To identify gaps and weaknesses in the uranium Mining Policy, if it exists. To compare issues in the policy with what is obtaining on the ground. To formulate recommendations for key advocacy issues and effective strategies for civic engagement in promoting transparency and accountability in the mining sector.

Deliverables A comprehensive report detailing findings of the above. Methodology of the Review The study was undertaken in two stages, namely: a) Desk review that comprised identifying and reviewing existing relevant documents, and b) Fieldwork involving visiting areas affected by uranium exploration and mining activities of Siavonga and Solwezi to discuss with District Commissioners, Chiefs and their Headmen and subjects, and concerned citizens. 1

A homestead in Siavonga District community where uranium mining is expected to start soon

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Desk review This involved a review of the following: • Mines and Minerals Development Act No. 7 of 2008 • Mines and Minerals Development (Prospecting, Mining and Milling of Uranium Ores and other radioactive mineral ores) Regulations, 2008 • The Ionising Radiation Protection Act, No. 16 of 2005 • The Environmental Protection, Prevention and Control Act No. 12 of 1990. • A number of reports from Canada and Namibia. Field work This involved visitations to the Chiefdoms in Siavonga and Solwezi District s, where Denison Mines Zambia Limited (DMZL) and the Lumwana Mine Company (LMC), respectively, are carrying out uranium exploration and/or mining activities. This was with a view to:  Finding out how the uranium exploration and mining activities have blended in with communities’ activities.  Determining how communities in the affected Chiefdoms were engaged and involved in the decision-making process that have a direct bearing on their livelihood, such as possible relocation, loss of immovable assets and agricultural fields that fall within the mine area.  Determining how societal and national interests have been addressed (whether there were any mechanisms for equitable distribution of wealth).  Establishing what community awareness programmes were undertaken to highlight the possible positive and negative effects of uranium, and benefits that would accrue to them from the mining and processing of uranium in their areas and how this enabled them to make informed decisions on issues that would eventually affect their lives and the well-being of their future generations.

Facts about Uranium
General Uranium is the heaviest naturally occurring element on earth. It is quite widespread in the earth’s crust, but concentrated in certain rock formations. As the uranium atoms slowly disintegrate over time, a host of radioactive by-products are formed – thorium230, radium-226, radon-222 and the infamous radon daughters, including lead-210 and polonium-210. Canada is the world’s largest producer and exporter of uranium. The commercial value and the dangers of uranium are based on two extra-ordinary properties which it possesses and these are: a) radioactivity, and b) that the element is fissionable. The two properties are quite different. Radioactivity Uranium’s property of radioactivity was discovered by Henri Becquerel in 1896. Afterwards, Marie Curie observed that even after chemically separating uranium from the rest of the crushed rock, the crushed rock remained very radioactive – much more so than the uranium itself. Essentially, most of the radioactive decay products (about 85%) of the uranium remain in the crushed rock, when uranium is separated from the ore. This tallies with the research findings of Marie Curie that most of the radioactivity is left behind in the residues. In her research, Curie discovered that this phenomenon was because of two elements – polonium and radium – that are by-products of uranium. Radioactive substances have unstable atoms which can, and will explode microscopically, and when they do, they give off a burst of energy (Edwards, 1992). This process is called radioactive disintegration or radioactive decay. When radioactive atoms explode, they give off highly energetic charged particles of two types: alpha and beta. These are particles and not invisible rays. They are like pieces of shrapnel (metal balls) from an explosion. And this microscopic shrapnel does great damage because of the high energy of the particles which are given off. Edwards (1992) explains that when a radioactive atom explodes, that atom is changed permanently into a new substance. And radium turns out to be one of the results of exploding uranium atoms. He goes on to explain that wherever uranium is found on the earth, radium will always be found with it because the latter is one of about a dozen so-called decay products of uranium. When uranium disintegrates it turns into a substance called protactinium, which is also radioactive. And when that disintegrates it turns into a substance named thorium, which is likewise radioactive. When thorium disintegrates it turns into radium; when radium disintegrates it turns into radon gas. And when

2

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

radon gas atoms disintegrate, they turn into what are called the radon daughters, or radon progeny, of which there are about half a dozen radioactive materials, including polonium. Finally this progression ends up with a stable substance, which in itself is highly toxic – lead.

By starting with just one neutron, one uranium atom can be split, and the extra neutrons can go on to split two more uranium atoms, giving even more neutrons which can then split four atoms, which can then split eight atoms, and so on. In this way, forty quintillion uranium atoms can be split with only sixty genera-

Fission In 1938, it was discovered that uranium is not only radioactive, but that it is also fissionable, which makes it unique among all naturally occurring radioactive materials. When uranium atoms undergo the fission process, large amounts of energy are released. Unlike the process of radioactive decay, which cannot be turned on and off, nuclear fission can be controlled. The energy release caused by fission can be speeded up, slowed down, started or stopped. It can be used to destroy cities in the form of nuclear weapons, or to boil water inside a nuclear reactor (Edwards, 1992). Uranium atoms are radioactive and will disintegrate with time if they are left alone. However, if uranium atoms are neutrons – elementary particles without electric charge – much more violent disintegration of the atom takes place, which is called fission. When fission occurs, the uranium atom does not just disintegrate, it actually breaks apart into two or three large chunks (Edwards, 1992). In the process, it gives off some extra neutrons and about 400 times as much energy as is produced by a radioactive disintegration event.

tions of splittings, all triggered by a single neutron. According to a report by Edwards (1992), this whole chain reaction, as it is called, takes place in less than a thousandth of a second. This is what constitutes an atomic bomb. It is worth of note that uranium travels in many disguises: in every sample of uranium ore, one finds radium, but radium is, in a sense, just a transformation of uranium. In other words, radium is a disguised form of uranium – one of the many elements in the chain of decay. Similarly, polonium and radon gas are also just different manifestations of uranium, so to speak. Radon and Radon Daughters Science has found out that as the radon atoms disintegrate, they produce other radioactive substances, leading to a multiplication of materials which may not have been there to begin with. And those other substances – the radon daughters – are extremely dangerous. Incidentally, polonium is the worst of the radon daughters – the same polonium that Marie Curie discovered so many years ago. Recent scientific evidence shows that polonium is, in many circumstances, as toxic as plutonium, and in some cases, more toxic.

3

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Status of Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia
African Energy Resources (AER) AER is operating in the Chirundu area, where it holds a 70% interest in the Chirundu Joint Venture project, with Albidon Limited (ASX: ALB) holding the remaining 30%. The Company is also involved another venture called the Kariba Valley Joint Venture Project, where it holds a 30% interest, with Albidon Limited holding 70%. The Kariba Valley Joint Venture Project is located about 250km from Lusaka by road, and is about 50 km to the south-west of Denison Mines’ tenement that contains the Mutanga-Dibwe uranium deposits (Figure 1). AER concessions lie within close proximity to DMZL Concessions and fall within the same geological environment.

Introduction Uranium exploration has been quite active in Zambia since the beginning of the Millennium. Many exploration companies have since acquired a number of concessions and notable among these are African Energy Resources (AER)1, Denison Mine Zambia Limited (DMZL) and Lumwana Mining Company (LMC). The three Companies have so far reported findings of commercially viable deposits with LMC already stock-piling uranium ore that comes as a by-product of its copper mining activities. DMZL has delineated commercial deposits in Siavonga and targets to commence production in 2012. AER has also delineated some commercial deposits in its Siavonga District concessions. Denison Mines Zambia Limited (DMZL) DMZL is currently developing its Mutanga-Dibwe Project located in Siavonga District of Southern Province, about 175km south of Lusaka and approximately 39km northwest of Siavonga town (Figure 1). Access to the site from Lusaka is via the Lusaka-Chirundu and Chirundu-Siavonga tarmac roads and then by a gravel track to the mine. 4 Uranium exploration in Mutanga-Dibwe Area started in 2005, when OmegaCorp Limited (OL), through its Zambian subsidiary, OmegaCorp Minerals Limited (OML), acquired 946.3km2 Prospecting Licence – Large Scale (PL-LS) 237 from Okorusu Fluorspar Limited (Okorusu). Figure1 shows the location of the DMZL Prospecting Licence area. In 2007, OL, an Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) listed company, was 100% acquired by Denison Mines Corp (DMC), a company listed on both the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and American Stock Exchange (AMEX). Consequently, Denison Mines Zambia Limited (DMZL), a Zambian subsidiary of DMC acquired PL-LS 237 from OML. Geologically, DMZL Concession lies within the area underlain by rocks of the Karoo Supergroup in a northeast trending fault-bounded Mid-Zambezi Rift Valley. The rocks have a shallow dip and are displaced by a series of normal faults, which in general, trend parallel to the axis of the valley and the bounding faults. The relief in the Valley is generally hilly and well-drained.

Figure 1. Location of the Denison Mines Zambia Limited and African Energy Resources’ Chirundu and Kariba Valley Joint Venture Projects in the Zambezi Valley. Source: African Energy Report (2010).

Lumwana Mine Company (LMC) LMC uranium mining activities fall within the confines of the Company’s copper exploration and mining operations at Malundwe and Chimiwungo copper, cobalt, gold and uranium deposits. These are located in the North Western Province, 95 km west of the provincial centre of Solwezi on the North West (T-5) Highway (Figure 2), approximately 300 km by road from the Copperbelt city of Kitwe.

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

The Project lies within a Large Scale Mining Licence (LML) 49 granted in January 2004 for a period of 25 years and renewable for a further 25 years. The mining licence covers an area of 1 355 km2 and contains the. Uranium occurs within the Malundwe and Chimiwungo copper deposits as discrete uranium-enriched zones.

Geologically, the Lumwana deposits of Malundwe and Chimiwungo are hosted within the Mwombezhi Dome, which is a north-east trending basement dome in the western arm of the Neoproterozoic Lufilian Arc thrust fold belt. The Lufilian Arc is a major tectonic province characterized by broadly north-directed thrust structures and antiformal basement inliers or domes surrounded by Katanga meta-sediments which host the Central African Copperbelt.

5

Figure 2. Location of Lumwana Copper Project. Source: Lumwana Copper Project EIA Report.

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Institutional & Legal Framework of Uranium Mining in Zambia
The Radiation Protection Board (RPB) was established through the Ionising Radiation Act, 1972, which was responsible for the responsible management of all potentially harmful sources of radiation through occupational or environmental exposures. In 2005, the Radiation Protection Authority (RPA) was established through the Ionising Radiation Protection Act, 2005. The RPA is a corporate body and is responsible for advising the Government of Zambia on all policy matters related to ionising radiation, implementing all legislative measures related to ionising radiation to protect employees and the public, and for educating the general public on radiation issues. The RPA is also responsible for issuing licenses for processing, storage, transport, import, export and use of radioactive material within specified levels. Policy, Legal and Regulatory Framework Introduction Zambia has no specific policy framework on uranium. Issues pertaining to uranium exploration/ mining are only embedded in the general Mines and Minerals Development Policy of 2008. However, there are a number of principal and subsidiary legislation that relate to exploration and mining of uranium in the country, each addressing a specific area of interest in the administration. Collectively, they provide the guidance, regulatory platform and service facilitation of the industry in particular. In addition, most of the legal and regulatory frameworks were enacted long before the advent of uranium exploration and mining, except the Prospecting, Mining and Milling of Uranium Ores and Other Radioactive Mineral Ores Regulations of 2008. As such, they are generalised in their nature and are not adequate for uranium development. The extra-ordinary characteristics of uranium, as indicated above, require mining policies and regulatory frameworks that are specific to it. The Mines and Minerals Development Act No. 7 of 2008 In 2008, the Mines and Minerals Development Act No. 7 of 2008 was developed and passed by Parliament to repeal the Mines and Minerals Act of 1995. In the same year, a subsidiary legislation specifically on uranium operations – the Statutory Instrument No. 85 of 2008 – was put in place.

Institutional Framework In Zambia, the administration and regulating of all mining activities are the portfolio responsibility of the Ministry of Mines and Minerals Development (MMMD). Three line departments - Geological Survey Department (GSD), Mines Development Department (MDD) and Mines Safety Department (MSD), perform the technical functions of the MMMD. The primary role of the GSD is to provide geological, geophysical and geochemical data on countrywide basis, to act as a national depository of all information related to geology in Zambia, and to provide support and advisory services to the public. The MDD’s key responsibilities are the issuance of all prospecting, retention and mining licences, monitoring of mining operations to ensure that development is in line with approved programmes and in accordance with the Mines and Minerals Development Act. The Department is also responsible for the collection of all licence fees and maintains an inventory of all data related to the licences through its Cadastre Unit. The MSD, on the other hand, deals with aspects of Mines Safety – enforcing the regulations. Whether or not there is the expertise to see through the challenges posed by uranium exploration and mining, and to enforce the law, remains another matter. Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) became operational in 1991. It was created by an Act of Parliament to oversee activities of all industrial, mining, agricultural and service companies that may have environmental and social impacts in order to minimise and mitigate these impacts. The ECZ requires the development of Environmental Impact Assessments for all new and existing projects. The ECZ is responsible for the collection and dissemination of environmental and social information, and for improving environmental awareness of the public. In addition, the ECZ issues annual licences with respect to environmental activities e.g. waste management, effluent discharge, gas releases.

6

1 Although African Energy Resources was not included in the Terms of Reference for this study, it was discovered during

the field visitations that the Company was also very actively involved in exploration activities in Siavonga. So, a decision was taken by the client to include it in this study.

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

WE HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED: Local community members sharing their concerns with the team from the Council of Churches in Zambia during the field trips This Statutory Instrument, Mines and Minerals Development (Prospecting, Mining and Milling of Uranium Ores and Other Radioactive Mineral Ores) Regulations, 2008, forms the basis for mining of uranium and other radioactive mineral ores in Zambia. It stipulates the requirements concerning application, exploration and mining licensing. It is aimed at ensuring the protection of the environment, health and safety of workers and the general public. The legislation also stipulates requirements regarding the security and transportation of finished products, and bars the diversion of the mineral for use in making nuclear weapons or devices. The law gives all powers to the Minister of Mines to issue licences for mining and exportation of uranium as well as to safeguard and ensure that the mineral is sold to the right consumers. It also makes it mandatory for mining companies and exporters of uranium to provide documentation on the source of uranium concentrate or radioactive materials and to prove the authenticity of importers under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Guidelines. Foreign and local firms seeking to export uranium would have to apply for export licences from the Radiation Protection Authority under the Ministry of Health. Further, the legislation imposes strict management plans for natural water, water coming from mining activities, and waste products from the uranium mining activities to avert major damage to the environment and health of miners and others. Mining firms are required to initiate radiation protection management plans, waste management plans and quantitative radiological hazard and safety assessments plans before obtaining a mining licence, the regulations state. Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act No. 12 of 1990 The Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act (EPPCA) provides for the establishment of the ECZ to enforce the provisions of the Act and the SIs. The Act provides guidance on the development of environmental assessments in the form of Environmental Project Briefs (EPBs) or Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), depending upon the scale or magnitude of project activities and anticipated impacts. All environmental assessments are reviewed and decisions are made on the implementation of the respective projects. Under this Act, the ECZ is responsible for the collection and dissemination of environmental and social information, and for improving public’s environmental awareness.

7

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

The EPPCA outlines the requirements of license applications under the following subsidiary legislation: a) Statutory Instruments No. 28 of 1997 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations – provides the framework for conducting and reviewing environmental impact assessments for any project. The requirement of these Regulations is that no developer shall implement a project for, which a project brief or an environmental impact statement is required, unless the project brief or an environmental impact assessment has been concluded in accordance with these Regulations and the Council has issued a decision letter. It also provides regulations for auditing project implementation. b) Statutory Instrument No. 71 of 1993 Waste Management (Licensing of Transporters of Wastes and Waste Disposal Sites) Regulations – The act provides for licensing of solid non-hazardous waste transportation and the operation or management of a non-hazardous waste disposal site; c) Statutory Instrument No. 125 of 2001 Hazardous Waste Management Regulations – provides for licensing of solid hazardous waste transportation and operating/owning of a hazardous waste disposal site;

 implement the IRP Act and ensure compliance from licensees;  conduct all licensing of ionising radiation devices, sources or activities;  conduct audits of facilities and staff monitoring as required during licensing; and  provide educational material, workshops and programs to improve public awareness and understanding of ionising radiation. The Land Act of 1995 and the Land Acquisition Act of 1970 The Land Act of 1995 The Land Act of 1995 was enacted to guarantee peoples’ right to land while enhancing development. The Act recognises the holding of land under customary tenure and the Chief’s role has been legally recognised, such that land cannot be converted or alienated without approval of the chief. The Lands Acquisition Act No. 2 of 1970 Land acquisition is governed by the Lands Acquisition Act No. 2 of 1970. The Act sets out regulations for compulsory acquisition of land and property and compensation for such acquisition. The president (his designated and authorized person) may acquire any property in the interest of the Republic. Notice shall be given in person not less than two months in advance and shall be gazetted. Compensation for acquired property, losses and damages shall be paid as may be agreed or, finally determined by the National Assembly in case agreement on compensation is not reached within six weeks after publication in the Gazette. Any disputes except for disputes related to the amount of compensation may be instituted for court proceedings. The Act also provides for compensation to be granted by allocation of new land to the property owner. The Act instituted a Compensation Advisory Board to advise the Minister of Lands in assessment of compensation payable under the Act. The functions of the Board have been delegated to various committees. Various forms to be used in proceedings of property acquisition are prescribed in the statutory Instrument No. 60 of 1970.

