-CBNRM in The Post: Civil Society Objects to Mining Project in Lower Zambezi

The Post

Monday, March 18th, 2013

Civil society objects to mining project in Lower Zambezi                       

By: Kabanda Chulu

Construction of a mining project in the Lower Zambezi National Park should not take place because the developers have not demonstrated technical and institutional capacity to meet Zambian environmental regulations, says the civil society.

Giving an update on the proposed mining activities in the Lower Zambezi national park, Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) representative David Ngwenyama said the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted by Zambezi Resources failed to meet the minimum technical standards for a project of the magnitude proposed.

He said according to the EIS, the developer would transport all the copper concentrates from the mine site to smelters on the Copperbelt.

“The developer proposes moving 160 tonnes of concentrates per day using 6×30 tonne trucks. This is likely to lead increased pressure on and damage to roads. In addition, this has a very high risk of hazard waste spillage and increases accident risks throughout the transportation route,” Ngwenyama said. “Proceeding with the project may lead to severe impacts on the country’s economy since it is more likely to lead to significant costs and no significant benefits.”

He said the poor quality of the EIS showed a lack of preparedness, seriousness and professional competence by the developer.

“The EIS lacks clarity on basic issues such as the life of the proposed mine and fails to provide comprehensive analysis of projected impacts of the mine as well as fails to provide a necessary environmental management plan,” Ngwenyama said, adding that the project would conflict the provisions of several regional, bilateral and multilateral agreements including SADC protocols on shared water courses, forestry, tourism, wildlife and UNESCO world heritage sites.

In September 2012, Zambia Environmental Management (ZEMA) rejected the copper mining project citing  various environmental concerns.

But the developers appealed to environment minister Wilbur Simuusa for possible consideration.

Since then, Simuusa has not yet made a decision on whether to endorse the ZEMA position or reject it to allow mining to go ahead.

 

– ATTN MEMBERS: Proposal Writing and Fundraising Techniques Training Course Opportunity

ATTENTION CBNRM FORUM MEMBERS,

The Zambia Community Based Natural Resource Management Forum would like to support four currently updated CBNRM Forum Members to attend a “Proposal Writing and Fundraising Techniques Training Course” held at Tsopano Centre, Lusaka on February 11th-15th, 2013.

Please email your application in the form of a letter of interest to zcbnrm.org@gmail.com
Include the following details: Name, Organisation, Position, Email, Phone Number

Deadline for receiving applications by the CBNRM Forum Secretariat is: Tuesday February 5, 2013.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

PROPOSAL WRITING AND FUNDRAISING TECHNIQUES TRAINING COURSE

11th – 15th February, 2013 – TSOPANO CENTRE, LUSAKA

 

Course Content

·         Project design: main elements of a project with emphasis on how the project’s design attracts or repels donors

·         Principles of fundraising: Why write proposals? Who reads proposals? What do proposal evaluators look for?

·         Understanding and cultivating donor relationships: How to keep an active relationship with the donor, following guidelines, the power of communication, etc

·         Learning from others: Examples from organisations that have succeeded in mobilising substantial grants from donors

·         Interactive sessions with donor agencies/organisations: Meet and discuss face to face with the people that make decisions regarding your project proposals

·         ‘Take away project’: Work individually and seek guidance from colleagues on your own ‘take away’ project proposal

·         Useful guides and resources: Free resources that will get you started on your journey to raising resources for your organisation

·         Expert trainers: Trainers who have both theoretical and hands on expertise in the field

Target Group

Anyone who is working in a project environment, desires to work in projects or wishes to better understand the workings of NGOs and donors. Employees need not necessarily be employees in an NGO. Individuals seeking to develop new networks and linkages are welcome

 

Fees, Venue and Registration

The course fee will amount to 2,000 ZMW (Zambian Kwacha rebased) which includes:

–       5 days training course

–       Refreshments, tea breaks & lunch meals

–       Training material

–       Certificate of Participation

The training course will be taking place at the Tsopano Centre, 20 Tito Road, Rhodes Park from 09:00 hrs to 16:30 hrs daily on the proposed dates.

