GUEST COLUMNIST: Why ban on massive mineral concentrate exports matters

Equitable and rational use of our natural resources is not only a choice, but also a legitimate requirement as well as a national policy. Wise and rational utilisation of the natural resources strongly consider environmental protection and conservation as part of sustainable development and utilisation.

Therefore, the “notion” that all natural resources shall be wisely utilised for the benefit of all Tanzanians is not a subject of debate, but rather an assertion of an endowment right; and that is exactly what President John Magufuli is striving to accomplish.

While that is the national stand, there is also a global attitude of zero tolerance for dishonesty and untoward business conduct in connection with international business corporations with interest on natural resources exploration and extraction.

Equitable business operation requires transparency and satisfaction of the relevant parties. Reputable international business companies are very much aware that they ought to adhere to the international norms and practices in their business operations, particularly, when in developing countries.

They must heed to environmental matters, national interests, social and community development and going step further by providing relevant guidance where knowledge is lacking and not taking advantage of their hosts’ shortfalls and challenges for deception and exploitation.

Given the above understanding, it may be morally devastating to many environmentalists and even majority of the populace to learn that thousands of tonnes of soil/sand, (leave apart the riches in it) have been exploited from our heritage over a decade and exported to foreign countries with disregard to environmental degradation and the resultant adverse impacts to humans and biodiversity.

Thanks to President Magufuli, who unveiled this situation and decided to stop further exportation of the tonnes of the sand mineral concentrates.

The present Environmental Management Act (EMA) and the subsequent Regulations, GN No 348 of 2005 and GN No. 349 of 2005, which call for mandatory Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for mining, only came in effect in 2004 while quite a number of small scale miners and big global companies were already in operation much earlier.

Therefore, very little, if at all, consideration was given to what would happen to the massive open deep pits/underground caves in the mining areas after all the resources have been depleted.

Most parts of the district(s) where mining is being carried out will be in awful and dangerous conditions. Decommissioning Plans as per Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Reports/Statements (EISs) require proper restoration of project areas to almost their original natural aesthetic nature.

But, in this case, a question arises on how it can be done in the absence of the requisite filling material that was not reserved for the purpose but otherwise taken away completely to other countries where the same cannot be easily sourced again.

Sourcing it locally will amount into changing the scenery/aesthetic nature of other areas and of course result in negative impacts to humans and other organisms.

Obviously, piling in series will have effects on environmental setting and usage. One could imagine its usage as landfill, road construction or reclamation projects that would require such huge quantities of sand and wonder whether this would have been the wisest approach for sourcing the material.

Two hundred containers or so for every consignment can be estimated at 2000 metric tonnes, considering 10 tonnes per container as the lowest quantity.

A simple evaluation of the number of attained moved from our land to overseas annually and consequently for the entire period the companies have been in operation (19 years +). If for example, export is done once per month; that will be 24,000 metric tonnes per year and 456,000 metric tonnes for the period of 19 years one company has been in operation. Amounts become more alarming as you consider more companies. Substantial/undue amounts are also taken as samples during the prospecting process in the camouflage of geological assessments.

Heaps in the processing and smelting sites in those countries would cause environmental menace in absence of gainful disposal plans. What makes these companies require the sand so eagerly regardless of high costs incurred for exportation, handling, processing and storage vis-a-vis establishing a processing/smelting plant here is perplexing.

In the absence of a clear-cut answer, one could imagine possibilities of gainful disposal plans; obviously, more paying than the said costs, without considering the undeclared minerals.

For example, one of the rewarding disposal plans in this regard could probably include contractual undertaking of road construction, land fill projects or reclamation process that would require such amounts of earth from outside; otherwise, piles would cause a lot of environmental problems.

If that is the case, one would question adherence to the international norms and practices stated above.

Environmentalists and the public at large, should join hands with our President and his probe teams to ensure that no more earth is removed from our country to overseas while considerations are taken on board for restoration and rehabilitation process at the closure of the mining projects countrywide.

If restoration is not in the agreement, the government will be compelled to spend a lot of money in the end for the work; which, worst of all, will amount into changing the aesthetic nature of other areas where filling material will be sourced.

Even after the good work done by the Presidential appointed committees to probe into the disputed sand mineral concentrate consignment and the amicable agreements attained, the mining companies have insistently claimed they would still seek further negotiations with the government for permission to continue with the export of sand mineral concentrates though instruction from President Magufuli and recommendations of the probe committees state clearly that processing would have to be done here.

Why demand to continue with export of the concentrates regardless of their understanding of the unbearable negative impacts that cannot be mitigated without severely impacting other areas?

On Friday, November 17, 2017, the media came with an extract: “The National Assembly has endorsed a bill to revamp the National Shipping Agency (Nasaco) by turning it into a new entity with a sole mandate to carry out clearing and forwarding functions related to the export of mineral concentrates among other things”.

Probably, “Mineral Concentrates” should be understood as “composite of minerals” and not “sand mineral concentrates” because our President has declared that all mineral sorting/smelting have to be done in the country.

We would pray this resolution is honoured and effected without excuses because continuing with exports in the name of sand mineral concentrates will in the long run leave vast areas of the mineral rich districts unsuitable for habitation and pose threats to humans and biodiversity.

If this strong need for the sand mineral concentrate export is still in pursuit by the extraction companies as it repeatedly appears in various newspapers in February it would be wise that environmental concerns should take precedence over monetary considerations in discussions and consequently refuse entirely to sell our country in lots.

President Magufuli and the Vice President, Ms Samia Suluhu Hassan, (under whom the environmental issues fall) are very much aware of the impacts of such exports, but we, also, must come up and support their efforts determinedly and with diligence.

When actions are taken with due meticulousness as exemplified by the president’s approach, the fear of losing loyal investors does not resurface as earlier echoed by various prominent people including politicians and lawyers.

After all, as a sovereign state, leave apart this genuine case, if a contract was entered through grave mistakes, either unscrupulously or unwittingly, and later found to be strangling the nation, action must be taken erring on the safe side even if it means paying compensations or incurring other manageable losses.

Finding how and why the mistakes occurred will follow latter for betterment after securing the situation.

The writer is a NEMC registered Environmental Management expert and known environmental activist