8

d) Statutory Instrument No. 72 of 1993 Water Pollution Control (Effluent and Wastewater) Regulations – The act discusses licensing requirements for the discharge of liquid waste to the environment and supplies statutory discharge limits for respective parameters; e) Statutory Instrument No. 20 of 1994 Pesticides and Toxic Substances Regulations – provides for licensing of importation, transportation, distribution and storage of pesticides and toxic substances; and Statutory Instrument No. 141 of 1996 Air Pollution Control (Licensing and Emission Standards) Regulations – provides for licensing of gaseous waste emission to the environment and also provides for statutory discharge limits for respective parameters.

f)

Ionising Radiation Protection Act, 2005 The Ionising Radiation Protection (IRP) Act, 2005 repealed the Ionising Radiation Act, 1972, and establishes the Radiation Protection Authority (RPA). The Act provides for the protection of the public, workers and the environment from hazards generated by the use of devices or proximity to materials that produce ionising radiation. The role of the RPA is similar to that of the ECZ, in that it also acts to:  promote safety, health and the protection of the environment;

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Current Levels of Adherence to Legislation by Companies Operating in Zambia
vironmental impacts consequential to the implementation of any Project are assessed well in advance, and to propose possible mitigation measures for any negative impacts. However, in the state, in which the EPB is presented here, no socio-economic and environmental impacts have been assessed. According to an AER official, they just went with an ECZ official to the project area, who discussed with some members of the community, made his/her assessment of the situation on the ground, and approved the exploration programme without any documentation of the consequential socio-economic and environmental impacts that would arise from execution of the exploration programme. The question is, when is ECZ supposed to demand for an EIA? DMZL would appear to still be in the ex-

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) In accordance with the provisions of Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act No 12 of 1990, LMC and DMZL produced and submitted Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports to the Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) on 28 August 2008 and 13 August 2009, respectively. LMC held its public consultation meeting with the communities and interested stakeholders on 3 – 4 October 2008, while DMZL held a similar meeting on 4 June 2009.. Alongside the EIA Report, DMZL also submitted a Resettlement Action Plan. Cover pages of the Reports are given in Figure 3.

9

Figure 3. Cover pages for the Environmental Impact Assessment Reports for Lumwana and Denison Mines Zambia Limited. The EIA Reports by DMZL and LMC were considered and approved on 29 October 2009 and 31 October 2008, respectively. Approval for each project was communicated to the proponents through Decision Letters, which also stipulated a number of conditions that needed to be fulfilled before and during the execution of each project as contained in Appendices 1 and 2 for DMZL and LMC, respectively. AER submitted an Environmental Project Brief (EPB) before commencement of its exploration programme, which is contained in Appendix 3. This was to fulfil the EIA regulations’ demand that socio-economic and en-

ploration stage, why would they have been asked to submit an AIE report? Commitment to Environmental Protection and Land Rehabilitation The DMZL’s EIA report outlines a Radiation Management Plan (RMP) for the protection of workers, members of the public and the environment in accordance with Regulations 6, 7 (1) and 8 of the Mines and Minerals Development (Prospecting, Mining and Milling of Uranium ores and other Radioactive mineral ores) Regulations, 2008. The EIA report also contains the Company’s Safety, Health and Environment Policy that would direct and govern operations of its facilities in dealing with the

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

safety of its workers, its community and the environment. The Company pledges that whenever issues of safety conflict with other corporate objectives, safety shall be the first consideration. Similarly, LMC also formulated a RMP in accordance with the Regulations cited above for the protection of workers, members of the public and the environment. Like DMZL, LMC’s EIA also incorporates an environmental and social management plan to mitigate against environmental impacts envisaged to arise from mining activities by the Company.

With regard to Land Rehabilitation, both Companies complied with the Statutory Regulation 11 (1) by detailing their Mine Decommissioning and Closure Plans. In spite of the availability of these plans, the major anticipated challenge pertains to staffing levels at the ECZ and the MSD to monitor the implementation of these plans.

10

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Adequacy of Legislation for Uranium Exploration & Mining
Community Concerns and Safety. With regard to the safety of the community, dissemination of information to make them aware of what pertains to the exploration and mining of uranium would appear not to have been adequate, particularly that the mining of uranium is not like of any other metal that has hitherto been dealt with in Zambia. Chief Sikoongo’s Area – AER One major concern of the community in Chief Sikoongo’s area, where AER is undertaking uranium exploration drilling was that they were not given enough information, either by government or AER, on the benefits and the cumulative (long-term) challenges that would accrue to them (and the environment) from uranium exploration and subsequent mining in their chiefdom. They report that conflicting information was given by the Company with regard to the dangers of uranium, which they say, has left them very uncertain as to what is true. As such, the community is not sure how best to deal with the information given to them. As a result of this information, they expressed worry about some of the drilling activities, which, they say, were undertaken very close to some houses. Their worry is that they may have inhaled some dust from drilling operations, from which they have fear for the long-term implication of this exposure on their health and that of their children. AER did not dispute carrying out drilling activities close to people’s homes, but that this, they say, was done after consultations with the affected families. The agreement was that the affected families were asked to stay away from their houses during the two-three hours of drilling. Each family was compensated with 2 x 50 kg bags of maize for this inconvenience. However, the community has expressed concern and fear emanating from recent observations of a sudden increase in abortions in, and deaths of, particularly, goats. There is a feeling that the dust generated from drilling activities may have been washed by surface water into the animals’ watering basins, thereby creating these problems in their livestock. Yet, without any baseline study undertaken before the operations started, it is difficult to scientifically confirm this association in Chief Sikoongo’s area. In spite of the aforesaid, similar incidences have been reported from South Africa’s Krugersdorp Game Reserve, where miscarriages and high mortality among wildlife, suspected to have arisen from animals drinking water suspected to have contained high levels of uranium, have been reported (Box 1).

Introduction Exploration, mining, and processing activities in the mining sector appear to have brought some harm to the people that may have lived in areas, where these activities have been undertaken. In some instances, people have been forced to relocated from areas, where they have lived in excess of 200 years, without commensurate compensation to facilitate an honourable fresh start to a sustainable livelihood in their new areas of settlement. Most of the foregoing may be attributed to the historical perspective, where the mining industry usually took a evil may care attitude to the impacts of its operations on the communities – by operating in areas without social legitimacy, causing major devastation, and then leaving when an area has been exhausted of all economically valuable resources (Jenkins & Obara, 2008). Whilst it is recognised that mining may bring enormous economic benefits to a state, these benefits must not be undertaken at the expense and wellbeing of rural communities and their way of life. The book of Genesis calls upon all of us to look after the earth and to have domination over the earth in a responsible stewardship manner. In order to protect communities from irresponsible stewardship of their environment by institutions exploiting and processing what lies in the soil below their houses, measures must apply at all stages of exploration, mining, processing and plant decommissioning to ensure that people and the environment are not harmed. This would generally be assured through enforcement of appropriate legislation. Currently, uranium exploration/mining in Zambia is governed by legislation outlined in Section 4.2 above. However, it is worth of note that most of the uranium exploration activities started before the legislation was enacted to direct and govern such activities. So, the pertinent question is, how adequate and effective is this legal framework, particularly in the governance of uranium exploration, mining and processing in Zambia? A general reflection is given about what people, in the areas, where these activities are taking place, feel about its adequacy.

11

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Box 1. Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) in Krugersdorp Game Reserve, South Africa

In addition, memories of a relocation to pave way for the construction and flooding of the Kariba Dam are still fresh on the minds of most of the communities in Chief Sikoongo’s and many other areas in the Zambezi valley area (Box 2).
Box 2. Population displacement and resettlement to pave way for the Kariba Dam The Kariba Dam is one of the largest dams in the world at 128 m high and 579 m long. The double curvature concrete arch dam was constructed between 1955 and 1959 by Impressit of Italy at a cost of $135,000,000 for the first stage with only the Kariba South power cavern. Final construction and the addition of the Kariba North Power cavern by Mitchell Construction was not completed until 1977 due to largely political problems for a total cost of $480,000,000.

The issues expressed above are what were supposed to have been addressed by an Environmental Impact Brief (EPB), which the project proponents submitted to the ECZ for the approval of their exploration activities in the concerned areas. Any EPB is supposed to adhere to the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations of the Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act (EPPCA) of 1990. These regulations demand that socio-economic and environmental impacts consequential to the implementation of any planned Project are assessed well in advance, and propose possible mitigation measures ahead of project implementation. 12 However, in spite of such stipulations, the EPB submitted ahead of these exploration activities (Appendix 3) does not indicate any assessment of socio-economic and environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the project. According to the project proponents, the impacts were assessed in the field in the company of an official from the ECZ, who also talked to/with the affected people and made their own assessments that led to the approval of the project. Had an assessment been done, challenges of drilling near people’s homes and the resultant livestock problems would not have arisen as these would probably have been foreseen, and remedial measures would have been recommended for mitigating against negative environmental effects. When mining starts, a number of villages will need to be relocated, and this notification has already been given to the people. However, the community feels that the land which has been earmarked for their relocation is not suitable to support their livelihood activities. And if this should be the case, the relocation of the community will not result in improved, but worsening of its livelihood status.

In addition to men losing their lives during construction, the creation of the reservoir forced resettlement of about 57,000 Tonga people living along the Zambezi in both Zambia and Zimbabwe. Several thousand large animals threatened by the rising water were rescued by Operation Noah. After consultations broke down, the Tonga people were forced to leave their homes and fertile lands that had been under cultivation for hundreds of years. The reservoir flooded the communities, where for centuries these people had farmed, fished, worshipped, raised their children and buried their dead. The Rhodesian government did, however, provide some aid to the displaced Tonga tribe. According to an extract from ‘The Shadow of The Dam”, a first-hand account written by David Howarth in the 1960’s, “Everything that a government can do on a meagre budget is being done. Demonstration gardens have been planted, to try to teach the Tonga more sensible methods of agriculture, and to try to find cash crops which they can grow. The hilly land has been ploughed in ridge contours to guard against erosion. In Sinazongwe, an irrigated garden has grown a prodigious crop of pawpaws, bananas, oranges, lemons, and vegetables, and shown that the remains of the valley could be made prolific if only money could be found for irrigation. Cooperative markets have been organized, and Tonga are being taught to run them. Enterprising ‘Tonga have been given loans to set themselves up as farmers. More schools have been built than the Tonga ever had before, and most of the Tonga are now within reach of dispensaries and hospitals.’ There are many different perspectives on how much resettlement aid was given to the displaced tribe. According to anthropologist Thayer Scudder, who has studied these communities since the late 1950s, ‘Today, most are still ‘development refugees.’ Many live in less-productive, problem-prone areas, some of which have been so seriously degraded within the last generation that they resemble lands on the edge of the Sahara Desert.’ A 1961 book, The Shadow of the Dam by David Howarth focused on the resettlement of the Tonga tribe during the construction of Kariba Dam. A 2005 book, Deep Water by Jacques Leslie focused on the plight of the people resettled by the dam, and found the situation little changed. Kariba remains the worst dam-resettlement disaster in African history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Kariba_Dam

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

From the Kariba experience, the community is not sure about the duration of these exploration and mining activities in the area, and whether or not the land that has been taken from them to pave way for these mining activities will revert to them at cessation of mining activities. Another major concern by the community is the issue of casualisation – that although government propounded the creation of employment as one major benefit to be derived from the opening up of these mines, there was no contract signed with the locals that were employed by the Company. In addition, those employed were generally in the category of general workers. From information gathered from the community, an impression was created that there may not have been enough prior information given to the people about the activities of AER in the area. In which case, it may be necessary for concerned authorities at AER and officials from government to give enough information to the people so that they may be guided in their negotiation-process in giving consent on how the project should progress in that Chiefdom. Whether communities agree to be relocated and allow the project to proceed, or not, the challenge will be to ensure that if they are relocated, they are better off, and not worse off. And without any assessment the baseline environmental trends and socio-economic data in the Project area, the long-term health status of the communities in the area is a challenge they will have to deal with themselves – unfortunately! Chief Sinadambwe’s Area – DMZL The Uranium mining and processing activities envisaged to begin in Chief Sinadambwe’s Chiefdom in 2012 will displace a total of 107 households with 342 people from Chiyobeka, Kasambo, Kapita, Chilundu, Sinangosi and Kumulilansolo Villages (AMC, 2009).

According to the community, the directive to get the villagers relocated was given by the government. So, communities did not give consent to their being relocated, although they did not have any choice. These are the same people that were once forcibly removed from the areas that were flooded to pave way for the development of the Kariba Dam, and they are being forced to relocate again – like the case of Bushmen in Botswana (Box 3). Their key concerns then, and now relate(d) to the relocation activities, the amounts of compensation and the assets compensated for. The agreed relocation site for the affected households at Kashudi2 is only 9 kilometres from the Mutanga mine site, where uranium mining and processing will be undertaken, although, in the opinion of DMZL, even 3 km would be sufficient. This is in strong contrast with what Chiefs Simaamba and Sinadambwe are said to have experienced in Namibia, where DMZL took them on a familiarisation tour to acquaint them with operations of uranium mining/processing (Box 3). Their experience was that such uranium mining activities took place far (in excess of 100 km) away from any areas of human habitation. Another concern from the community was that DMZL did not undertake any lung function tests for the villagers, especially primary school children, to determine their pre-mining health status. The reason for this failure is said to have been the non-availability of local health facilities at which the testing could have been done. However, DMZL will subject all employees to lung function testing before being hired and would be tested regularly throughout their period of employment. Members of community expressed some knowledge of the dangers of uranium and asked DMZL during the public consultation (Appendix 4), how the people,

13

Box 3. Sixteen uranium exploration licenses granted on Bushman land since evictions Since the Bushmen were forced off their land in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) in 2002, the Botswana government has granted 112 mining licenses for mining companies to explore in the reserve. 16 licenses have been awarded for uranium exploration and 40 for coal. It is just over six years since the government evicted more than 600 Bushmen from the reserve, although it has always denied any connection between mining and the evictions. The Bushmen won the right to return to their land inside the reserve in a landmark ruling at Botswana’s High Court in 2006, where the judges recognized that the evictions had been ‘unlawful’ and ‘unconstitutional’. But the Botswana government is doing all it can to stop the Bushmen from going home, banning them from using a water borehole to get water inside the reserve, and stopping them from hunting for food. Meanwhile, any mines in the reserve will have to drill multiple boreholes to operate, and will create massive disruption to both the Bushmen and the wildlife. (Survival International March 3, 2009) 2 Kashudi was selected as the area of relocation because it was felt to have plenty of water for people and livestock, the area was big enough to settle all villagers, had a good drainage system and good pastures for animals.

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

who had been laid off, would be looked after. The response from DMZL was that if it could be proved that the people developed health problems attributable to their employment, then DMZL would look after them. However, the irony of this answer is that it appears to be elusive, particularly that proof of a worker developing health issues attributable to employment could only have been established if a pre-mining health status of this employee were established, but which was not. What must be borne in mind, when discussing this issue, is the fact that some of the effects may only be manifested after decades – long after the mining company has wound-up its operations. So, who would take care of such persons? One of the final concerns from the community in Siavonga is that, from the location of DMZL and AER activities (Figure 1), great care must be taken, by both the Government of the Republic of Zambia and the two project proponents, to ensure that no accidental spillages occur into the environment (and into Lake Kariba). However, the report that the heap leach will be on top of the hill around Mutanga to the South of the area, and that large volumes of water pumped from the Mutanga Pit will be used for such other purposes like irrigations (minutes of the public consultation), raises worry for such accidental spillages. The community’s worry is that, if such an accident ocBox 4. Environmental and human rights issues spillage of hazardous material from the Konkola Mine into the Kafue River in December 2006. The Environmental Council of Zambia threatened to take the company to court but did not proceed, leaving some Zambians questioning why the council did not take action when it had a legal right to do so. Pollution from the mining of copper also threatens the health of the residents in the area. For instance, continued use of reverberatory furnaces for smelting produces a large volume of hazardous sulphur dioxide gas. A number of respiratory illnesses have been recorded among inhabitants in Copperbelt Province, with asthma and lung diseases two of the most reported cases. In addition, open-pit mining deforms the surface of the land and creates waste materials containing dangerous substances that pollute the water, soil and atmosphere. A fatal accident at BGRIMM factory in April 2005 was responsible for the deaths of over 45 Zambians. The cause of the accident has not been made public officially but it has been speculated that the accident was caused by inadequate or poor safety measures, including the use of untrained Chinese personnel. The Chinese government offered US$10 000 compensation to the victims of the accident, although no negotiations were held with the families of the victims. (Mwitwa & Kabemba, 2007).

curred, as experienced at KCM and BGRMM (Box 4), this would have far-reaching consequences for tourism and fishing in Siavonga District, and on the well-being of the country and other Zambezi River’s riparian states downstream of the dam. Chiefs Matebo’s, Mukumbi’s and Mumena’s Areas – LMC Lumwana has been active in mining for a much longer period than any of the other two Companies in Siavonga, although its initial operations involved copper, while uranium has been produced as a by-product. Expectations of communities in the Lumwana area, in the initial stages of the mine, evolved around the mine creating jobs for them. However, like with communities in Chiefs Sikoongo and Sinadambwe, most of the employment has remained casual and of a general-workers’ nature. As such, the bitterness of the community in the Chiefdoms is that most of the high calibre employment opportunities have been taken up by outsiders. This has been attributed to the highly ‘advanced technology’ that is employed by the mine, and which local communities do not measure up to, academically. In spite of this challenge, there has not been any deliberate and proactive policy to capacitate and empower the local community members with the same knowledge. However, Chief Mumena considers this as a positive development because ‘it has made the youths in the area to appreciate the value of education’. As such, most of them are now trouping to school to attain education levels that are commensurate with the technology employed at the mine. Although no necessarily capacitating local communities with high-level education, Lumwana offers full and partial sponsorship to a number of students in the schools of Engineering and Mines at the University of Zambia. Since LMC started with the mining of only copper, the issue of relocation of local communities to distant places to ensure their safety from uranium-related hazards may have been a non-issue. However, new developments to include uranium mining necessitated relocation of the local communities. However, the Company appears to have made relocation an optional issue for the communities. This is probably because the Company had not included this cost in its budget. This may be deduced from the relocation package, which according to Chief Mukumbi, was meagre and only compensated for cassava fields and not any other immovable asset, like houses, kraals, crop barns, etc. According to Chief Mumena, the people could not argue about the value of their fields, because the situation was turned into one of take-it-or-leave-it. As a result, some of the people in the chiefdom opted not to shift.

