|
Tiomin Objection Comments |
|
|
|
1.1 The National Council of NGOs represents about 1,500 Non-Governmental Organizations working in various sectors of development. The NGOs provide valuable services to local populations in the absence/inadequacy of government services. Some of these organizations have several years of experience working to assist the social and economic development of people in all districts in Kenya - the very districts in which mining companies are now increasingly showing interest of operating. Some currently support grass-roots self-help development projects in some of these areas. These organizations do not provide these services to the local people out of a sense of charity but from a belief that people have basic rights. Their fundamental tenet is that assisting people to acquire enough to eat, a livelihood, a home, clean water, a safe environment etc. is not an act of charity but an obligation on our part to ensure that people have what is theirs by right as human beings. 1.2 It is from this same starting point that all human beings have fundamental social, economic, political, civil and cultural rights that the effects of large-scale mining on local (host) communities should be judged. If we accept these rights, as set down in various United Nations Declarations, international conventions and Charters, then this has certain implications on the way Messrs Tiomin Resources Incorporated should go about their business in Kenya and Kwale for this matter. 1.3 The NGO Council, being cognizant of the principles of sustainable development is not against development so long as it is environmentally sound and equitable. The need for Kenya to attract foreign investment for the economy to grow is clear. However, the available minerals in the country need to be exploited for the benefit of all in a bid to eradicate poverty that afflicts over 54% of the Kenyan populace. 1.4 The basis of our objection as explained here below stems from the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act Section 3(1) that states “Every person in Kenya is entitled to a clean and healthy environment and has the duty to safeguard and enhance the environment.” 1.5 Our response is also pursuant to the final public notice that appeared in the Daily Nation of 5 th February 2003 requesting for submission of objections to the application for a special mining lease by Messrs Tiomin Resources Inc. of P. O. Box 40034, 00100 GPO, Nairobi, Kenya within a period of 90 days. The said Notice was given by virtue of Regulation 33 of the Mining Regulations of the Mining Act Cap. 306. 1.6 Our objection is as a result of a process that started by the commissioning of an independent Environmental Impact Assessment Report by Coast Rights Forum [1] - copies of which were made available to the Ministry - and the subsequent conference that was held in Ukunda between 19 th and 21 st June 2000. We also organized two roundtable discussions- on 19 th July 2000 and 20 th September 2000 – where various experts deliberated on this issue in detail. We have also been able to discuss this project at various local and international fora. 1.7 We have also extensively looked at the documents that have been produced by Messrs Tiomin Resources Inc. and its local subsidiary Tiomin Kenya Limited and the various approvals that the Government has given to the process. We have in some cases tried to re-emphasize our position on a number of issues, which indications show much attention has not been paid to despite our earlier position. We have also extensively studied the Environmental Management Plan developed and presented to the Government by Messrs Tiomin Resources Inc. 1.8 We have equally looked at the obtaining policy and legislative frameworks on exploitation of natural resources (read mining) including the Mining Act Cap. 306, and especially the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act. 1.9 We hereby attach our previous submission in regard to the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) reports by Messrs Tiomin Resources Inc. This has been necessitated by the fact that the project proponent has not addressed most of the technical issues raised. 1.10 The issues discussed here below are of essence and must be addressed as a matter of urgency prior to any approval of a special mining lease. We would also draw your attention to the pledge by the new Government to review the mining project since it had failed to address the pertinent issues. 1.11 We hasten to state that the discussions below are not in any order of importance as all the issues we have raised are in our view critical.
Please read or dowload the rest of this article from the library
|