Email: admin@civilsocietycenter.org or matt.zingel@civilsocietycenter.org for details or call 0965 200736/0211258792

– CBD CoP 11- Ministerial Briefing

CBD COP 11-SADC Ministerial Briefing Meeting

1.         Introduction

1.1       The negotiations at the CBD-COP 10 held in Nagoya, Japan in 2010 were centred on three key elements, namely: the adoption of the Strategic Plan 2011-2020; the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resource and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefit arising from their Utilization (Nagoya Protocol on ABS) and the provision of adequate resources to implement the Strategic Plan and the Nagoya Protocol on ABS.

1.2       These three issues were regarded as a linked package of outcomes by the African Group and most of the developing countries. During the negotiation process, these issues were adopted; however a plan on the provision of adequate resources was not adopted.

2.         Key issues for COP 11

2.1       This COP is expected to consider the status and implementation of the Nagoya Protocol on ABS, the Strategic Plan 2011 to 2020, resource mobilisation and financial mechanism (GEF) and Budget. Other key issues include marine and coastal biodiversity; periodicity of COP and COP-MOP meetings.

2.1.1   Status and Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol on ABS

            The Protocol will enter into force after the deposit of the 50th Instrument of Ratification, Acceptance, Approval or Accession. To date only seven countries, namely Gabon, Rwanda, Seychelles, Mexico, Jordan, and Micronesia and Lao (People’s Democratic Republic of), have ratified the Protocol. As such, the first meeting of the Parties (COP-MOP 1) could not take place to discuss further action and implementation of the Protocol following the outcomes of the 1st and 2nd of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Protocol (ICNP).

This is a result of the diversity of circumstances of different countries, for example, in relation to their constitutional obligations, some countries require extensive consultation processes before signing and depositing an instrument of ratification which necessitates additional financial, human and technical resources.

Developing countries have raised issues around accessing of resources directed at ratification of the Protocol. As such, the SADC region should request this COP to give clear guidance to the GEF on the financing mechanism for the Protocol and the extension of the Implementation Fund for the Nagoya Protocol.

The SADC member states should therefore be encouraged to expedite the ratification process and also encourage other Parties, particularly those from the African region to fast-track the process of ratifying or acceding to the Protocol and also allocate resources for national implementation. It is in the interest of the African continent and the developing countries, which possess the majority of biodiversity and genetic resources, to ensure that the Protocol enters into force as soon as possible.

The SADC region should support the convening of the proposed third meeting of the ICNP with clear direction, timeframes and funding.

2.1.2   Implementation of the Strategic Plan

Ministers will recall that the CBD COP10 in Nagoya in 2010 adopted the Strategy Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its Aichi Targets, and urged Parties to implement it. The COP urged developed country Parties to provide adequate, predictable and timely financial support to developing country Parties to enable the full and effective implementation of the Strategic Plan. The SADC region is encouraged to make efforts to access these funds and also proceed with implementing those activities which are less resource or funding intensive. Ministers should take note that effective implementation of the Strategic Plan will require adequate budgetary allocations.

2.1.3   Resource Mobilization & Guidance to the Financial Mechanism (GEF)

Ministers will recall that at COP 9, a resource mobilization strategy to assist Parties in establishing national targets, goals as well as action for enhancing international financial flows and domestic funding for biological diversity was adopted. COP 10 agreed on a process to establish concrete financing targets for the implementation of the Strategic Plan (2011-2020).

Up to now there has been some resistance by the developed country Parties to establish concrete financing targets. COP 11 discussions have focused mainly on technical aspects such as which year or period of years should be used for calculating ‘robust’ baselines or a need for clear reporting framework targets. On the other hand, the developing countries support international financing targets to fund the implementation of the strategy.