14

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Further, people involved in the relocation in Lumwana, like their colleagues in Siavonga, were not informed that this shift was permanent, and they would not return to their homelands ever again. This again shows that lack of information disabled the local communities to make informed decisions, because it is uncertain that they would have agreed to move had they known that the loss of their ancestral lands was a permanent feature. From Figure 2, it can be seen that even Chief Mukumbi’s Palace is within the Mine Licence Area. With this arrangement, disclosure by Equinox Minerals Limited president Craig Williams (Post Newspapers, 25 January 2010 (http://www.postzambia.com/ post-read_article.php?articleId=4928) that mining and stockpiling of high-grade uranium mineralisation at Lumwana Copper Mine continued during the last quarter of 2009, with uranium ore stockpiled on the Run-of-Mine (RoM) pad standing at 2.5 metres, gives another dimension of concern for the safety of communities within the mine licence area, who may have resisted relocation on account of meagre packages and a lack of, or misinformation on the dangers of uranium. The question is, who will speak for these people? So, although LMC maintains that there are no private land holdings or residential dwellings within the proposed disturbance area of the Project, the situation in the mine licence area may need to be re-evaluated by the MSD and ECZ. Even institutions, like Mopani Copper Mines, whose staff would have been expected to be quite enlightened to handle and deal with issues of uranium processing, refused to handle and process Lumwana copper because of its uranium content (Box 5). Box 5. Zambia’s Chambishi smelter processing Lumwana copper Chinese-owned Chambishi copper smelter has started processing concentrate from Zambia’s Lumwana copper mine, initially rejected by another smelter after claims it contained uranium, a senior official said on Saturday (Sep 26). Harry Michael, chief executive of Lumwana mine, a unit of Equinox Minerals Ltd, said Chambishi smelter would treat 55 percent of the company’s annual output under a five-year agreement. Lumwana’s copper concentrate was rejected by Mopani Copper Mines (MCM), majority owned by Glencore International AG of Switzerland, after Mopani claimed in March that the concentrate had high uranium traces. (Reuters Sep. 26, 2009).

Therefore, if uranium mining and processing proceeds at Lumwana, these people are likely to be affected by such activities. A critical review of the questions and answers contained in the minutes of the public hearing of the uranium EIA (Appendix 5) indicates that stakeholders were not convinced that the project could be implemented in a safe and healthy manner and with negligible short- and long-term effects on the environment. Arising from this observation, the Public Hearing Facilitation Consultants recommended that project approval should have been linked, among others, to the following: a) The project’s approval should have been subject to the ECZ developing adequate professional competency and capacity to monitor the project, especially radiation monitoring, both within the work environment and the wider environment. Further, that the roles and responsibilities between the ECZ, the MSD and the RPA, for this project, needed to have been well-defined and agreed upon. b) Mandatory education and communication programmes aimed at informing and educating stakeholders on;  what is involved in uranium mining  potential sources of radiation contamination  measures to minimise/prevent and compensate for its likely effects  measures to be taken by workers and the community to safeguard themselves and the environment against this contamination up to the time of mine closure. In spite of none of these recommendations being fulfilled, the Lumwana uranium mining project has been approved, while the community’s concerns and anxieties still remain unaddressed. The community still requires assistance to raise its awareness on the benefits and challenges arising from uranium mining and processing, and how they can safeguard themselves against any adverse health effects arising from these activities. This will ensure that the community have information; they are adequately empowered and equipped with knowledge to enable it to make well-informed decisions. Equipped with such information and knowledge, people of south-eastern New Brunswick were able to voice out on issues of uranium (Box 6). The absence of a policy on uranium, with its special peculiarities and dangers, may be the reason for some of the inherent gaps and weaknesses in the current legislation, especially with regard to its inadequacies to attend to community interests, as discussed in the sections that follow below. 15

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Worker Safety Worker safety issues for the DMZL and the LMC appear to have been elaborated in their environmental Box 6. Public voices uranium mining concerns – Petitions promised to alert government to opposition to exploration. A group of Metro Moncton residents attended an information session on uranium mining at the Magnetic Hill Lions Club on the evening of 6 May 2008. About a month earlier, a 35-year-old Gorge Road resident was filling a plastic bottle at a nearby spring, like he had done countless times before, when his daughter Madison asked why so many of the surrounding trees had pretty blue ribbons around them. McLaren had never noticed the ribbons before, but he did some research and discovered they were not for decoration. The ribbons were tied to the tall trees by mineral exploration companies to show the area had been explored for uranium. “That scared me,” McLaren said. “When you’re talking about exploration, you’re talking about having an effect on the water supply. When you’ve got young kids like I do, you don’t want anything interfering with the water supply.” McLaren doesn’t get his water from any of the Gorge Road’s dozen or so natural spring sources anymore. McLaren told his story to about 100 concerned citizens who attended a public awareness session on test drilling and uranium mining that evening at the Magnetic Hill Lions Club. His son Patrick convinced him it was not enough to just be outraged at the increased presence of uranium exploration in south-eastern New Brunswick. “It was time to get off the couch and do something about it so we’re going to spend an hour a day circulating a petition,” McLaren said. “We’ll walk the streets and get as many signatures as we can. I’d like to get two or three thousand signatures before it goes to the provincial government. They’ll have to notice that.” Article by Dwayne Tingley; Times & Transcript Staff; 7 May 2008 (http://www.minesandcommunities. org/ article.php?a=8603). policy and training manual incorporated in the companies’ EIA reports. The major challenge will be for government’s regulatory bodies to ensure their implementation. However, with regard to AER, the challenges posed to workers’ safety may need to be examined from the manner, in which drill cores are stored (Figure 4). Although project proponents say that monitoring results for the sheds obtained from a South African laboratory show values below what would pose threats to human health, it would have been important to get comparative results from a local laboratory.

With regard to the disposal of the cores, an AER official said that these would be milled and processed on a leach pad together with the other mined ore. However, there is no guideline in the statute books as to what would happen to these cores in the event that AER did not proceed to the mining stage of its operations. Although legislation may be available, its major weakness lies with its enforcement. This appears to arise from the recognised deficiency in manpower levels at ECZ, MSD and RPA to do so. For instance, although one of the objectives stated in the Mines and Minerals Development Policy, to ensure worker/community safety, is ‘to achieve a socially and internationally acceptable balance between mining and the bio-physical environment and to ensure that acceptable standards of health, safety and environmental protection are observed by all participants in the mining sector through putting in place an institutional framework for providing effective mechanisms for enforcing, monitoring and regulating safety, health and environmental standards in the mining sector by implementing capacity building programmes for the personnel in the Mines Safety Department’ not much has so far been done towards realising this goal, even when uranium exploration and mining activities are already being actively pursued on the ground. What government needs is to realise the gravity of these activities on the environment and its people and quickly move to put action to its words in order to safeguard their well-being.

16

Figure 4. The open core sheds (left) storing uranium exploration drill cores (right) at the African Energy Resources shed in Chief Sikoongo’s area.

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Headmen and local community members at a meeting with the team from The Council of Churches in Zambia at the Sikoongo’s Chiefdom Community Participation in the Mines’ decisionmaking Process The community and professionals engaged in uranium mining and processing worldwide recognise that managing radiation, health and safety, waste and the environment is of paramount importance for the protection of workers, the public and the environment (WNA). This recognition, and the acceptance of commensurate responsibility, is what is required to be fundamental to the vision, values and measures of success for any up-starting mining company. However, what needs to be clarified in Zambia at the moment is how the mining houses consult with communities, by making grandiose promises to communities about the benefits (and not obligations), creation of jobs, contribution to GDP and overall economic benefits associated with the mining investments. Little is said of how such investment will shape economic development, especially that of communities, most of whom are forced to relocate to make way for mining. To ensure that communities participate in the decision-making process on issues that eventually end up defining the final destiny of their livelihoods, there must be a deliberate move by government to protect its citizenry. This would be attained by formulating and enforcing legislation that promotes active participation of communities in the decision-making process of these mines to replace some of the existing ones. For instance, Clauses in the Mineral Resources Development Policy, which remotely appear to promote participatory strategies in negotiations include: a) Commitment by Government to ensure sustainable exploitation of mineral resources for the maximum benefit of Zambians. b) Commitment by Government to apply modern principles of transparency, checks and balances, and accountability in administration of mining laws and regulations. c) Encouraging mining companies to develop a participatory and collaborative approach to mine planning, development and decommissioning, taking into account the need s and concerns of local communities, thereby fulfilling their role as socially responsible corporate citizens. In addition to these Clauses only remotely promoting participatory strategies in negotiations, they have very inherent enforcement weaknesses. For instance, with regard to:  (a) above, the clause has no quantity of measure/ indicators, and appears very general, and applying at National level. It would have been useful if the Clause were more specific at societal or community levels by indicating (i) the level/stages of participation and who-by, 17

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

THIS IS THE ROAD: Lack of infrastructure to rural settings hosting Uranium rich fields where multi-national Uranium mining companies expect to operate (ii) the benefits that would accrue to the community in terms of, for instance, per cent of taxes or royalties that would be ploughed back into community development programmes, etc.  (b) above, the Government has not provided a functional system for the attainment of this clause. What is, in fact, not certain is what really constitutes modern principles?  (c) above, the aspect of Encouragement is not binding. While this might work for some elements of mining, uranium mining requires mandatory measures because of the deadly consequences that would accrue, if things were not done correctly. Even the Mines and Minerals Development Act is NOT explicit in its stipulations to promote participatory strategies in negotiations. Clauses in the Act that may appear to promote participatory strategies in negotiations include the following: a) Section 127. (1), (c) – A holder of a licence or permit shall not exercise any rights under this Act or the licence or permit upon land occupied as a village, without the written consent of the chief and the local authority for the district in which the village is situated. Attainment of this legislation has some challenges, particularly with regard to land tenure arrangements, where, according to the Land Act of 1995, all land in Zambia is vested in the President of the Republic, which he holds for, and on behalf of, the people of Zambia. In the advent of increased investor interest, it has been heard that prospecting companies have snapped up prospecting and mining rights, bypassing communities and the latter’s interests. This has created dissatisfaction among traditional rulers that allocation is done is done in Lusaka with them having had no say. The traditional leaders’ main concern is that local communities, from whom this land is taken, are not adequately informed that, once converted from customary tenure into leasehold tenure, this land is permanently taken away and will never revert to them. Therefore, although well-intended, this legislation has not facilitated communities to participation in the mines’ decision-making process. b) Section 132. (1) A holder of a mining right shall, on demand being made by the owner or lawful occupier of any land subject to the mining right,

18

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

promptly pay the owner, or occupier fair and reasonable compensation for any disturbance of the rights of the owner or occupier and for any damage done to the surface of the land by the operations and shall, on demand being made by the owner of any crops, trees, buildings or works damaged during the course of the operations, pay compensation for the damage. (2) In assessing the compensation payable under subsection (1), account shall be taken of any improvement effected by the holder of the mining right or by the holder’s predecessor in title, the benefit of which has or will inure to the owner or lawful occupier thereof. (6) Where a holder of a mining right fails to pay compensation when demanded under the provisions of this section, or where the owner or lawful occupier of any land is dissatisfied with any compensation offered, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration. All these may mean well, although in the absence of the forceful arm of Government to monitor and enforce them, there is nothing that will assist the local communities to determine what and/or how much compensation must accrue to them for the disturbance to their peace. In many instances, it begins and ends with ‘huge’ rewards – of a few million to say, K20M – being dangled at the communities, as compensation, thereby compelling them to oblige to the investor’s needs.

In many cases, this has been the most money some people living in rural communities may have ever received. The temptation of this, along with new and better houses, and may be jobs, became too big an offer to resist. At the time of receiving this compensation, the people were very happy, but the reality is now dawning on them that they did not strike the best of deals – that they may have been cheated, after all. Further, the royalties from mining activities are all remitted to the government treasury, with nothing accruing directly to the communities directly affected by impacts of mining. Further, there is no transparency over these revenue flows to mining communities, and how much, if at all, is spent on corporate community initiatives. Communities have no idea, how these revenues are used. The only revenue that the mining companies pay to Siavonga and Solwezi District Councils are the land rates, which equally do NOT trickle down to improve the lives of those in the chiefdoms. It is an annual occurrence, for instance, that every rainy season, Chief Sinadambwe’s palace is cut off from Siavonga district, when most of the rivers and streams break their banks because they do not have bridges (Figure 5). So, although upgrading of the road to the Chief’s palace was one important item that Chief Sinadambwe would have wanted to be contained in the memorandum of understanding, this was refused by the investor.

19

Figure 5. Difficulties faced by local community members to access the Sinadambwe’s Chiefdom Palace and the surroundings

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Therefore, for communities to ably participate in negotiations, available legislation requires reinforcing and enforcing so that it is not left to the discretion of the investor on how they should deal with the communities. They also need information and knowledge about the: a) Land tenure arrangements to enable them to make informed decisions before leasing their land out. b) Revenue remitted to the government and how this is used. To this effect, it is imperative that the idea of Zambia affiliating to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) is quickly adopted as this, it is hoped, will assist in ensuring that the revenues from extractive industries contributes to sustainable development and poverty reduction. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Corporate Social Responsibility is a concept, whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations, and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis. The European Commission describe it as a commitment of business to contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their families, the local community and society at large, to improve their quality of life. In other words, CSR describes the principle that companies should make a positive contribution to society by managing the social, environmental and economic impacts of the company, being responsive to stakeholders – those who would be affected by a business operation – and behaving according to a set of values which are not codified in law. For instance, in the relocation of communities in its concession area, DMZL pledged, a memorandum of agreement signed between the Company and HRH Chief Sinadambwe, to:  Clear the relocation site at Kashundi village.  Provide a house and a small plot for each relocated household.  Clear a field to replace each one left behind.  Clear old structures.  (with the Ministries of Health and Community Development) assist with the building of a school, clinic and community water bores. In LMC, the Development Trust Fund has been created, from which Lumwana approved over K4 billion in September 20093 for infrastructure development projects in three Chiefdoms of Mukumbi, Mumena

and Matebo. The money will fund 19 infrastructural development related projects in the education, health and social economic sectors. These were broken down as follows:  Fourteen (14) projects in the education sector targeted at building 23 staff house, 21 new classrooms and two science laboratories.  Three (3) projects for the social economic sector, which will involved the construction of three community training centres to be equipped with some sewing machines.  Two (2) projects in the health sector aimed at building a new rural health post and 1 staff house. Through this funding under the LDTF, the company hopes to help government achieve the 5th National Development Plan and the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 in the areas of education, health and poverty alleviation in the targeted communities. In Chief Sikoongo’s area, AER are reported to have promised the community with funding to support brick-making and start some out-grower schemes for jatropha. However, nothing has since happened. According to an AER official, the brick-making project fell off because (i) the Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS) has been put in hold as the company is not sure how it will proceed with the project in the face of the economic down-turn, and (ii) the company wants to increase the confidence and size of its reserve so that, in the event of any turbulence in the metal’s market, the company will still survive. With regard to the jatropha out-grower scheme, the project has died a natural death because the company – Oval Biofuels – with which AER had partnered to buy off the produce from the out-growers, folded up. It would appear that investors can get away with of unfulfilled agreements because CSR programmes are NOT codified in the Mines and Minerals Development Act of 2008, and it is known what legal recourse the affected local communities have in the event of such unfulfilled obligations. Although there is some stipulation in the Mineral Resources Development Policy to the effect that government will encourage mining companies to undertake corporate social responsibility programmes, from its reading, this statement is non-committal and nonbinding on the part of the investor, and yet this is what would constitute the major benefit to the community (Box 7).

