The Indian-based iron and steel giant, Jindal, is back again – determined to dig iron mining pits in central Zululand barely six months after government regulators refused to grant environmental authorisation for the controversial project.
The Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) rejected Jindal’s plans in January, citing numerous concerns and uncertainties about its environmental impact assessment (EIA) report.
More than 350 families stand to be evicted from their homes to make way for the first phase of open-cast mining operations in the Entembeni area, roughly halfway between the towns of Eshowe and Melmoth in northern KwaZulu-Natal.
Maps show that at least two schools would have to be demolished as they are located in the centre of the first 4km-long mining pit. Several hundred other homes also face demolition as the mine expands gradually to other sections of the proposed mining concession area.
A map showing the location of several schools near the first proposed mining pit. In addition to the demolition of at least two schools, several hundred families also face relocation. (Source: Jindal environmental scoping report)
More significantly – from a regional perspective – Jindal did not present concrete plans on how it would obtain enough water to wash and process up to 32 million tonnes of iron ore a year in a region where water is already in short supply.
According to a report by SLR Consulting, Jindal needs about 15 million cubic metres of water a year, whereas water resources in the broader uMhlathuze catchment are already overallocated. The region, home to several water-intensive industries in the neighbouring Richards Bay area, already has a nine million cubic metre annual water deficit.
The Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) is concerned about the increased demand for water. (Source: DMRE letter to Jindal)
On this basis alone, several residents and industry groups have argued that the project cannot be sanctioned.
Refusing to authorise the project, in a letter dated 29 January, the mining department’s KZN regional manager said that if the Jindal project was to be sustainable, there would need to be a much more thorough investigation of where the extra water might come from.
Jindal’s EIA had not provided a satisfactory answer to this crucial question.
The department also highlighted several other concerns around the proposal – including blocking or altering the course of several mountain headwater streams in the hills above the Nkwaleni River Valley. This could have “irreversible” impacts on agriculture in a valley noted for its extensive plantations of citrus, sugar cane and other crops.
Read more: Zululand community members blockade roads, telling India’s Jindal Steel & Power to ‘voetsek’
Citrus orchards in the Nkwaleni Valley, where farmers and residents are worried about losing access to water due to the establishment of a new iron ore mine. (Photo: Tony Carnie)
Oranges are packed in a processing plant in the Nkwaleni Valley. (Photo: Tony Carnie)
The New Delhi-based mining group has also come under fire for attempting to dilute the overall impacts of its proposals by adopting a “phased approach” to the environmental and water authorisation process.
Though the new mining application covers a massive 26,000 hectares of land, Jindal’s first EIA studies focused only on a 5km2 area in the immediate vicinity of the first mining pit – and excluded the potential impacts of an 8km2 tailings storage facility (slurry dump) and other future mining operations.
All Rise Attorneys (representing residents, the Nkwaleni Water Use Association and other groups) argue that this “project-splitting” approach is unacceptable as it results in a piecemeal authorisation process that fails to consider the overall impacts of large-scale development.
Attorneys Kirsten Youens and Janice Tooley fear that if the project is authorised, it could lead to the destruction or degradation of “vast areas” of commercial and small-scale farming land and impact food security, jobs and the regional economy.
Yet despite the official rejection of the plan by regulators, Jindal has launched a fresh EIA application and hired a new team of relatively unknown consultants – the Midrand-based Tshifcor Investment and Resources.
The new company has failed to notify numerous groups previously registered on a list of interested and affected parties (IAPs), but nevertheless set a 30-day deadline for comments on the latest draft scoping report. Tshifcor placed a public notice about the new application in the Newcastle Advertiser, a community newspaper in a town more than 260km north of the proposed Melmoth mine.
Youngsters from Dlozeyane Primary School head home after lessons. This is one of several schools in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Jindal mine. (Photo: Tony Carnie)
All Rise Attorneys have now demanded that Tshifcor suspend the 30-day comment period until all previously registered IAPs are notified in writing.
Responding by email, Tshifcor representative Caroline Munyai stated: “Our role as appointed consultants is to make sure that all IAPs have been given adequate information and sufficient time to review and comment on the draft reports. Therefore, we can only afford you up until the 19th August 2024 (30 days from today) to comment and all your comments will still be addressed, captured and submitted to DMRE, as it forms part of the information that the Competent Authority’s makes decision upon.”
In further correspondence, Tooley indicated that her query had not been addressed sufficiently and requested a full explanation of why the previous IAP database was not being used.
She raised concern that most of the affected community are Zulu speakers, whereas Tshifcors’s documents had only been circulated in English, to a limited number of interest groups.
Tooley stated that “there is an extremely high degree of conflict in the communities” due to the revival of the mining proposal. She further requested Tshifcor to explain what additional consultation activities are planned to ensure that consensus is reached and that issues creating conflict are addressed effectively.
The Alliance for Rural Democracy is also concerned that community conflict will escalate due to the revival of the mining plan and the eviction of local residents.
Though most residents living next to the proposed mine speak Zulu, Jindal’s public consultation documents have been circulated in English, to a limited number of interest groups. (Photo: Tony Carnie)
“Residents of this area are torn between accepting mining, which will result in relocation of several homesteads, job losses and environmental damage, and opposing mining, which is met with increasing violence of late.
“Mining by its nature is a destructive activity that yields benefit for very few, at great cost to the people that live beside mines, and the community of Entembeni is no different,” the alliance said in a statement.
Jindal’s local subsidiary company plans to rail the iron ore from Melmoth to Richards Bay harbour “where it will be loaded onto ships for further processing outside South Africa”.
One of the Jindal group’s numerous mining operations across the world. (Source: Jindal website)
Responding to questions on what made Jindal optimistic that mining regulators would reconsider the recent refusal to authorise its application, a company spokesperson said: “The EIA was not approved due to certain gaps mentioned in the study done. In this application, our endeavour is to fill in those gaps and complete the process.”
On the question of scarce water being diverted to feed a new mine, Jindal said: “Options are being explored. How to supply water without affecting supplies to other water users is the part of the studies going on.”
The company declined to explain its reasons for dispensing with the services of the previous EIA consultants (SLR Consulting and Zutari), saying: “It is our internal matter.” DM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REeWvTRUpMk