 

Developed countries are pushing to include private and innovative finance mechanisms in the establishment of financing targets as an element of great importance, while signaling for an increase of biodiversity funding through Official Development Assistance (ODA) arrangements.

2.1.4   Budget

Under this item, the Conference of the Parties is invited to adopt a programme budget for the biennium 2013-2014 to meet the core administrative costs of the Conference of the Parties and the meetings of all subsidiary bodies and the Secretariat.

COP 10 requested the secretariat to prepare and provide three alternatives for the core programme budget for the biennium 2013-2014 based on the following options:

• Option 1:  based on the assessed growth of 22.7%.

• Option 2:  based on 7.5% growth

• Option 3:  based on 2011-2012 nominal terms

The Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity highlighted that the proposed budget is based on the increased workload that is not fully supported by the current budget allocation. The increased workload is a result of among others: adoption of the ABS protocol and subsequent activities; development of major initiative aimed at local authorities and cities as well as South-South activities based on COP decision; increasing requests for activities and cooperation on agriculture which includes biofuels; new engagements on business; increase in public awareness, and increase work on CHM etc. The afore-mentioned activities have overstretched the Secretariat’s capacity thereby hampering the effective delivery of the Secretariats mandate.

Each budget option was analysed by Parties and implications in terms of staffing, meetings of the subsidiary bodies, the Conference of the Parties and the first meeting of the Parties to the Nagoya Protocol.

The issues of concern to the SADC Member States are the following:

  • There is a proposal to reduce the languages that are interpreted during subsidiary body meetings, i.e. only three UN languages to be used. This proposal is not supported by SADC Member States as it would disadvantage other Parties .
  • SADC member states are encouraged to support that the COP/MOP meetings of the Nagoya Protocol and the Cartagena Protocol should be held concurrently. However it should be noted that this will have some cost implications. For this reason it will be important to ensure that the core budget is adequately resourced to accommodate all the meetings of the subsidiary bodies of the Convention.

 

2.1.5   Marine and Coastal Biodiversity

Ministers will recall that the CBD-COP10 requested the Executive Secretary to organize a series of regional workshops to facilitate the description of ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine areas (EBSAs), with a view to include the endorsed workshop reports in a repository. These reports are to be submitted to the United Nations General Assembly and particularly its Ad Hoc Open ended Informal Working Group on diversity management in areas beyond national jurisdiction, as well as relevant international organizations, Parties and other Governments. EBSAs can be both inside and or outside areas of national jurisdiction.

During the last meeting of the Scientific and Technical Body of the CBD, it was noted that none of the African sub-regions had participated in EBSA workshops. The Secretariat promised to have such workshops with immediate effect. A workshop on EBSAs was convened and held in July 2012, in Mauritius for the South Indian Ocean Region.

Developing countries should support the recommendation that the outcomes of the workshops should be shared with the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) process that is considering the management of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This will ensure that that the UNGA process for improved management of biodiversity in the high seas is supported.

Additionally, the current link between marine and coastal biodiversity and the eradication of poverty and economic development should be emphasized. This concept acknowledges the significance of the of growing resource and economic potential of ocean ecosystems particularly for the developing world.

2.1.6   Periodicity of COP and COP-MOP meetings

Ministers will recall that currently CBD COP meetings are convened every two years with intersessional meetings of other bodies. The developed countries are motivating for the extension of the period between meetings on the grounds of financial constraints. However, developing countries are advocating for the retention of the two year periodicity of meetings. This is because biodiversity issues remain a priority for developing countries. Conceding to the extension will have serious negative implications on the effective implementation of the Convention and its Protocols.

– Zambia CSO CBD COP 11 in India

ZAMBIA CSO CBD COP 11 UPDATE

By

Billy Lombe, Vincent Ziba and Mrs Chilwesa

The following are the update form the CBD CoP11 in India.