20

3 This is according to a report posted on the Lusaka Times – (http://steelguru.com/news/index/2009/09/09/ MTEwOTgy/LDTF_ approve_ZMK_4_billion_for_infrastructural_development.html)

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Box 7. Corporate Social Responsibility under the era of ZCCM Limited Before privatisation, the ZCCM operated a ‘cradle to the grave’ corporate social responsibility welfare policy. It provided social services to all the people residing in mine communities, which included medical services, schools, recreational facilities, water, electricity and other social amenities. However, all ended with the privatisation of the copper mines in the late 1990s. Under the terms of the privatisation, new mine owners were not obliged to continue providing social services. It was argued that the new privatised mines should concentrate on their core business, which was mining copper. However, though the mining companies withdrew from social service provision, government and local authorities did not fill in the vacuum, with the result that there has been a deterioration in social services in most mining towns on the Copperbelt. ( h t t p : / / w w w. i s s . c o . z a / i n d e x . p h p ? l i n k _ id=4056&slink_id=6432&link_type=12&slink_ type=12&tmpl_id=3)
It is in this regard that these new mine owners need to do a little more than just making glossy statements and showcase a few corporate responsibility initiatives, yet fail to go to the heart of social responsibility and sustainability. It is true that these mines will contribute large numbers of morbidity cases to the already overstretched health facilities in Solwezi and Siavonga. Therefore, for these mining companies to only contribute to the health sector by constructing a clinic each, one is not sure how they hope to look after their sick workers and members of the community, who will be found to have developed health problems attributable to mining. Therefore, when investors undertake CSR programmes, they would appear to do so, according to Walker and Howard (2002), purely to: a) Correct the poor public opinion of the mining sector as a whole; the current opinion of natural resource extraction industries is influenced more by concerns over environmental and social performance than by performance in areas such as product pricing, quality, and safety. b) Pacify pressure groups that have consistently targeted the sector at local and international levels, challenging the industry’s legitimacy. Examples of this are the numerous environmental, community and indigenous groups who opposed the development of the uranium mine at Jabiluka in the Kakadu National Park in Australia. ‘The community’ is a key stakeholder for all mining

companies, and therefore a strong focus for the latter’s CSR initiatives. Therefore, mining companies must invest in communities through the CSR programmes in order to make a positive impacts on people’s way of life and a sustainable access to livelihoods, especially that of women, who bear the most negative consequences. With information, knowledge, determination and support from their government, local communities will no longer be pacified by little gifts dangled at them by investors, but will be able to challenge industry’s legitimacy in whatever they propose to do in their areas, just like the numerous environmental, community and indigenous groups in the Kakadu National Park in Australia, who opposed the development of a uranium mine at Jabiluka (Box 8).

Box 8. The Jabiluka Mine and Aboriginal Land Rights in Australia’s Northern Territory The land of Jabiluka belongs to the Mirrar Aboriginal people. Jabiluka was a land where it was supposed to be built a uranium mine. The land of Jabiluka is surrounded by Kakadu National Park. In 1998 the Mirrar people decided to blockade the construction of the mine, which should have been made by Energy Resources Australia, they called for activists from the whole world and from Australia to help them in the blockade. During the blockade over four hundred people were arrested. The Energy Resources Australia were able to dig the entrance of the mine but were not able to continue. Rio Tinto Group bought the holding company of Energy Resources Australia, North Ltd and they told that the mine will continue till the Ranger uranium mine is mined out. The Mirrar people have been against the Rio Tinto Group and asked them to clean the site and restore it. And in August 2003, the site started to be rehabilitated. ……The controversy surrounding uranium mining has become increasingly volatile in the wake of nuclear accidents like Chernobyl. Likewise, the by-product tailings of uranium mining, which often contain 85% of the radioactivity of the original element, are being targeted as toxic environmental pollutants. Communities near uranium production or tailings dumping facilities are becoming aware of the inevitable health dangers that result from uranium mining. The siting of uranium mines in people of colour and low-income communities is tragically a global phenomenon. (http://www.travel-australia.org/kakadu/ jabiluka.html) According to Frynas (2005), the effectiveness of CSR initiatives in the oil, gas and mining sectors has been increasingly questioned because of the mounting evidence of a gap between the stated intentions of com-

21

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

panies and their actual behaviour and impact in the real world as experience has shown in the Zambian copper mining industry (Box 9). Box 9. The new investors lack human heart Despite the huge return on their activities, foreignowned copper mining companies in Zambia are not investing in the local communities or workforce in the areas in which they mine. As such, Zambia’s economy has been growing at a rate of 5 per cent a year over the past couple years, but this growth has not been passed on to the Zambian people. Prior to the privatisation of the mines, the Zambian government used the assets of the ZCCM to diversify the economy. For example, the ZCCM established subsidiary firms that focused on tourism (Kasaba Bay Lodge, Manchichi Bay in Siavonga), agriculture (Mpongwe Farm in Ndola), agro-processing (Mulungushi Milling) and transport (Mulungushi Traveller). The copper mining companies (both in private hands before independence and in public hands after independence) developed and maintained social infrastructure such as hospitals, schools and sports facilities. The investors knew that it was in their best interests to motivate the workers in some measure. .....a comparison between copper mining towns before privatisation and now during the boom will show that conditions have not changed for the better. The roads have potholes and are still in poor condition, training programmes for artisans has been abandoned, football fields are unkempt, and the new mine owners no longer operate hospitals and schools. ......as much as the country needs foreign investment, it must also ensure that it is self-sustaining. It is not judicious for the Zambian government, with its highly educated economic technocrats, to allow foreign companies to operate without having to pay import or value added taxes indefinitely. When will the finance minister levy taxes on minerals that will eventually result in decent salaries being paid to Zambian civil servants? (Mwitwa & Kabemba, 2007)

the late 1950s, ‘Today, most are still ‘development refugees.’ Many live in less-productive, problem-prone areas, some of which have been so seriously degraded within the last generation that they resemble lands on the edge of the Sahara Desert.’.... In this regard, there is need to undertake research to determine the accuracy and impact of commitments given by investor institutions to the execution of agreed CSR programmes and their sustainability. This will ensure that lapses encountered in the execution of CSR initiatives are addressed, and communities do not lose out on investment meant for their areas. This aspect is what may constitute one of the major advocacy and monitoring components for the human rights campaign groups. Dangers of some CSR programmes A significant aspect of the companies’ livelihood focus for communities in mining areas, particularly Lumwana, has been the reported establishment of alternative and sustainable livelihood programmes. These are intended to reduce the communities’ economic dependence on the mine, and develop alternative and sustainable employment opportunities for themselves. However, Swift and Zadek (2002) note that while these programmes may have a strong potential for CSR initiatives to make a positive contribution to addressing the needs of disadvantaged communities in the mining areas, CSR could, whether by mistake or by design, also damage communities. This would arise, particularly, where: a) CSR programmes may have no strong legal backing, as the case may appear to be in Zambia. b) Lack of political will has created the confusion of local economic development imperatives of government being performed by mining houses, thereby promoting mining as the keystone for economic growth at the expense of community interests. The starting point of economic life must be communities and how these actually benefit from mining. This, for Zambia, will require a fundamental mind shift, to making a big difference on the lives of communities in areas affected by mining activities. This will require that government begins to influence a different business model with all investment in the country, which is underpinned by ethical business practices and sustainability aimed at protecting present generations and ensuring a sustainable environment for future generations.

22

Considerable effort is usually made by the industry, like in the case of AER, DMZL and LMC, to highlight their commitment to both protecting the environment and addressing the needs of communities. As recorded of the Tonga people by David Howarth in the 1960’s, during the construction of the Kariba Dam.... ....there are many different perspectives on how much resettlement aid was given to the displaced tribe. According to anthropologist Thayer Scudder, who has studied these communities since

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Capacity of Zambia to Oversee Uranium Exploration & Mining
ernment of Saskatchewan and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) announced the signing of an agreement “that will lead to greater administrative efficiency in regulating the uranium industry. This initiative was in response to a recommendation that was made by the Joint Federal-Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan, and which laid a foundation for the two groups to coordinate and harmonize their respective regulatory regimes.” In New Brunswick the Government was seriously criticised by the public for not doing enough to protect the environment and health of residents. The critics wondered why the government would introduce guidelines, that aren’t mandatory, rather than regulations. The critics argued that the guidelines are pretty much standard conditions that are applied to all sorts of development projects.
Canadian churches protest at uranium mining expansion Environmental concerns have prompted British Colombia, Nova Scotia and the Labrador Inuit territory of Nunatsiavut to enact a moratorium on uranium mining, while in 2008 New Brunswick imposed stricter guidelines on uranium mining. Jim Harding, author of Canada’s Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System, told the Canadian Press the concerns about uranium mining were wellfounded. “If I lived in an area where they were doing uranium mining, based on what I know about toxicity, lifespan and environmental health and increased risks, I’d move,” he said. http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=4106

Introduction Despite Zambia’s long experience in metal mining, uranium mining and subsequent downstream operations, require different types of skill and expertise. Since the first focused uranium mining operations in Zambia are targeted for 2012 by Denison Mining Zambia Limited, the question that begs for an answer is: Has Zambia got the capacity to oversee such operations? To adequately assess Zambia’s capacity to oversee such operations, it might be useful and important to examine some experiences from other countries with a lot more experience with uranium mining than Zambia. Experience from other countries Canada Canada is the World’s largest producer and exporter of uranium with a long experience. Despite this very long experience in uranium mining, Canada is still struggling with the regulatory and administrative needs of the industry. According to a report that was prepared by a consultant for the Saskatchewan Environment Ministry and released by CBC on 7 April 2009, the Ministry has a ‘massive capability and capacity deficit’ in the uranium mining sector. The report states that the Saskatchewan Environment Ministry is falling behind critical work, especially in the uranium mining sector, and should undergo a complete reorganisation. The report found that, despite the Province’s long uranium mining history, the ministry does not have the necessary skills and expertise to oversee the uranium industry. “Saskatchewan does not have adequate staff or capability to monitor and regulate the current industry,” the report found. It said that only a handful of people have the appropriate expertise and experience to perform the ministry’s oversight functions relating to uranium mining and milling. The ministry, the report said, “is in a massive capability and capacity deficit when considering new mining and milling projects, let alone support the value-added activities the province has announced it intends to pursue.” The environmental consultant suggested Saskatchewan could contract a private sector expert to support its uranium regulation work. Much earlier than that, on 14 February 2003, the Gov-

23

Namibia According to a report by NAMPA of 29 February 2008, the Namibian Chamber of Mines had decided to establish a Uranium Stewardship Committee to safeguard the interest of the uranium industry in the country. The Chairperson of the Uranium Stewardship Committee was Michael Leech, who was the Managing Director of Rössing Uranium. The committee was to develop minimum standards for environmental health and environmental management for uranium mines and to assist with a Regional Strategic Environmental Management Plan (SEMP). This was done with participation of public and private stakeholders and also in conjunction with the Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (SAIEA), the World Nuclear Association (WNA) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Chamber of Mines of Namibia established a committee that would deal with radiation protection issues

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

in the uranium industry. In addition, the chamber has appointed a medical practitioner as principal adviser. He will help with the development of minimum standards for occupational health and environmental management for uranium mines (which in Zambia have been left to individual uranium mining companies to develop). At that time, Namibia had adequate legislation to effectively deal with radiation protection, occupational health, and environmental management. Institutional set up As has been established in Section (4.1), activities related to uranium exploration and mining in Zambia are regulated by three statutory bodies, namely, (i) Mines Safety Department (MSD) under the ministry of Mines and Minerals Development, (ii) Radiation Protection Authority (RPA) under the Ministry of Health, and (iii) Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) under the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources. These institutions were established long before the advent of uranium exploration and mining in Zambia. In this regard, there are critical questions regarding their capacity, and thus, Zambia’s capacity, to oversee uranium exploration and mining. Technical Expertise One of the challenges identified in the Mining Policy of 1995 was the constraint placed upon the MSD – the lead-regulatory wing in the mining sector – to monitor, supervise and regulate standards of safety, health and environment due to increased mining operations countrywide. The new Mines and Minerals Development Policy of 2008, aims to address this aspect by building capacity of the Mines Safety Department. This situation is not different for the other two institutions – the ECZ and the RPB. Since exploration and mining activities have already started in the country, two critical questions arise, namely:  how much have staff, from all the three statutory institutions, been brought up-to-date to deal with challenges posed by uranium mining?  how has this staff been capacitated, in terms of knowledge and numbers, to enforce the statues and monitor the activities of companies engaged in uranium exploration and mining? Further, the building of capacity stipulated in the Mines and Minerals Development Policy of 2008 does not explicitly spell out the improvement of incentives and remunerations to these officers. Some of the highly trained staff at ECZ and MSD are reported to have left to join the mines, where they are offered much

better conditions. The current deficiency in the availability of technical and regulatory personnel with uranium experience in the country has already been recognised by some of the uranium exploration/mining companies. For instance, DMZL proposed at a public consultation to:  Bring into Zambia world experts to help train the Zambian authorities.  Train local employees in all aspects of their job and radiation safety.  For example, as a result of such staff deficiencies, local communities have not been adequately informed by the ECZ – the task they are mandated by law to perform – about the benefits and dangers of uranium exploration/mining. This, ECZ says, arises from problems posed by staffing levels. During the Lumwana uranium EIA public consultation in Solwezi, for instance, a suggestion was made that in view of a fast growing population, more mining operations and growing environmental concerns, the ECZ should consider opening on office in the town so as to monitor mining developments closely. The response from an ECZ official was that resources permitting, an office would be opened, but that for now, ECZ did not have these resources. Another contribution given during the public consultation in Solwezi was the need for regulatory bodies to monitor operations at LMC for the safety and health of workers. The contributor noted that if left alone, the mine could be compromised in that it would want to maximise benefits at the expense of other considerations, thereby leaving the workers to fight for the protection of their safety and health. The contributor strongly recommended for a felt-presence of the ECZ, the MSD and the RPA at the mine to ensure all business was conducted according the set standards. Canada is one country with long experience in uranium mining and has much more advanced technology, but it has still been found to be wanting in the area of legal enforcement and monitoring. Uranium exploration/mining is new to the country, and going by the dangers it poses both to the environment and health of human beings and animals, the Government needs to take a pragmatic programme to train personnel specifically for regulating the industry. Therefore, examples of results from work carried out in Canada on its capability and capacity to manage uranium activities should give an indication of how much work is required to bring Zambian personnel

24

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Advantages and Disadvantages of Uranium Mining in Zambia
up to standard. Further, mining leaves behind waste rock5 (Figure 6), while crushing and chemical winning processes leave behind pulverized material called tailings (Figure 7). Both these materials are inevitably spread into the environment, when they are washed by rain water into surface water systems (Figure 8). Further, as the tailings are left on the surface of the earth, they are blown by the wind, and they inevitably spread. Subsequently, different levels of these particles enrich the air, water and food that man breathes, drinks and eats, respectively, thereby introducing into the human environment a tremendously large range of radioactive materials that are generally very inimical to the human body. These are not invisible rays, but materials that are exactly like other materials, except for the fact that they are radioactive.

Introduction Because of the large contribution that minerals make to the national economy, the decision-making process of developing new finds is often done in haste, downplaying the detrimental effects that accompany mineral extraction and processing. When properly handled, minerals have the potential of massive positive impact on a country or society that seeks to develop a sustainable economy. However, if not properly handled, mining activities can lead to devastating long term consequences on the environment and societies. In case of uranium overlooking critical issues that may lead to radiation can lead to deadly consequences. Advantages of uranium mining It is an undisputed fact that minerals make a large contribution of wealth in international and national economies. Many countries are frantically searching for yet unknown mineral deposits and expanding the resource base of the known fields. Rural settings are opened up to development, taking financial resources to areas which otherwise would be “dead”. The new mine offers a livelihood choice for many people. Mining then can yield much needed capital to develop and support other positive economic and social activities including farming, trading, education, health care and infrastructure. This is the case in Zambia where almost all the potential uranium mining areas are in rural settings that are badly affected by lack of employment options and general poverty. This is all at societal level. At national level, uranium mining will contribute significantly to the national revenue collection through various taxes. Disadvantages of uranium mining and Possible pitfalls The exploitation of uranium requires extraction of uranium from the ground, crushing and then chemical enrichment. As the miners dig and open up the uranium-bearing ore, the latter releases large quantities of radioactive radon gas into the atmosphere due to a change of environment. Radon has a relatively short half-life4 (3.8 days), which would make the air in the mine to get heavily contaminated with radon daughters within a very short time.

Figure 6. Waste rock heap at a mine site (source: internet) 25

Figure 7. A tailings dump at a mine site (source: internet) The crushing and chemical winning processes leave behind pulverized material – uranium tailings. As Marie Curie observed, 85% of the radioactivity in the ore remains behind in that crushed rock. The pulverisation of the natural rock further liberates the radioac-

4 THalf-life is the time a radioactive substance takes to lose half of its radioactivity through decay. 5 Waste rock is rock associated with, and containing a mineral or ore, but which has insufficient mineral content to justify (further) processing.

