|
|
Press Release Wednesday, 20 January 2004 Earthlife Africa has been involved in the anti-nuclear struggle since it raised its head. The organisation was formed in the mid-80s in Johannesburg. Some of us might remember that in the then apartheid government era, in South Africa, organisations such as Earthlife Africa, challenging the government policies and trying to ensure that people are included as part of the environment were not at all welcomed by the authority. Currently the organisation has branches in Cape Town, Johannesburg, Namibia and eThekwini - Durban. Earthlife Africa participated in the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) environmental impact assessment (EIA) process, made a submission in the first environmental impact report (EIR) and was deprived to commenting in the second draft as Eskom maintained that the report was commercially confidential. In the first draft, Earthlife Africa raised concerns regarding safety of the technology, economic viability, health impacts posed by the technology to the human environment and the radioactive waste problem. Further, concerns were raised regarding the flawed EIA process; communities and stakeholders that are sure to be implicated by the development were not consulted and in general stakeholders were misinformed in the process. However, in 2003 the Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) indicated that they would be making a decision regarding the PBMR EIR, Earthlife Africa went to court requesting for an urgent interdict preventing DEAT not to make a decision until they hear our side of the story. The Judge recognised the role of Earthlife Africa as acting in the best interest of the Public although he ruled the matter as not urgent. Despite the public outcry regarding the flawed process, DEAT gave a go a head to the PBMR EIR. Although the protection of the human environment should be their priority and responsibility, DEAT washed its hands, with regard to Waste, health and safety issues of the PBMR (making a decision without knowing the consequences). The South African nuclear industry have been operating for decades without any proper plan for waste disposal. One of the conditions in the record of decision (ROD) was that there should be a radioactive waste management policy in place before anything continues. However, affected communities were not given meaningful input into the policy, and in effect this means that industry has had the opportunity to set their own rules for the disposal of waste. This is a serious flaw. In 2003 September, the Department of Minerals and Energy released a Radioactive Waste Management Policy (RWMP) for public commentary. They ran consultative meetings in three areas, in Cape Town - Koeberg, Pretoria ? Pelindaba, and Spring Bok in Vaalputs. Prior the meetings, Earthlife Africa requested the department to provide translated documents and assist with transport as the venue was very far from the communities. The department failed neither to deliver nor to respond to our request and thus few people from the communities attended the meeting. These meetings were not very educational as they were very technical which was marginalizing as very little was understood by the community. Further, the department brought a supposedly independent nuclear waste disposal expert from France to share with us his experience with regard to different waste disposal methods. We later found out that the expert chairs Cogema a reprocessing company in France, therefore this person was in no way objective rather he may had vested interested in the reprocessing option. The department subsequently assured us that they would be running educational workshop as they saw a desperate need from the community to take part in this process. We therefore proactively suggested dates as the commentary deadline was nearing being the 31 December, listed a number of requirements, proposed a process of participation and requested for the deadline to be extended. Again the department ignored us, maintaining that Earthlife Africa is an anti-nuke group and therefore will not be satisfied by any concession made by the government. We only could get a small concession (translation of policy into two languages) out of the department through the Public Protector. The department appears to be operating on the basis that industry stakeholders (who seem anxious for this process to be concluded) are more important than the public and are therefore rushing the process. This shouldn?t have been the case; this is a very sensitive issue of high importance with great implications for generations to come. It should have been carried out in depth and making sure that everyone affected (which is everyone in South Africa as the waste is toxic for millions of years) had an opportunity to make meaningful input. By: Sibusiso Mimi Campaigner Earthlife Africa Cape Town Jan 2004 Tel/Fax: 021 683 5182 Cell: 072 494 1395 This article was produced for the EJNF networker March 2004. To find out more about EJNF click here ?? |
|