The first day was characterized by official opening and handing over of the presidency by Japan to India. The Japanese Former Environment Minister, Mr Ryu Matsumoto and former CoP 10 President expressed warm support from parties around the world during his term. He handed over the presidency to the Minister of Environment and Forest of India, Ms Jayanthi Natarajan who called for Cop 11 to come up with a road map for implementing the Nagoya outcomes.

The official opening was latter followed by two working group (WG) meetings. Working group one (WG1) focusing on discussing issues on the Island Biodiversity and Ecosystem while group two (WG2) focused on the implementation of the Strategic Plan and progress towards the Aichi targets.

Day two was characterized by two main working groups and various side meetings. Working group I addressed marine and coastal biodiversity, REDD+ safeguards and geoengineering. Working group Group  II continued discussions on implementation of the Strategic Plan and addressed issues related to financial resources and the financial mechanism.

This update will focus on discussions on REDD by WG1

REDD+: The AFRICAN GROUP represented by Ethiopia and MALAYSIA supported “taking note” of advice on the application of relevant country-specific biodiversity safeguards. The Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC) said that countries should develop national safeguard systems according to UNFCCC COP decisions. The EU supported advice on safeguards, highlighting that the COP should consider means of monitoring and assessing the impacts of REDD+ on biodiversity.

BOLIVIA said there is not a common understanding on what REDD+ is, suggesting to either avoid reference to the abbreviation or add reference to the Bolivian Joint Mitigation and Adaptation Mechanism for the Integral and Sustainable Management of Forests as an alternative non-market based approach. EL SALVADOR underscored the need to emphasize both adaptation and mitigation. BRAZIL and INDIA said information on safeguards has to be country-driven. BRAZIL further cautioned that the issue of forests is not reduced to REDD+.

INDONESIA favored a mandate for the conference Secretariat to compile information on potential effects of REDD+ activities on indigenous and local communities. The FAO reported on exploring synergies with the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade initiative. The GLOBAL FOREST COALITION lamented priority attached to REDD+ instead of other forest biodiversity issues.

 

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND AICHI TARGETS: Establishment of national targets and NBSAP updating: Argentina called for a strong participatory process when reviewing NBSAPs. IUCN stressed that NBSAPs are essential to integrate biodiversity into broader societal goals. The FAO said its national focal points could contribute to designing NBSAPs.

FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND MECHANISM: Review of implementation of the Resource Mobilization Strategy: The Secretariat introduced the item and  Pavan Sukhdev, Chair of the high-level panel on global assessment of resources, introduced the panel’s report underscoring that implementation of some targets requires investment of several hundreds of billions of US dollars.

GRULAC highlighted the need for new, additional, predictable and adequate financial resources, and suggested that national trust funds complement the Convention’s financial provisions by channeling international resources. The AFRICAN GROUP called for a 20% annual increase in international financial flows to developing countries and for clarity on markets, offsets and innovative financial mechanisms. NORWAY underscored the need to combine efforts on resource mobilization, track biodiversity funding, and create enabling conditions. AUSTRALIA opposed setting quantitative targets specific to official development assistance.

CANADA stressed the need to monitor parties’ implementation of the strategy and the importance of national assessments to establish baselines, expressing readiness to discuss targets once parties have completed their data collection process. PERU highlighted the need for capacity building, and ARGENTINA for funding, for countries to undertake national assessments of needs and gaps. JAPAN considered it premature to adopt a baseline and targets at COP 12. KIRIBATI emphasized the importance of agreeing on funding targets at this meeting, noting that available data is sufficient. INDIA explained that setting targets now, even on an interim basis, would build confidence among parties. MEXICO said it would be a “serious mistake” to delay implementation. COSTA RICA called for guidelines for information collection and analysis.

The PHILIPPINES supported adopting the preliminary reporting framework for resource mobilization. BOLIVIA affirmed that the framework’s indicators should also consider collective action taken by indigenous peoples and local communities. Highlighting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, CHINA noted the framework should be voluntary for developing countries.