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Figure 8. Impacts of waste rock and tailings dump materials on the environment and as a possible pathway to humans (source: internet) tive elements and accelerates radioactivity. Science has shown that the effective half-life of uranium’s radioactivity is 80,000 years (Edwards, 1992), which means, in 80,000 years, there would be half as much radioactivity in these tailings as what would have been initially there. According to Edwards (1992), as the tailings are sitting there on the surface, they are continually generating radon gas. Since radon is about eight times heavier than air, it stays close to the ground. Edwards (1992) argues that radon can travel over 1,000 km in just a few days in a light breeze. And as it drifts along, it deposits on the vegetation the radon daughters – its radioactive by-products – including polonium. Effectively, radon daughters may get into animals, fish and plants that are thousands of kilometres away from where the uranium mining is done. Adhering to microscopic dust particles, these tiny, pernicious particles are breathed into the miners’ lungs, where they lodge, delivering a massive dose of alpha radiation to the sensitive lung tissue. The result is an extraordinarily high incidence of lung cancer, fibrosis of the lungs, and other lung diseases, all of which take decades to manifest. The carcinogen (cancer-causing) effects of radondaughters have been studied for many years. Since the radon is airborne, these daughters have a high probability of being airborne and to be breathed-in by humans. The medical evidence is overwhelming and indisputable that radon (with its daughters) is one of the most potent carcinogens known (Edwards, 1992). According to a report by Edwards, who was the President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) in 1992, there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation, as conservative calculations have shown that the public near uranium tailings have potential to receive a 25 percent increase in lifetime radon daughter radiation (http://www.ccnr.org/bcma.html). Edwards further states that, available scientific evidence indicates that every dose of radiation is likely to cause a corresponding increase in cancers and other diseases. So, as the Government of the Republic of Zambia takes the decision to go ahead with mining and processing uranium, the following forward-looking questions will demand to be critically examined:  Who becomes responsible to look after such material forever once the mining companies close down?  How does anyone guard millions of tonnes of radioactive sand safely forever, and keep it out of the environment?

26

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Discussion

to the affected communities such that, even though exploration and mining are done on traditional land, it is government that appears to make decisions on their behalf, sometimes without sufficient knowledge on its part, of the implications on the people. With the influx of investors in uranium mining and other investment sectors, there will be need for the Government to assume the role of overseer and custodian of its people and their interests than is currently the case. The Government of the Republic of Zambia must cease to treat investors with kids gloves – that they can do like they please (Figure 9).

Zambia has not developed a uranium policy. At Policy level, the operations related to uranium mining fall under the much generalised Mining Policy of 2008. This policy is not adequate considering the peculiar and deadly nature of uranium.

27

Figure 9. Signage at the entrance into/exit out of Siavonga in Zambia scribed in a foreign language The Government needs to come up with a deliberate uranium policy that addresses, but not limited to:  Measures to protect both the people and the environment  Formulate specialised training for personnel involved in regulating the sector  Codify guidelines for societal and national benefits accruing from the uranium mining activities.  Formulate measures for commensurate compensations related to short- and long-term disturbances to the communities. Further, one major disadvantage of uranium exploration and mining in Zambia is the lack of information With current low levels (and, in some cases , even in terms of qualification) of manpower at the ECZ, the MSD and the RPA to enforce existing legislation and monitor the activities of mining companies to ensure safety of communities in the uranium exploration and mining areas, the disadvantage of uranium mining in Zambia is immense. Compounded by a government that does not appear to take the interests of its citizenry at heart, the following will constitute some of the major disadvantages (and against which some activist groups are protesting (Box 10)):

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Box 10. Canadian churches protest at uranium mining expansion The Anglican bishops of Saskatchewan have joined their Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Ukrainian Catholic brethren in protesting against government plans to expand uranium mining in the prairie province, and permit the construction of a privately owned nuclear power plant. In a joint statement released on Feb 26, the Anglican bishops of Saskatoon and Qu’Appelle questioned whether the government had fully studied the environmental risks of nuclear development in the province. A government-appointed panel is expected to release a report this month encouraging “value-added” initiatives to expand the uranium industry. Saskatchewan is the world’s largest producer of uranium ore and last year (2008) a private company, Bruce Power, began work on a feasibility study for building a nuclear generating station. Before any decision is taken, the bishops said it was ‘critical that any recommendations be made only after full and open consultation with the people of this province.’ They noted that ‘Christian churches affirm that God created the earth and that God continues to establish and preserve a just and ordered life for all creation. Human beings are part of the vast ecosystem of the planet.’ However, ‘Choices made by human beings must respect God’s creation in its careful interrelationship of earth, water, air and all living things. Exploiting the earth’s resources without regard for the consequences is sinful against God and God’s creation,’ the bishops argued. Article by George Conger, Monday 16 March 2009 (http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/ news/?NewsID=4106). a) Continued displacement and disorientation of communities because of loss of farming, grazing and hunting grounds, and the amount of time spent to find new ways of survival. Continued exploitation of displaced communities through compensations that are NOT commensurate to the assets left behind, as determination of what is compensated has had no input from communities. Although consultation with communities is a prerequisite for attaining mining concessions, public meetings that are supposed to be consultative in nature are used by mining houses to baffle communities with scientific jargon. No matter the level of representation from communities and their lack of understanding of is-

sues, government has usually gone ahead to grant mining concessions, overlooking issues of good governance on the part of communities. The greatest danger and major disadvantage of uranium exploration and mining in Zambia is the lack of capacity and competence at regulatory level. Take the case of Lumwana, where it declares that health hazards arising from uranium mining are just like those in any other metal mining operation, and the company is allowed to circulate such literature (Appendix 6) without any reaction from regulatory institutions. Capitalising on this lack of competence, the company dispels all the dangers related to uranium from its operations, negating all the concerns spelt out in the regulations and scientific findings. The question is, where are the regulators? As regards the distribution of wealth, the Zambian Mining Policy does not address the distribution of the benefits between what should go to the central treasury and that, meant for the communities, where mining activities take place. In fact, in the tax regimes, this distribution is not mentioned at all. The benefits designed for the communities only come under what is termed corporate social responsibility by the companies or investors. Even in the legislation, these are not mandatory but come as recommendations or encouragements to companies to do likewise. The strides the country has taken with regard to the treatment of its citizens, on one hand, and the investor, on the other, requires that people must pause, think and ask:  What will Zambia look like in 10, 20, 30, 50 years from now?  Will the country still have any drinkable water?  Will all our people not have been forced off their land into the cities, and how will they cope?  How much future do the people have as a country? Therefore, it is important for Government to come up with a clearer fiscal regime that is binding with regard to (i) the distribution of benefits from mining activities to communities, in which these mining activities take place, and (ii) the protection of human health and the environment, long after cessation of mining activities. According to Chief Mumena, ...’apart from handouts, people have not had any control on taxes and royalties paid to government, yet they see trucks loaded with copper and other mining products going out every day. One day, these people will rise because they do not feel the benefit of mining activities in their areas’.

28

b)

c)

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

WE HEAR YOU: Consultants meet with local community members at Sikoongo’s Chiefdom

Conclusion
There is no escaping the fact that local communities may not adequately profit from uranium mining activities earmarked to start in their areas to the same extent that foreign investors will. It is also doubtful if the amounts received in taxes from these mining activities will accrue any visible socio-economic impact to the local communities. Under current legal and regulatory arrangements, the Zambian people have not seen a notable improvement in their living standards since the copper boom and they have begun to question whether things will be any different with uranium operating under similar legal regimes. Since government has interest for the money, its regulatory role of the uranium mining sector is likely to be biased. Therefore, there is need for an independent organ to safeguard the interests of the local people.

Recommendations
In order to address the issues observed above, there is need for: a) the Government of the Republic of Zambia to develop a policy on uranium, on which basis;  Current Regulations can be revised  Community concerns can adequately be addressed  Educational and awareness programmes for communities can be formulated ahead of any uranium exploration, mining and processing operations. b) CCZ to champion the formation of an independent watch-dog group composed of representatives from the Private Sector, Civil Society, NGOs, Scientists and Medical Experts to champion the interests of the people affected by uranium mining operations. c) Government to immediately embark on a vigorous training programmes for public officers in the three regulatory institutions that are involved in regulating uranium mining operations. 29

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

References
a) African Energy. 2010. Update on Zambian uranium resources and 2009 exploration programmes. Internal electronic technical report. b) African Mining Consultants, 2009. Environmental Impact Assessment – Mutanga Project, Siavonga District, for Denison Mines Zambia Limited. c) Auty, R.M. 1998. Social sustainability in mineral-driven development, Journal of International Development, 10: 487-500. d) Edwards, G. 1992. URANIUM: Known Facts and Hidden Dangers – Invited address (http://www. ratical. org/radiation/WorldUraniumHearing/GordonEdwards.html ) e) Frynas, J.G. 2005. The false developmental promise of Corporate Social Responsibility: evidence from multinational oil companies, International Affairs, 81(3): 581-598. f) EPA Facts about Uranium. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/contaminants/radiation/pdfs/uranium. pdf g) http://www.travel-australia.org/kakadu/jabiluka.html h) http://www.ccnr.org/bcma.html i) http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=4928 j) http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=8603 k) http://steelguru.com/news/index/2009/09/09/MTEwOTgy/LDTF_approve_ZMK_4_billion_for_infrastructural_development.html l) Jenkins, H. & Obara, L. 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the mining industry – the risk of community dependency. m) Knight Piésold Consulting. 2008. Lumwana Uranium Project Environmental Impact Assessment Report, Project No: 5249/30. n) Mwitwa, C. & Kabemba, C. 2007. Copper boom in Zambia – Boom for Whom? Resource Insight, Issue No. 3, Southern Africa Resource Centre, ISSN: 1994-5604 o) Simutanyi, N. 2008. Copper Mining in Zambia – The Developmental Legacy of Privatization, Occasional Paper 165; (http://www.iss.co.za/index.php?link_id=4056&_id=6432&link_type= 12&slink_type=12&tmpl_ id=3) p) Wood, D. 1991. Corporate Social Performance Revisited. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 4, http://www.jstor.org/stable/258977 q) Swift, T. and Zadek, S. 2002. Corporate Responsibility and the Comparative Advantage of Nations, The Copenhagen Centre and Accountability: Copenhagen and London. r) Titley, M. 2009. The Mutanga Project, NI43-101 Technical Report, CSA Global (UK) Ltd. s) Walker J. & Howard, S. 2002. Finding the way forward: how could voluntary action move mining towards sustainable development? Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development Project, IIED

30

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Appendices
31

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Appendix 1. Decision letter for Denison Mines Zambia Limited CZ/INS/l0l/4/1

November, 9th 2009 The Project Director - Africa Denison Mines Zambia Limited Lusaka

Attn: Mr. Andrew Goode Dear Sir, RE: RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN (RAP) FOR THE MUTANGA PROJECT IN SIAVONGA DISTRICT BY DENISON MINES ZAMBIA LIMITED

Reference is made to the above captioned project report submitted to the Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) on August 13, 2009 for consideration in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, Statutory Instrument No. 28 of 1997. The ECZ has since reviewed the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) and based on the information provided by yourselves and from written and verbal comments from interested and affected parties and our site verification inspection findings, the said RAP has been approved. Find attached to this Decision Letter, conditions governing this approval.

32

Yours faithfully, ………………… Paul M. Banda Director ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF ZAMBIA Cc: The Director - Mines Safety Department, KITWE The Council Secretary - Siavonga District Council, SIAVONGA The Director - Radiation Protection Authority (RPA), LUSAKA

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

1.0 1.1

PROJECT BACKGROUND PROJECT TITLE: Proposed Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for the Mutanga Project in Siavonga District by Denison Mines Zambia Limited PROJECT PROPONENTS:

1.2

Denison Mines Zambia Limited Lusaka Contact Person: Mr. Andrew Goode Project Director- Africa Denison Mines 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION: The Mutanga project is located in Matuba area, Siavonga District in Southern Province of Zambia, approximately 175km South of Lusaka and 39km Northwest of Siavonga town center. The project can be accessed from Lusaka-Chirundu road along the Siavonga turnoff. The project lies within HRH Chief Sinadambwe’s chiefdom. Chief Sinadambwe resides in Sianyoolo Village, approximately 35km by road from the Mutanga Project site. DATE OF SUBMISSION BY PROPONENT: 13th August 2009 DATE OF CONSIDERATION BY COUNCIL: 29th October, 2009 DETAILS OF THE PROJECT: Denison Mines will develop two open pits, one at Mutanga (33ha) and the other at Dibwe (54.3ha). This development will entail involuntary relocation of 107 households with a total affected population of 342 people from six villages. The compensation of the housing and fields will be done through a combination of monetary and physical compensation. These settlements are Chiyobeka, Kasambo, Chilundu, Kapita, Sinanjosi and Kumulilansolo. DECISION BY COUNCIL The Project is approved subject to the following conditions: 3.1.1 Denison Mines Zambia Limited shall operate in the manner the project has been presented in the Resettlement Action Plan. 3.1.2 Denison Mines Zambia Limited shall implement the project and all the proposed social and environmental management commitments as proposed in the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) with modifications as per conditions governing this approval. 3.1.3 Denison Mines Zambia Limited shall not commence with construction activities until engineering drawings for the houses are approved by 5iavonga District Council. 3.1.4 The affected people shall be relocated only when Denison Mines Zambia Limited completes construction of houses for resettlement. 3.1.5 After compensation, no person or family shall be left in a worse state, economically or otherwise, than they were before the involuntary relocation. 3.1.6 The proposed relocation site shall not be in the wind direction of the mine. 3.1.7 Denison Mines Zambia Limited shall speed up the process of relocation so that people subject to resettlement may clear uncertainties and continue leading a stable life. 3.1.8 Denison Mines Zambia Limited shall resettle the affected people prior to commencement of the Mutanga Project. 3.1.9 Dust suppression on exposed surfaces shall always be implemented as proposed in the RAP.

1.4 1.5 2.0

33

3.0 3.1

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

3.1.10 3.1.11

A suitable site shall be identified for disposal of waste and the community educated on sound waste management practices. Denison Mines Zambia Limited shall obtain the necessary permits from the Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) and comply in full with the Waste Management Regulations (51 No.71 of 1993).

3.2

The Council advises Denison Mines Zambia Limited to: 3.2.1 Obtain any other relevant authorizations such as but not limited to the: a. Public Health Act; b. Town and Country Planning Act; c. Local Government Act; d. Employment Act. Make available information on malaria control and HIV / AIDS to construction employees and the affected people. Provide all workers with personal protective clothing.

3.2.2 3.2.3 3.3 3.4

The Council may suspend or cancel this Decision Letter without notice should Denison Mines Zambia Limited fail to comply with the conditions stated above. Denison Mines Zambia Limited shall comply with environmental standards and/or specific limits of particular pollutants as its responsibility. Thus, compliance with ECZ recommended measures does not exempt the developer from its responsibility if such measures do not achieve compliance with environmental control standards Denison Mines Zambia Limited shall in accordance with Section 84 of the Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act, 1990, Cap 204 of the Laws of Zambia allow ECZ Inspectors unrestricted entry to the project site at any reasonable time without making prior notice throughout the project cycle. The project shall be implemented within three years from the date of approval. Failure to implement the project within the stated period shall render this decision letter invalid and the Denison Mines shall be required to re-submit the Resettlement Action Plan for consideration.

3.5

3.6

34

Date

Paul M. Banda Director ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF ZAMBIA

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Appendix 2. Decision letter for Lumwana Mine Company’s Uranium Project ECZ/INS/101/4/1 November 14, 2008 The Managing Director Lumwana Mining Company Limited Mwinilunga Road Lumwana East P. O. Box 110199 SOLWEZI Dear Sir RE: Proposed Lumwana Uranium Project by Lumwana Mining Company Limited Reference is made to the above captioned project submitted to the Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) on 28th August 2008 for consideration in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations Statutory Instrument No. 28 of 1997. The ECZ has since reviewed the Environmental Project Brief (EPB) and based on the information provided by yourselves and from written and verbal comments by interested and affected parties and our site verification inspection findings, we have approved your project proposal. Find attached to this Decision Letter, conditions of approval. Yours faithfully, Julius P.Daka Acting Director ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF ZAMBIA Cc: The Town Clerk- Solwezi Municipal Council, SOLWEZI The Director - Mines Safety Department, KITWE The Director - Mines and Minerals Development Department, LUSAKA 35

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

1. 1.1

PROJECT BACKGROUND PROJECT TITLE: Proposed Lumwana Uranium Project by Lumwana Mining Company Limited Project Proponent: Lumwana Mining Company Limited Mwinilunga Road Lumwana East P. O. Box 110199 SOLWEZI. Contact: Harry Michael - Managing Director Tel: +2608249000 Fax: +2608249001

1.2

PROJECT LOCATION: The Uranium Project is located in the North Western Province approximately 95 km west of Solwezi District, the provincial centre of North Western Province, off the Mutanda-Mwinilunga road (T-5). The proposed site for the Uranium Process PI2nt aild associated facilities is situated within the Large Scale Mining Licence 49 (LHL 49). DATE OF SUBMISSION BY PROPONENT: 28th August, 2008 DATE OF CONSIDERATION BY COUNCIL: 31st October, 2008 DETAILS OF THE PROJECT: The project involves mining and processing of uranium using a metallurgical processing plant. The uranium ore will be mined from within the existing Malundwe and Chimiwungo Open Pits. The project will process the stockpiled high grade uranium mineralization onsite. The ore will be reclaimed from the uranium ore stockpile and hauled along a dedicated road to the processing plant. The processing plant will use conventional milling and flotation to produce copper concentrate for transportation and sale to a copper smelting and refining facility. The processing plant flotation tailings will report to the uranium leaching circuit for the production of uranium oxide (yellow cake), using conventional leaching, solvent extraction, precipitation and calcination. The yellowcake will packaged sealed in UN certified drums, weighed and Labelled prior to being stored in sea containers, ready for shipment. Each sealed drum will hold approximately 400 kg of uranium oxide. Each shipping container will store approximately 45 drums (16 to 18 t) and will be transported under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines at a frequency of approximately once per week to a shipping port likely to be Walvis Bay in Namibia. The container will subsequently be loaded onto a ship and exported to a uranium conversion facility, consistent with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of Nuclear Weapons. The tailings from the leaching circuit will be treated with lime to pH 9.5 to neutralise acid and precipitate residual heavy metals, including copper, cobalt, manganese and uranium. The neutralised tailing slurry will be pumped approximately 4 km from the process plant to a dedicated Tailings Storage Facility (TSF). Recovered water from the TSF will be pumped back to the process plant for re-use. The process plant is designed to treat Malundwe or Chimiwungo uranium bearing ore at a rate of 1 Mt/a to recover approximately 15,000 t/a copper concentrate and 2 Mlb/a of uranium oxide (U3Os). Copper recovery to copper concentrate is estimated to be 80% and uranium recovery to uranium oxide is estimated to be 93%. The process plant is designed to operate for approximately 800 hours per year.