GEF: The Secretariat introduced the item (UNEP/CBD/COP/11/4, 8 and 15/Rev.2). Delegates heard reports on GEF’s biodiversity-related activities during the first two years of GEF-5 and the expert panel’s analysis of funding needs for GEF-6.

GEF report: MEXICO proposed a simpler methodology to improve clarity on GEF’s rationale for allocating resources.

Guidance to the financial mechanism: COLOMBIA stressed stable funding for NBSAPs. The PHILIPPINES said national portfolio formulation infringed on states’ sovereignty and should be revised. GHANA, with many, said the COP should request GEF to improve the timeliness of financial support. JAPAN and NORWAY suggested extending the Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund (NPIF) until COP 12. NAMIBIA and KIRIBATI urged streamlining of GEF processes, with NAMIBIA suggesting calling on GEF to “contract directly through recipients rather than with the usual GEF agents,” for disbursements from NPIF.

NAGOYA PROTOCOL: Janet Lowe (New Zealand) and Fernando Casas (Colombia), Co-Chairs of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Nagoya Protocol (ICNP), reported on ICNP 1 and 2 outcomes. The Secretariat introduced draft decisions (UNEP/CBD/COP/11/6).

NAMIBIA recommended the COP monitor implementation of CBD Article 15 (Access to Genetic Resources) by CBD parties that are not parties to the Protocol. MEXICO stressed that activities to promote the Protocol’s ratification and implementation be funded by the core budget. CAMEROON cautioned against delaying COP 12 to 2015, to increase momentum for ratification.

– ZEMA Raises Concern Over Proposed Copper Project

The Post, Thursday September 13, 2012                                          Home News Pg5

ZEMA raises concern over proposed copper project:

By Gift Chanda and Kabanda Chulu

ZEMA yesterday rejected the environmental impact assessment submissions for the proposed US$494 million Kangaluwi copper project that was projected to be established in 2015 in the Lower Zambezi National Park.

Zambezi Resources, which is a Bermuda-registered and Australian securities-listed company, had projected to commence copper production in 2015 at its Kangaluwi project located near Luangwa district.

The Kangaluqi project’s mine life was estimated to be in excess of 25 years while the decommissioning and closure cost of the project was estimated at US$260,000.

However, Zambia Environmental Management Agency (ZEMA) spokesperson Irene Chipili yesterday said the project has been rejected, citing various environmental concerns.

“The Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) will be located in the Zambezi escarpment. The area is prone to earthquakes and it is therefore risky to put up a TSF as the chances of failure are high. If the TSF was to fail, the impact would be significant and would extend to neighboring countries,”  Chipili said. “The mine is located about 30 km from the Mana Pools world heritage site in Zimbabwe. Any possible failure of TSF or abnormal discharge of effluent would negatively affect the World Heritage site.”

She said the issue of Acid Rock Drainage (ARD) and metal leaching has not been addressed.

“The environmental impact statement (EIS) which was submitted states that levels 112 meters to 116 meters contain material that has the potential to generate acid and yet no mitigation measures both in the short and long term have been outlined. The impact of ARD would be significant especially after the mine has been closed,” Chipili said. “The proposed site is not suitable for the nature of the project since it is located in the middle of a national park and the adverse impact of open pit mining would therefore permanently destroy the landscape of the Park, thereby reducing the tourism value of the Lower Zambezi National Park, which is one of the four major national parks in the country.”

She said the footprint of the mine would increase when the road is widened and the power line is constructed.

“The integrity of the national park will therefore be compromised and in the long term the ecological value would be affected,” said Chipili. “The estimate of mine life is not based on verifiable facts as the EIS is full of contradictions and the benefits from the mining operations may be for a very short period of time but the consequences may be far more reaching.”

Recently, environmental activists, including the Earth Organisation, advised the government to thoroughly analyse the impact of mining on the environment and wildlife as a result of the proposed Kangaluwi copper project.