1.3

1.4

2.0

36

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

3.0 3.1

DECISION BY COUNCIL The Project is approved subject to the following conditions: 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 Lumwana Mining Company Limited shall implement the project as stated in the Environmental Impact Statement (ElS). All proposed mitigation measures as stated in the ElS shall be implemented. After exploration activities on a particular site, Lumwana Mining Company Limited shall undertake ecological restoration by planting of trees and grass in areas where vegetation and soil have serious disturbance by the project. The radiation level under routine conditions of transport shall not exceed :2 mSv/h at any point and 0.1 mSv/h at 2 m from the external surface of the conveyance. Lumwana Mining Company Limited shall ensure that no oil spills occur during construction. Effluent from the uranium tailings storage facility shall be recycled back to the uranium process plant. To retain the wilderness value of the area and unintentional introduction of invasive alien species (IAS), no exotic plants shall be introduced without the consent of the Environmental Council of Zambia. A Radiation Monitoring Programme shall be developed and the results shall be submitted to ECZ and the Radiation Protection Authority every six months, Lumwana Mining Company shall develop and implement a continuous water monitoring programme and shall submit results from the monitoring programme to ECZ and MSD every six months.

3.1.4 3.1.5 3.1.6 3.1.7

3.1.8 3.1.9

3.1.10 Lumwana Mining Company Limited shall develop a Radiation Protection Programme aimed at providing adequate radiation protection measures for the workers, surrounding local communities and members of the public. 3.1.11 Lumwana Mining Company Limited shall take readings of radiation levels of workers at the beginning and end or a daily shift. 3.1.12 Lumwana Mining Company Limited shall inform ECZ, MSD and the Radiation Protection Authority in advance of the scheduled transportation of uranium oxide (yellow cake) from the mine to Walvis Bay in Namibia. 3.1.13 The transport of radioactive sources shall be subject to the requirements of the IAEA Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material and any applicable international convention. 3.1.14 Freight containers containing radioactive material shall be segregated during transport and during storage in transit from places occupied by persons. 3.1.15 Freight containers shall be assigned transport indices to provide control over radiation exposure. 3.1.16 In the event of accidents or incidents during the transport of radioactive material, Lumwana Mining Company Limited shall observe emergency provisions, as established by relevant national and/or international organizations, to protect persons, property and the environment. 3.1.17 Lumwana Mining Company Limited shall, upon receiving notification of pregnancy from a female employee, modify/adapt the working conditions in respect of occupational exposure so as to ensure that the embryo or foetus is afforded the same broad level of protection as required for members of the public. 3.1.18 No person under the age of 16 years shall be subjected to occupational exposure. 3.1.19 No person under the age of 18 years shall be allowed to work in controlled areas unless supervised and then only for training purposes. 3.1.20 Lumwana Mining Company Limited should submit an Environmental Emergency Preparedness Plan to Mines Safety Department (MSD) and ECZ within one month from date of project approval.

37

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

3.1.21 A mine decommissioning plan should be submitted to ECZ and Mine Safety Department immediately within one year from date of project approval. 3.1.22 After mining activities at the site have ceased, Lumwana Mining Company Limited shall ensure that the land in that c;1rea is rehabilitated to almost its baseline condition. 3.1.23 Lumwana Mining Company Limited shall ensure that workers receive appropriate training concerning the radiation hazards and the precautions to be observed in order to ensure restriction of their exposure and that of other persons who might be affected by their actions. 3.1.24 Noise levels throughout the project cycle shall be maintained within acceptable levels. 3.1.25 Lumwana Mining Company Limited shall obtain water abstraction rights from the water Board prior to commencing the project. 3.1.26 Lumwana Mining Company Limited shall obtain permits from ECZ and comply in full with the following regulations throughout the project cycle: a) Waste Management Regulations, SI No.71 of 1993; b) Water Pollution Control Regulations, SI. No. 72 of 1993; c) Air Pollution Control Regulations, SI No. 141 of 1996; d) Hazardous Waste Management Regulations, SI. No. 125 of 2001. 3.2 The Council advises Lumwana Mining Company Limited: 3.2.1 To obtain any other relevant authorizations such as but not limited to: a) The Public Health Act; b) The Lands Act; c) The Town and Country Planning Act; d) The Mines and Minerals Development Act; e) Mines and Minerals Development (General regulations, 2008) f) The Zambia Wildlife Act. g) Ionizing Radiation Protection Act h) Forestry Act 3.2.2 To make available information on malaria control and HIV/AIDS to employees. 3.2.3 To provide all workers with adequate and appropriate Personal Protective Equipment. 3.2.4 To provide all workers with adequate and appropriate fire-fighting equipment and training in fire fighting. 3.3 Lumwana Mining Company Limited shall comply with environmental standards and/or specific limits of particular pollutants as its responsibility. Thus, compliance with ECZ recommended measures does not absolve Lumwana Mining Company Limited from its responsibility if such measures do not achieve compliance with environmental control standards. The Council may suspend or cancel this Decision Letter without notice should Lumwana Mining Company Limited fail to comply with any of these conditions. Lumwana Mining Company Limited shall implement the project within three years from the date of approval. Failure to implement the project within the said period shall render this decision letter invalid and the developer shall re-submit the EIS.

38

3.4 3.5

Julius P. Daka Acting Director Environmental Council of Zambia

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Appendix 3. Environmental Project Brief (EPB) submitted by African Energy Resources

KARIBA VALLEY URANIUM PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT BRIEF FOR THE CHISEBUKA AND NAMAKANDE EXPLORATION PROGRAMME Prepared by AFRICAN ENERGY RESOURCES LTD 39

SEPTEMBER 2008

Project Proponent Developer Name: AFRICAN ENERGY RESOURCES LTD Address: Anglo American Building, 74 Independence Avenue, P.O. Box 51403, Lusaka, Zambia Telephone: + 260 1 250743 Fax: + 260 1 222639 Project Manager: Mr. W. Banda Email: WiscortB@africanenergyresources.com

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Environmental Project Brief (EPB) has been produced to comply with Zambian legislation and World Bank (WB) policy requirements as they relate to the environmental assessment of Projects to be carried out within the framework of the Chirundu Uranium Project. African Energy Resources is exploring for uranium on a number of Albidon’s mineral tenements in southern Zambia (see Figure 1 – page 6). The exploration program, which is sole-funded and operated by AFR, has identified some anomalies within the Chisebuka/Namakande areas. Albidon currently holds a 70% interest in the Kariba Joint Venture under which these prospects fall. These activities are being undertaken because of the positive results from the exploration activities on the Njame/Gwabe project areas, where now, the project is now a Bankable Feasibility Study is being undertaken. This programme is aimed at increasing the resource within the entire project area. To this effect, they have sanctioned the programme to include the Chisebuka/ Namakande areas, hence the need to undertake this study. The potential environmental impacts of the Project have been systematically assessed using the sourcepathway-receptor framework in this EPB. An Environmental Management Plan (EMP), included in this EPB, details the actions that will be taken during the various phases of the Project to mitigate the potential adverse environmental impacts that have been identified. The Project will encompass air and waste water monitoring exercises that will be linked to the wider Project monitoring program, which will be implemented by the Company. The Project specific monitoring exercises are designed to support the objective of monitoring and demonstrating the human health and wider environmental benefits of the mitigation works. It is expected that the most significant beneficial social – economic impact to arise as a result of the implementation of the Project will be the improved quality of life in surrounding areas of the Project site.

40

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. INTRODUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS PROJECT SETTING PROJECTED ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS MEASURES TO MITIGATE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH HAZARDS ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES CONCLUSION 5 6 13 15 22 30 37 37 38

41

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AFR JORC ASPT CDF DA DACO DDCC EA ECZ EIA EIS EMP EO EPB EPPCA GRZ MMD MSD NGO NGOCC OP PDCC 42 PFS WB WHO YWCA African Energy Resources Ltd Joint Ore Resources Committee Standards (Australia) Average Score Per Taxon Community Development Fund District Administrator District Agricultural Coordinator District Development Co-ordinating Committee Environmental Assessment Environmental Council of Zambia Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Management Plan Environmental Officer Environmental Project Brief Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act Government of the Republic of Zambia Movement for Multiparty Democracy Mine Safety Department Non Governmental Organisation Non Governmental Organisations’ Co-ordinating Committee Operational Policy Provincial Development Co-ordinating Committee Pre – Feasibility Study World Bank World Health Organisation Young Women’s Christian Association

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

1. INTRODUCTION African Energy Resources Limited (AFR) is exploring for uranium on a number of Albidon’s mineral tenements in southern Zambia (see Figure 2.1 – page 6) as well as other wholly owned tenements within the same region. The exploration program, which is sole-funded and operated by AFR, has identified a JORC Inferred Resource at the Njame deposit and more recently identified a new uranium discovery at the Gwabe prospect, approximately 20km to the north. Both areas are located within the Chirundu Project and are subject to a joint venture recently signed by Albidon and AFR. Albidon currently holds a 70% interest in the joint venture. Because of the positive results from the exploration, the Board has determined to proceed with other potential areas so as to increase on the resource. The Decision to Proceed with this programme follows on the successful soil sampling that was conducted last year. The soil sampling demonstrated the potential for an economically viable Project using proven technology and bench marked costs for the areas of Namakande and Chisebuka. The exploration programme in the areas will commence immediately after all the necessary approvals have been secured. The study will focus on drilling to upgrade the resource status.
This Environmental Project Brief (EPB) encompasses the entire project areas i.e. the Chisebuka and Namakande Project sites and the surrounding areas. The baseline study, comprising part of the EPB, was undertaken in order to fulfil the requirements for an EPB to be conducted for any Project before its implementation. AFR was required to undertake the EPB study as it intends to commence its exploration activities in the areas. The Environmental Project Brief study adheres to the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations of the Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act (EPPCA) of 1990. The EIA regulations demand that socio-economic and environmental impacts consequential to the implementation of the Project are assessed well in advance. AFR commissioned the Environmental Project Brief (EPB) to assess the baseline, environmental trends and socio-economic data of the Project area to identify significant environmental and socio-economic impacts of the Project and propose possible mitigation measures. This study addresses positive as well as negative impacts and recommends measures for mitigating negative environmental effects. 1.1 Study Methodology The study was undertaken to obtain the views and concerns of the interested and affected parties. The following steps were involved in the process: • • • • Consultative discussions with AFR members of staff and local residents in the immediate environment of the Project; Review of relevant legislation; Review of environmental literature; and Identification of significant environmental impacts and development of mitigating measures.

43

Responses from consultations and data from literature provided the significant environmental impacts and helped in the development of an environmental management and monitoring plan. 1.2 Scope of Study The Environmental Project Brief study adheres to the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations of the Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act (EPPCA) of 1990. The EIA regulations demand that socio-economic and environmental impacts consequential to the construction and operation of the Project are assessed well in advance. AFR commissioned the Environmental Project Brief (EPB) to assess the baseline, environmental trends and socio-economic data of the Project area, identify significant environmental and socio-economic impacts of the Project and propose possible mitigation measures. This study addresses positive as well as negative impacts and recommends measures for mitigating negative environmental effects. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Introduction African Energy Resources (African Energy) is undertaking exploration activities on the Namakande - Chisebuka Uranium project areas in Zambia. The project is located about 206 km south of Lusaka, Zambia’s capital city through Gwembe. The nearest town to the project site is Gwembe – some 80 km south-east of the town i.e. Gwembe Namakande and 77 km from Gwembe to Chisebuka. Please note that the two sites Namakande and Chisebuka are separated by the hill and this makes the route from Namakande to Chisebuka not possible

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

to cross through the hill. The only way to the other site is from Namakande back to Munyumbwe and then to Chisebuka. Figure 2.1 – Project Location

44

The Kariba project contains the Namakande and the Chisebuka deposits Chirundu which are sandstone hosted Uranium deposits with potential economic value. This is the second of the two joint venture projects with Albidon arising from the Albidon Exploration Agreement, i.e. the Kariba Valley Project (see Figure X). It comprises an area of 1,968 sq km and includes parts of three Albidon prospecting licenses (PLLS.250 Mugoto, PLLS.245 Sinazeze and PLLS.193 Masuku). Previous exploration on this project area has identified three prospects. The Chisebuka, Munyumbwe and Namakande prospects have a similar geological setting to Njame. Chisebuka is characterised by a well defined, intense radiometric anomaly over an area of 1,500m x 400m, and appears to have undergone little previous drill testing. A drilling program to test this anomaly has been planned and will commence in the near future. At Munyumbwe, two prospects have been identified. Munyumbwe ‘A’ consists of a broad ground radiometric anomaly which has been tested by African Energy through reconnaissance drilling. Evaluation of the drill cuttings suggests that significant mineralisation has not been identified. Munyumbwe ‘B’, further to the north, has not been tested to date. Namakande consists of a series of poorly constrained ground radiometric anomalies over an area in excess of 7km x 2km. Field work is required at this prospect to evaluate the potential of these and to prioritise targets for drill testing. No work was undertaken by the previous holders of the relevant prospecting licenses on the Sinazongwe blocks due to security concerns related to possible minefields near the shore of Lake Kariba. The potential of this area has thus not been tested to date. African Energy has recently completed an airborne radiometric survey over the Sinazongwe blocks to assess the uranium potential, and has identified three areas of uranium anomalism for further evaluation (Figure 7).

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

In addition to the uranium potential, there are several coal occurrences in Lower Karoo sediments within the Kariba project area. The Company intends to undertake a program to evaluate the coal potential, and particularly the scope for accumulations of coal-bed methane, and will utilise the services of an expert consultant to help design this program. 2.2 Exploration Programme AFR’s exploration programme within the project areas commenced in year 2007. Field exploration activities are generally conducted in the dry season from March to November (8 calendar months). No drilling or trenching is carried out in the wet season (4 remaining calendar months). AFR’s exploration programme comprises:1. Regional exploration across the project areas to identify anomalies, which will then be the focus of more detailed exploration work; and 2. Concurrent detailed investigation of known smaller and medium size uranium deposits to determine their potential and the likelihood of occurrence of larger ore bodies. The exploration programme includes the following activities:• • • • • • An airborne magnetic and radiometric geophysical survey across the project area; Preliminary geological mapping of selected targets; Geochemical survey of stream sediment: Geochemical survey of surface soils; Trenching in shallow soils; and Exploration drilling is carried out when suitable exploration targets are identified from the results of geological mapping, soil sampling and/or airborne geophysical survey. Construction of access tracks to drill sites may be necessary.

Ground exploration work is concentrating on areas accessible by existing roads and tracks in order to generate fast-track prospects wherever possible. AFR is carrying out repairs to the existing road infrastructure including roads, bridge structures and culverts, where necessary to gain access into exploration areas. 2.3 Description of Exploration Activities 45

2.3.1 Field Surveying and Baselines All surveying will be carried out using Global Positioning System (GPS) instruments. Soil geochemical surveys and geological mapping will be conducted using handheld low-accuracy non-differential GPS receivers. Exploration drill hole collars will be positioned using an Omnistar, high accuracy differential GPS receiver followed up by traditional survey methods if required. No permanent baselines or grids will be established in any exploration project area.

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

2.3.2 Earthworks and Excavations Only small-scale earthworks or excavations will be undertaken as part of the exploration programme. Appropriate safety measures as required by mining regulations will be implemented during the excavation of trenches to ensure the safety of AFR employees and the public.

Figure 2.2: Map Showing Locations Where Drilling Activities will take place in Namakande Area 46 2.4 Sampling Methods

2.4.1 Stream Sediment No stream sediment samples have been collected to far. If stream sediment sampling is carried out, the procedure will be as described below. A 1 kg sediment sample is collected from the watercourse using a tube sampler, trowel or spade. The sediment is sieved on site and the coarse reject returned to the watercourse. Three 100g samples are prepared from the initial sample and submitted to an accredited laboratory for geochemical analyses. 4x4 vehicles will be used to access sampling sites via existing roads and tracks. Where vehicles cannot pass, access is on foot. Sediment sampling will be conducted between March and November. 2.4.2 Soils Soil samples are being collected on a 400 to 800 meter grid across the project areas. The initial sampling density is 12 to 24 samples per square kilometer. Further soil samples will be collected in areas where favourable uranium anomalies are found. The soil sampling procedure is described below. A small 25cm x 25cm x 50 cm deep holes is excavated at each soil sampling site, using a spade. A 1kg soil sample is collected from the bottom of each hole. The reject material is placed back in the hole as soon as the sample has been collected. The sample is transported to the regional field site in Njame for final sample preparation. Three 100g samples will be prepared from the initial sample and submitted to an accredited laboratory for geochemical analyses. 4x4 vehicles will be used to access sampling sites via existing roads and tracks. Where vehicles cannot pass, access will be on foot. Road construction and clearance of vegetation will be kept to a minimum during soil sampling.

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

2.4.3 Trenching and Pitting In areas where the soil cover is thin, small trenches could be excavated to sample bedrock mineralisation. The trenches dimension will be 0.8 meters wide and up to 4 meters deep. The trench will be excavated perpendicular to the strike of mineralisation. The length of individual trenches will depend on the specific target under investigation. Digging will be done by hand using picks and shovels. AFR will employ local labour to dig the trenches. Trench or pit perimeters will be marked using red and white fluorescent barrier tape, from the start of excavation until the hole has been backfilled. This will reduce the risk of inadvertent access and injury to the public. A geologist will log the exploration trenches and collect rock samples using a hammer and chisel. Approximately 1kg of material will be collected per meter length of trench. All excavations will be backfilled following interpretation of geochemical test results and if no further sampling is necessary. 2.4.4 Rotary Diamond Core Drilling Rotary diamond core drilling is one of two drilling methods employed by AFR to sample rock types below 4 meters depth. The diamond drill is mounted on a 20-ton truck together with all ancillary equipment. Diamond drilling samples are cut using a diamond-impregnated bit and double tube core barrel. Diamond drilling produces a stick of rock that is recovered from the inner tube of the core barrel. The bit and core barrel are connected to the surface by a continuous length (or string) of steel rods, which allow the bit plus core barrel to be lowered into the hole, and lifted back to the surface. Water is circulated down the inside of the drill rods, washing over the cutting surface of the drill bit and returning to the surface through the narrow space between the outside of the rods and the wall of the drill hole. The water lubricates and cools the drill bit, and removes crushed and ground rock fragments from the bit surface. Water may be used in combination with various clays and other additives. The drill fluid is collected in a settling pond (sump) and recycled throughout the course of the drilling process. It is sometime necessary to clear access to each drill site. Vegetation is carefully moved aside to allow maneuverability of the drill rig and ancillary equipment. Trees are only felled if necessary. No mature indigenous trees are or will be felled during the drilling programme. 2.4.5 Reverse Circulation Drilling The second drilling method is reverse circulation drilling (RC). The RC drill rig is mounted on a 20 tonne truck. A second support truck of similar size carries an air compressor and ancillary drilling equipment The RC drilling technique employs a double walled string of drill rods equipped with a compressed air driven percussion hammer at the cutting end of the string. Drill cuttings (commonly rock chips) are brought to the surface up the centre of the rods. On surface, the cuttings are passed through a cyclone and the underflow deposited in a sample collection container or plastic bag. Sub-samples are split on site and prepared for laboratory analyses. The split material is stored at the regional field office. It is sometimes necessary to clear access to each drill site. Vegetation is carefully moved aside to allow maneuverability of the drill rig and ancillary equipment. Trees are only felled if absolutely necessary. No mature indigenous trees are felled or will be felled during the programme activities. 2.5 Exploration Camps 47

AFR’s regional field exploration sites will be in Namakande and when the work is hear is finished, will then shift to Chisebuka. The facilities comprise a sample storage area and an office. Temporary, mobile field exploration camps are used to accommodate drillers, exploration geologists and support staff. The camps consist of canvas tents and are serviced by 12-volt battery lighting, and cooking facilities. The camps accommodate up to 7 persons and are guarded 24 hours. When a mobile camp is to be established in a new area, the headman or his superior in the village closest to the proposed camp is notified in advance, and consulted. Relevant government officials living in the area are also notified. AFR does not erect permanent structures at any of its field exploration camps.

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Please note that for sanitation purposes, pit latrines will be dug and these will be located away from any water resource. The pit latrines will also be kept clean all the time. The pits will also be covered so as to maintain high hygiene standards. 2.6 Access Routes

Road infrastructure within the exploration permits is generally poor or non-existent. All roads within the exploration permits are unsealed roads. Some unsealed roads, bridges and culverts require minor rehabilitation. This work will be carried out as and when necessary. It will sometimes be necessary to construct access tracks to drill sites.

48 2.7

Plate 1: Repairs being done to the Access Route Washed during the Rains Sampling Materials and Equipment

Sampling equipment will consists of shovels, picks, plastic buckets, sieves, brushes and plastic bags. All sampling equipment will be stored in metal trunks and carried in a vehicle. No chemicals will be used in the exploration programme except for biodegradable additives to drilling fluids. AFR will be using an environmentally friendly biodegradable drilling additive. AFR will maintain an inventory of all sampling materials and equipment used on site.

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Appendix 4. Minutes of the Denison Mines Zambia Limited EIA Public Consultation Denison Mines Zambia Limited Meeting Minutes Public Consultation Meeting 4 June 2009 Opening: The Public Consultation Meeting for the Mutanga Project was called to order at 11:00hrs on 4th June 2009. The meeting was chaired by Mr Aaron Siamuzyulu, District Administrative Officer (DAO), Siavonga District. The meeting was delivered in English and Chi’Tonga; translations were provided by Alexander Kansenzi, Harvest Help Zambia. Present: The meeting was open to the public and was attended by 32 dignitaries, officials and Denison Mines Zambia Limited staff as shown in Table 1. A complete list of the 443 public attendees is given Table 3. A. Call To Order 11:00 DAO declared the meeting open. B. Opening Prayer (Charles Hamaimbo) C. National Anthem (All) D. Introduction of Invited Guests (DAO) 11:02 DAO introduced dignitaries and officials to the meeting per Table 2. E. Welcoming Remarks (AG) 11:07 Welcomed all meeting attendees; • Advised the purpose of the meeting was for the company to receive public comments “so we know what to do”, • Said this is an important meeting. F. Official Opening Remarks (DC) 11:10 Welcomed the attendees, • Advised she was struggling with her medical condition, asked for the attendees’ understanding. • Welcomed the mine development so long as it was conducted within the laws of Zambia. • Advised this meeting is required by law. It is intended to link investors to the local community. • Thanked attendees for coming. • Requested attendees be open in their discussions to have a fruitful meeting. G. Overview of Denison Mines Corp, Denison Mines Zambia Limited and the Mutanga Project (AG) 11:12 Overview of Denison mines: o 3 operating uranium mines in Canada and USA, o 2 operating uranium (production) mills in USA. o Other projects in Mongolia and Zambia. o Only mines uranium, but some vanadium produced as a byproduct form US operations. o 2008 production was 1.6 million pounds (Mlb) uranium oxide (U3O8); approximately twice the 2007 production. o 2009 production estimated to be 1,4Mlb • The uranium market o Expanding rapidly. o 436 reactors in 30 countries produce 2.6 trillion kilowatts of power; i.e. 15% of the world’s power. o Around the world:  44 reactors are under construction,  110 reactors are in the planning stages,  14 countries currently without nuclear power are planning to adopt it. o By 2015 the demand for uranium will exceed supply, o In 2008 world consumption of uranium was 181Mlb, o In 2009 demand is estimated to be 171 to 184Mlb; compared with production of 125Mlb; 50Mlb of this will come from reprocessing Russian and US nuclear weapons, o By 2015 annual consumption is estimated to be 214Mlb so new sources, such as Mutanga, will be required.

49

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

o It is expected that the uranium prices will increase in the near future. Most of the product from Mutanga will be sold on the long term contracts market. • As a business, DMZL needs to ensure that the long term selling price of uranium is higher than what it costs to produce. o To evaluate this, the company has been doing a feasibility study for the past year. It was completed last week. o All economic indicators of the feasibility study are that the Mutanga project is very viable. • • The 2008 feasibility study increased the total resource from 13.1Mlb to 21Mlb U308 The feasibility study included: o Environmental and social baseline studies, o Metallurgical testing, o Process design, o Project design, o 3,300m water resources drilling. • At the open pit sites the groundwater tables needs to be lowered to ensure pit wall stability. The water pumped from the ground will be used in the processing operation and excess will be pumped back into the ground away from the pit; it will not just be dumped on the ground. Other Infrastructure o A 66kilovolt power line will be built from Chirundu to Mutanga, o The power line will follow the same alignment as the Zyiba Meenda road – which will also be upgraded to provide access to the mine. o The Zyiba Meenda road will be further demined by ZAMAC before any construction. • ZAMAC advised last week that they will be producing a report documenting the demining requirements.

50

11:34 Revised mineral processing strategy. • The meeting was being held within what is proposed to be the Mutanga open pit; that the surrounding area (approximately 1km in diameter would be part of the open pit). • Assurance that that radiation levels were very low and that the meeting attendees were safe – even though 400m away was a naturally occurring outcrop of the highest grade uranium in the district. • Indicated that the processing plant would be 1km away (pointed). • One of the reasons to hold this meeting is because DMZL has changed the proposed mineral processing method of leaching the uranium from the rock. Until now the company had proposed to use an alkali solution in large tanks. The recent test work has indicated that it will be more cost effect to use an acidic solution on heaps of ore. o o The heap leach pads consists of several 3m high layers, stacked one on the top of the last – with a double layer of thick plastic membrane at the base to prevent any leakage. An acidic solution is “irrigated” over the heaps to dissolve (i.e. leach) the uranium from the ore. The “pregnant leach solution (PLS)” flows downwards to the plastic membranes where it is collected and piped to a storage pond (which is also lined with a plastic membrane). The PLS is pumped to an Ion Exchange (Ionex – or IX) plant where the uranium is extracted. The uranium (as ‘yellow cake’; i.e. uranium oxide, U308) is precipitated then dried and packed in certified 200 litre metal drums for shipping in sealed and certified 20 feet sea containers. The sea container will be shipped to a port certified to handle radioactive materials – most likely this will be Walvis Bay in Namibia (it already handles ore from the Rossing and Langer Heinrich uranium mines). Lower capital and operating costs, Simpler to operate.

o o o

The advantages of acid heap leaching over alkali tank leaching? o o

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

• •

Acid heap leaching of ores is proven technology (20% of world gold production and 18% of world copper production) Heap leaching of uranium ores is being proposed for: o o o African Energy’s project at Chirundu, Zambia Two mines in Namibia, Mines in Australia.

11:45 Project Benefits: • • • • • Denison has 54 years experience in producing uranium in North America, The Mutanga Project ore is very close to the surface so it is economic to mine, The Mutanga Project is close to required infrastructure, There is a large local labour supply. The availability of technical and regulatory personnel with uranium experience. o o • • • • DMZL plans to bring world experts to help train the Zambian authorities. DMZL will train local employees in all aspects of their job and radiation safety.

Project Challenges:

The rainy season will affect the construction timetable. Need to be diligent in the mining phase because the Mutanga and Dibwe ores are very low grade. Continue the environmental and social baseline studies, To successfully relocate the people of the six villages affected by the mine: o o o 300 people from six villages are affected. The Relocation Committee has been meeting monthly since December 2008. Three relocation sites were proposed by the Relocation Committee; of these Kashundi (9kms from Mutanga) seems to be the best. Support for the Mutanga Community School and Machinga Basic School. Reestablish the 2008 Mutanga vegetable garden project (which failed for lack of water in 2008). DMZL will supply the seed and fertilizer and guarantee to purchase the produce.

Project Plans:

Continue small scale social projects: o o 51

• • •

Expand programs for scholarships, medical and health facilities and schooling. Intention is to work through an independent committee and liaise with local NGO empowerment programs. DMZL’s major shareholder is the founder of the Lundin for Africa Foundation. DMZL’s intention is to involve this NGO in local social projects. Now - DMZL is in the process of applying for the permits required to mine uranium. Later in 2009 – DMZL will apply for a permit to build and operate a uranium processing plant. 2010 – Continue detailed site work. July 2010 to August 2011 – Relocation related activities. January 2012 – First production of uranium.

Production Timetable • • • • •

11:55 AG finished speaking; advised that questions would be fielded after AD had spoken. 11:56 DAO: • Thanked AG for his presentation, • Introduced AD; requested she make her presentation as slow as possible because this section related to people who are to be relocated.

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

H. Environmental Impact Assessment and Relocation Action Plan. (AD) 12:00 Introduced African Mining Consultants • Advised that the legislative background for the project is the 2008 Mines and Minerals Development Act. • This will be the first uranium mine in Zambia; until now there has only been stockpiling of uranium ore at Lumwana; no processing. • To date there DMZL (and OmegaCorp) have only been exploring the Mutanga Project lease; there has not been any mining or production of uranium. • Mining can only proceed if given the “go ahead” by the local community and that of the government of Zambia. • The Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act 1990 applies. o The ECZ will govern the environmental aspects of all current and future projects. o The regulations describe what needs to be done to develop a mine. • The Radiation Protection Board: Legislation is the Ionising Radiation Protection Act 2008. o Ionising radiation can be natural and can be harmful in high amounts.

12:07 Described the environmental assessment process: o Managed by ECZ, Head Office is in Lusaka and local regional office is in Chirundu. • Baseline study has been conducted at site before development. Includes: o Soil o Groundwater, o Surface water, o Local populations, o Air quality etc. Methods and activities are detailed in the legislation: o Terms of Reference (to be used by consultants), o The Public Meeting requirements, o Conducting an Impact Study; developing a report (including management plan – by development consultant) o All these are assessed by the ECZ in its decision whether to permit the operation to proceed. NOTE: Public Disclosure is a key part of the legislation and the process. o Input from local government and local community stakeholders is also an important component.

52

12:13 The Mutanga Project – In Detail • Project life is currently scheduled for 10 years • Two open pit mines – these are large holes from which rock is removed. o One at Mutanga (at the Mutanga village), o One at Dibwe (which is several kms from Dibwe village) NOTE: The Dibwe open pit is not scheduled for commencement until Year 6 of the mining operation, i.e. 2017). • Two heap leach pads. • Two waste rock stockpiles. • A processing plant at Mutanga. • Main access to the mine and plant is via the Zyiba Meenda road. • A power line from Chirundu will follow the Zyiba Meenda road for some of the way. o The electricity substation will be near the processing plant. • • Total area affected by the plant and mine is 32.2sqkm. Affected villages will be relocated – at this stage the planned relocation destination is the Kashundi area, 9kms from Mutanga. o The villages to be relocated are:  Kasambo,  Chilundi,  Kapata,  Chiyobeka,  Malilansolo  Sinanjose o People from these villages have been consulted and their representatives are members of the Relocation Committee meeting which meets monthly.

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Water quality assessment o Three streams have been tested and their baseline mineral levels recorded. o Groundwater from hand pumps and boreholes have been tested and recorded. Quality is “generally fairly good”. Air quality testing o The results are “good” based on radon sampling. NOTE: Radon is a gas, and a daughter product that comes from the radioactive decay of uranium. It can be harmful to people and so its presence needs to be monitored continuously. Flora and Fauna studies o Described the major vegetation types at the site, o Described the prevalent animal species; commented that there are no permanent populations of large mammals but that some elephants (one or several individuals, not any herds) pass through the district from time to time.

12:23 Impacts • The mine is in an area that relies on tourism and fishing (at Siavonga), • The project will encourage district development, • The project will assist national development through the fees and royalties paid by DMZL, • Sustainable projects will be implemented by DMZL and NGOs, • The site’s access road will provide improved accessibility to the area, • There will be improved health and education facilities, • Environmental and social Impacts: o Clearing of vegetation a site, o Possibility of soil contamination, o Possibility of water contaminations form spills. o Air quality – If there was to be blasting at the open pit operation (as in the Copper belt) there would be potential for dust generation. However, the material to be mined is soft and can be dug without blasting – so much less dust generation potential and better air quality than the Copper belt. NOTE: All mines have these risks; the site’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) details these factors and their proposed management. o o Radioactive dust particles are of concern and will be managed by spraying with water to suppress the dust and/or sealing the main access road(s). AD described the process of dewatering the open pit areas. This water will be pumped from bore holes surrounding the pit and is not contaminated. It will be pumped to raw water dams at Mutanga and Dibwe and any excess pumped back into the ground elsewhere. Possible impact from water at the leach pads. AD described the double layer of polypropylene beneath each leach pad and associated leak detection systems. There will be higher noise levels than there are now. This may impact upon the local communities and animals. The management strategy of this issue is to relocate the affected communities and maintain an ongoing monitoring program. 53

o o

• •

Safety and security impacts. The mine’s security team will manage all access points to maximize on site safety and security. Radiation. Under law, DMZL must monitor and manage the emission of ionizing radiation. o o o All employees will be part of the site’s radiation monitoring program. Employees will be trained in radiation management methods to ensure their own protection. A plan detailing the personal protective equipment (PPE) for employees has been developed. DMZL will also ensure public education with the local communities and stakeholders.

Waste. There are no local waste disposal facilities. The site will generate waste metal, containers, wood, plastic, grease/oil and food. A waste management program (detailed in the EIS). o The waste management plan also details how items contaminated with radiation will be managed at site.

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Zambian law requires that a detailed Management Plan requires a General Manager or their representative at site at all times. Safety, Health and Environment (SHE) will be coordinated by the Director of Mine Safety, an onsite Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) and a department staffed by company SHE officers. The storage and transport of radioactive material is given in the EIS. It has been developed in accordance with Zambian law which in turn reflects the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) requirements. A mine water management plan (detailed in the EIS) will be implemented at site. It details the management of clean, dirty, process and uranium contaminated water.

12:41 Relocation Action Plan (RAP) • ….will ensure the local communities are relocated to a safe area. • Follows legislation regarding compensation for loss of home, buildings, fields and income (relocated small shops and guest house). • Relocation statistics: o Six villages, o 107 households, o Approximately 342 people. • Representatives from these villages are involved in the Relocation Committee. o 62 fields, o Some small shops and a guesthouse AD described development of the relocation plan and committee; stated relocation was the ongoing task of Denison’s Community Consultation and Development Coordinator (CCDC) and an independent committee. Denison will: o Clear the Kashundi village site, o Provide a house and a small plot for each household, o Clear a field to replace each one left behind, o Clear old structures, o (with the Ministries of Health and Community Development) assist with the building of a school, clinic and community water bores. Minutes of relocation meetings and photographs will be submitted to the ECZ

54 •

I. Question and Answer Session 12:50 Call for Questions (DAO) Requested that questioners give their name, Chiefdom and/or organization. (Q) Inspector of Mines: Does the company have a health policy; has the company established the status of the community’s health? (A) AG. Yes. DMZL has a strong safety and health policy developed within IAEA guidelines. All employees will be monitored. On site Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) staff will monitor health levels against IAEA guidelines. (Q) Inspector of Mines: Regarding baseline testing. Has there been any lung function tests for local villagers, especially primary school children – pre mining. “To me this is very important?” (A) AG. No. There are no local health facilities so first pass baseline testing has not been possible. DMZL envisages a two year start up time and will use this time (and have the budget) to do this testing. All employees will complete lung function testing before being hired and will be tested regularly throughout their employment. Patrick Makukisi, representing HRH Chief Chipepo. Will there be nuclear power plants in Zambia? (A) AG. This is a matter for the Government of Zambia to pursue, not DMZL. Patrick Makukisi, representing HRH Chief Chipepo. How will the mineral royalties be spent?

(Q) (Q)

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

(A) (Q)

AG. This also is a matter for the Government of Zambia. Denison will pay its taxes and royalties but cannot control how they are used.

Patrick Makukisi, representing HRH Chief Chipepo. The relocated people – will they be affected? (A) AG. What is “affected”?. Everyone will be affected; the majority of the affects will be positive; employment etc. Patrick Makukisi, representing HRH Chief Chipepo. How far is the new community (i.e. the relocation area?) from the open pit? (A) AG. As stated in the presentation, about 9kms. In my experience, about 3kms is sufficient. The company will monitor dust, noise and radiation and any issues arising will be managed.. Patrick Makukisi, representing HRH Chief Chipepo. (How will) the waters and rivers (be affected)? (A) AG. We will have done the test work and proved that we will have no impact on the flow of the rivers. Other water will be got out of the ground – and any excess put back there. Eric Kaluba, Harvest Help, Zambia. How will the company promote and provide education and health in the local area? Local children walk barefoot; how will they be kept away from dumping sites (i.e. ore leaching heaps)? (A) AG. All areas (especially heap leach pads) will be fenced and patrolled by security officers). Eric Kaluba, Harvest Help, Zambia. Radon 22 will be emitted; it will be 14-15 years before it appears. There would be a risk to pregnant women’s children. What safety measures will there be? (A) AG. As part of the monitoring the company will monitor health and safety of people in the community. The company has well established monitoring programs in place in North America. For example, at the White Mesa mill in Utah the company has records that go back 50 years. We can say from this that there has been no negative impact on community health. These programs will be used at Mutanga. Reinforced that safety and health programs for workers and community are important in the uranium business. Eric Kaluba, Harvest Help, Zambia. Investment attracts social life, sex workers and HIV/AIDS. What will happen to our girl children? (A) AG. This is an important question the world over; it is a part of social fabric. It is the responsibility of the company and the whole community, the elders; the seniors – all must manage this. DMZL will assist in the development of schools with the Ministry of Education and engage with NGOs to assist. All stakeholders have to be involved, though DMZL will probably provide the bulk of the funding for these programs. Collins Sitali, National Assembly, Constituency of Siavonga. There has been mines closing down in Zambia, including Munali in the Southern Province. Has the economic climate affected Denison and what measures are in place to prevent the mine closing down? (A) AG. No one that runs a business can be 100% sure it will be 100% successful. Nuclear power stations need a continual supply of (uranium) fuel; they just can’t be turned off. So the operators sign up for long term supply contracts. These negotiations are going on now; the company is looking to confirm a contract of at least 10 years. Should be aware that the long term contract price has nothing to do with the “spot” price. Collins Sitali , National Assembly, Constituency of Siavonga. What happens after 10 years – when the mine is shut down? Will DMZL leave the country? (A) AG: Part of my job description is business development; the company is looking for other projects in southern Africa. Collins Sitali , National Assembly, Constituency of Siavonga. Regarding the long term effects of uranium on the area, will there be a trust fund set up to deal with other issues that may arise? (A) AG: Referred the question to the Mines Safety Department (MSD) representative – asked what programs are in place elsewhere in Zambia? (A) MSD representative: Referred to the incidence of silicosis in the Copper Belt and ongoing programs. Said the MSD will work with DMZL because this will be the first uranium mine in Zambia.

(Q)

(Q)

(Q)

(Q)

(Q)

55

(Q)

(Q)

(Q)

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

(A) (Q)

AG: We will develop programs with the MSD, we want to be a responsible company. AG: Some of the company’s profits will go back into the community via social empowerment programs. It is very difficult to hand out cash; experience shows this doesn’t work.

Rodes Mbamunya, Kafue Businessman: Is it possible to partner/profit share with the community?

(A)
(Q)

Charles Halubanje, Simamba Chiefdom. The road from Kariba Store (at Matuwa) to site – will it be maintained (by DMZL)? (A) AG: The company will do some maintenance on the Simamba road. Reminded all that others use this road and also damage it – e.g. cotton trucks. When the Zyiba Meenda road is installed that is the road the company vehicles (and the cotton trucks) will use. We need to work with the District of Siavonga on the Simamba road; treat it as a joint long term project. Charles Halubanje, Simamba Chiefdom. Will the company be involved in the maintenance of the Siavonga airstrip? (A) AG: An air strip is not a priority for the company, we do not need one. The search for an alternative will be a long term project for the Siavonga District Council. The airstrip is currently under water and is regularly covered with water. Charles Halubanje, Simamba Chiefdom. There is one hospital in the district, will the company maintain the road to it? (A) AG: The company will be building a new hospital at Kashundi. Oliver Muunga, Siavonga community. 62 fields will be affected by mining; how many hectares? (A) AD: Consultants measured and valued the fields. The company proposes to replace these with the same area at the new village, after ensuring that the ground is at least fertile as the old fields. Each household will be compensated individually. Oliver Muunga, Siavonga community. How many people will be employed at the mine; how many people will benefit from the mine? (A) AG: Construction will be 15 months and will employ about 1,500 people. There will be 385 people when the mine is operating; as many as possible will come from local community. The company needs to develop education programs to train locals. (Commented that he knew everyone wants a job but decisions will be made on skill levels). Joseph Musonda, Sinadambwe Chiefdom, Waste management business in Lusaka. The HDPE membrane lining the heap leach pads will only last 400 years, what happens then? Also, how will the pads be monitored once the company leaves? (A) AG: The heap leach process takes up to six months to extract 90% of the uranium from the ore on the pads. The ore is very low grade and, six months after treatment commences, there will be only 10% less. This is likely to be less than the local, naturally occurring levels. There won’t be any acid left after 400 years; it is consumed during the process. The company will have a presence long after the mine is closed. To use a North American example, 30 years after the operation closed monitoring of the site is still being done. Monitoring will continue until the level of contamination is at minimum levels; the specific levels to be agreed with the ECZ and MSD. HRH Chief Simamba. Regarding infrastructure. Will the buildings be of temporary or permanent construction style? Requested that permanent structures be built so they can be donated at the end of mining. (A) AG: The plan is to build buildings with concrete block construction and they will be donated once the mine closes down. The processing plant will be of no use to the local community so it will be sold when no longer required. The power line and the roads will stay. HRH Chief Simamba. What plans are there in place to ensure the local animals are OK? AG: The company has discussed building a viable game farm on the site and would hand this over to the community upon mine closure. All operational areas will be fenced to prevent animal access as much as possible. Gave an example in Botswana where a 2.4m high fence was built around the entire site and all animals inside captured and relocated. Within six months there were 3 leopards and 20 kudu residing inside; they had jumped the fence. (A) AD: The Company will minimise habitat destruction on the mining lease and will leave vegetation corridors

(Q)

(Q)

(Q)

(Q)

56

(Q)

(Q)

(Q) (A)

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

(Q)

Prisca Chilundu – Sinandambwe Chiefdom. What plans have you put in place for women’s affairs? (A) AG: The company is now working with NGOs regarding women’s empowerment programs. The company CCDC will be conducting a survey to investigate what women want. Derek Velemu Councilor Sikoongo ward. The company left open drill holes after the exploration program. What are the plans for these holes (A) AG: The holes will be capped or backfilled. Derek Velemu Councilor Sikoongo ward. What support is the company providing to communities around Mutanga now? (A) AG: Referred to a vegetable garden project which failed due to lack of water? This program will be reintroduced – with a water supply this time. There has been some support for the Mutanga Community School and the Machinga state school. The company provides transport if there is a vehicle available. The greatest contribution has been employment of up to 200 people over the past four years; this has had a very big impact on the local communities. When the project is approved (by the Zambian government and Denison Mines’ Board of Management) a very big drilling program is needed before construction can begin. A lot of people will be reemployed then. Mary Matope, Sinadambwe Chiefdom. Will you be bringing in workers from the outside? (A) AG: Every time we need to employ someone we look to see can do the job, starting at the local villages, then in Siavonga, then in Zambia and finally, internationally. So, people are only brought if suitably skilled people cannot be found locally. Peter Hagunze Councilor ibbwe munyama. Regarding relocation. Is the new village area big enough to cater for new children, visitors and returning relatives? (A) AG: Yes – but note that the size will be a relocation committee decision. The committee proposed three areas; they need to be assessed to check (i) If there is any economic uranium deposits, (ii) the ground fertility. The company will assist with the farmers’ first crops to make sure everything is suitable before relocation occurs. The decision regarding the proximity of the village to the farms will be a joint process with the community. The company will not just say “This is how it is to be done”. Serbion Sikongo, Sinadambwe Chiefdom. Why have people been laid off when you say the mine is being developed? (A) AG: Denison was affected by the global economic crisis; it could not get any money for further work programs at the end of 2008. However the world outlook is looking better so we hope to get busy again soon. Serbion Sikoongo Sinandambwe Chiefdom. We are told uranium is dangerous. How will the people who have been laid off be looked after? (A) AG: If it can be proved that they have developed health issues attributable to their employment then they will be looked after.

(Q)

(Q)

(Q)

(Q)

(Q)

57

(Q)

14:15 End of Question and Answer Sessions 14:15 Comments Session DC Delegated DAO to speak on her behalf. We have discussed, we have asked questions, questions have been answered. Now we wait decisions. Thanks to the management of Denison for calling this meeting. It has not been easy to arrange, but it is a requirement under Zambian laws. A message to local girls: The mine will bring young men; study them, you will have many to choose from. I wish DMZL success (in this project) for the betterment of the District. Thank you very much. DC Delegated DAO to speak on her behalf. We have discussed, we have asked questions, questions have been answered. Now we wait decisions. Thanks to the management of Denison for calling this meeting. It has not been easy to arrange, but it is a requirement under Zambian laws. A message to local girls: The mine will bring young men; study them, you will have many to choose from. I wish DMZL success (in this project) for the betterment of the District. Thank you very much. MSD Representative: Advised that AG/DMZL is asking for permission to come and invest. Positives are employment, clinic construction, rehabilitation of road. Potential negative impacts are possible, for example, the

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

long term effects of uranium. Urged DMZL to work with the ECZ and MSD to ensure worker health. Said he had been in the MSD for 21 years and wants to say that when investors invest and are told to make safety improvements, they usually go to politicians to short cut the system. He doesn’t want this to happen with this project. He begged DMZL to “complete the job” at the level of mines inspector to reduce the risk of injuries and fatalities. In closing, “You (DMZL), are welcome to come and invest”. RPA Representative: Apologised for coming late, had to come from Choma. Appealed to the investor to work with the RPA because radiation is a risk to health and worldwide security. Urged DMZL to provide the necessary protection to its workers, the environment and surrounding communities. Urged local mine workers to follow the protocols given to them. Use the PPE that is supplied; “Ensure you know what PPE you should have and, if it’s not provided, approach the RPA – who will visit as Inspectors. Said that the RPA are already working with DMZL and urged DMZL to continue doing so. HRH Chief Sinadambwe: Welcome officials and all other guests to his Chiefdom. Stated this is the first time his Chiefdom had seen such a gathering. The reason is to agree to unite with DMZL – it’s important to meet, gather, ask, discuss because things will be difficult to change if they are not discussed. Thanked DMZL for bringing employment and guaranteeing employment for locals if the mine proceeds. Urged those who are interested to approach DMZL to register their interest. Stated, “This is the honey that has dropped for us; we have been producing nothing and we are poor”. Asked gathering to raise their hands if they were from Sinadambwe Chiefdom; keep hands up if they are women with a grade 12 education or higher? (Two people). Asked how many men from Sinadambwe with grade 12 or higher? Answered himself, “Very few”. All four Chiefdoms will benefit from employment. “We don’t want a quarrel, but there must be an agreed bias towards Sinadambwe people”. Suggested 60%; “skilled or unskilled”. Said he wants to appoint the Human Resources (HR) person to the mine – will hunt for a suitable candidate. Said he must be involved in this process or otherwise an HR person from “outside” will be appointed. Joked that an outsider will only employ Lozis. In regards to relocation, said the company has already done what it must do [i.e. census and valuations]. Said that some people are saying that they don’t intend to move because they were relocated once before. Said that, as Chief, he had already endorsed the relocation, that the government has endorsed the relocation – so that is what must happen. Appealed to the six villages [to be relocated], “Please move – but be observant; has what was promised been delivered?” Said, “We want this development”. Said, “It is important we all move together. If you choose to remain you will go alone; who will support you?” “Once you have been paid [compensated] your life will improve”. “We were invited, we have met and discussed, there are records and we know where to find them [the company]”. “There is a change in all Chiefdoms, now companies are required to pay money (a percentage of profits) to Chiefdoms”. Said that he wants to bank this for the Chiefdom; he wants cash, not just schools and clinics. Appealed for another meeting with the DC’s office, Council Secretary and DMZL to Minutes – decide upon the social responsibilities. Referred to two other Chiefs who received an endowment fund. Referred to the Zyiba Meenda road; said it will end here [at the mine site] – wants it extended to his palace. Said, “Thank you” to the mining company; added he was not upset or angry but, “It should not be a habit that you say - and I follow. It should be negotiated with me”. In closing; thanked all for coming and said to go with God’s blessing. Added he is comfortable [with the meeting] – “I am old so I am getting wiser”. Area Member of Parliament’s Representative Mr L. Haziiba : Apologised on behalf of the MP; said he had parliamentary commitments. Said the proposed development was very welcome to this ward and district as a whole. It will uplift the standard of living for our people.

58

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Said he was glad to hear DMZL’s corporate responsibility – the old and new schools, clinic and social facilities. Appealed that DMZL at all times adheres to international standards; to reduce accidents and illnesses that may be attributed to uranium. Added that uranium is new to the Zambian people so they will need to be sensitized – and have ongoing sensitization. Said that DMZL should also improve local water supplies; added that this was a point for the communities and the relocation village. 14:55 Vote of Thanks (Roger Staley, Exploration/Country Manager, DMZL) 15:00 Closing Prayer (Ethel Maguswi, DMZL Staff) 15:01 Meeting Closed (DAO)

Minutes submitted by: R Staley (Signed)

Approved by: A Goode (Signed)

59

Appendix 5. Minutes of the Lumwana Uranium EIA Public Consultation

60

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

61

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

62

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

63

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

64

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

65

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

66

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

67

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

68

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

69

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

70

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

71

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

72

Appendix 6. Lumwana uranium awareness document

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

73

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

74

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

75

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

76

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

77

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

78

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

79

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

80

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

81

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

82

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

83

Review of the Uranium Mining Policy in Zambia

84

ISBN 998207461-X

Council of Churches in Zambia

9 789982 074612

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful