{"id":3447,"date":"2016-01-22T13:47:00","date_gmt":"2016-01-22T13:47:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/danwatch.dk\/how-to-survive-with-limited-access-to-water-and-food\/"},"modified":"2024-07-23T13:01:30","modified_gmt":"2024-07-23T13:01:30","slug":"how-to-survive-with-limited-access-to-water-and-food","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/danwatch.dk\/en\/how-to-survive-with-limited-access-to-water-and-food\/","title":{"rendered":"How to survive with limited access to water and food"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Both the government of Mozambique and the mining companies Rio Tinto and Riversdale Mining Ltd. knew that the resettlement of 736 families to the remote area of Mualadzi would severely deteriorate their living conditions, long before they moved the communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This goes against Article 86 of Mozambique\u2019s constitution and the national Mining Law, which state that people cannot be resettled if it changes their living standards for the worse, and international guidelines defined by the World Bank and enforced by the International Finance Corporation, IFC, stating that involuntary resettlement \u201cshould be conceived as an opportunity for improving the livelihoods of the affected people and undertaken accordingly.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Danwatch has obtained the Benga Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) that guided the process of moving local communities away from the Benga mine concession area in Tete, Mozambique. It clearly describes Mualadzi as an area lacking sufficient water resources:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe surface water resources are poorly developed in the area with no perennial water course running within or nearby the development area. The existing seasonal streams are highly dependent on the wet season for their flow pattern and therefore cannot be considered a continuous water source,\u201d the RAP states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Knowing the poor water conditions in the area, the mining company Riversdale Mining Ltd. and the Tete provincial government chose Mualadzi as the new home for the communities, and moved them to the remote site before further investigation into the water availability had been concluded and long before a solution was found, the RAP shows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moved according to schedule<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In 2010 Riversdale Mining Ltd. began the resettlement process by moving people and livestock 43 kilometres away from their villages in order to make way for their Benga coal-mining project. Shortly after, Riversdale Mining was taken over by the third largest mining
company in the world, Anglo-Australian Rio Tinto, while British-Indian Tata Steel kept its 35 percent stake in the mine. Along with the majority ownership came the responsibility to finalise the resettlement of all affected communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2011 Rio Tinto carried out the largest phase of the resettlement by moving 358 families to Mualadzi. Because water resources were poorly developed in the area, a technical team was to design and install water systems that could make up for the lack of natural water in the area. But according to the RAP from 2009, Riversdale and the government knowingly moved people to Mualadzi before a solution had been found.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The transportation of families and livestock was scheduled to take place while the technical team was still researching the water conditions in the area \u2013 and a year before a solution would be put in place \u2013 according to the implementation schedule included in the plan: The RAP further shows that if no sustainable solution to the water problem was found, the company and the government would need to find an alternative resettlement site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe water availability of the Mualadzi site will be confirmed during the\u00a0implementation phase, but should this prove to be insufficient then a further\u00a0process of site identification will be undertaken.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Lack of food and water<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

When Rio Tinto took over the process of resettlement, the company continued along the lines set out by Riversdale Mining and moved more than 300 families to Mualadzi. To make up for the water shortage, Rio Tinto drove water tanks to the resettlement site where people could fill their water containers. But the water supply was unreliable and the community would sometimes wait in days for the next delivery, according to a report from Human Rights Watch, which conducted a large survey in the area in 2013.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, field research from Danwatch shows that people still deal with the aftereffect of the resettlement to Mualadzi. They have lost their livelihoods, and years of food and water scarcity has pushed the community to the verge of desperation. Several sources describe how water shortage poses an immediate challenge. One of them is 37-year-old Josefina Torres:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe don\u2019t have enough water, so we need to wash where the cows are drinking,\u201d Torres says. For the mother of five, the question of how to get enough food and water for her children is a daily concern. She and her husband are trying hard to make ends meet in their new life:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere is no work for us here. We used to make bricks and break stones for construction, but here we don\u2019t know what to do. We are hungry, and sometimes we only have one meal per day,\u201d she explains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The family was given a small piece of land when they came to Mualadzi,\u00a0but the lack of water makes it nearly impossible to grow anything in the soil,\u00a0described in the RAP as \u201crocky\u201d and \u201cshallow,\u201d so they currently live off a\u00a0small store of maize from last year \u2013 far from enough to feed the family of\u00a0seven, Torres says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Josefina Torres, 37, and her family has been resettled to the Mualdazi area, because the area they used to live in was expropriated for coal mining. But the house they were given as compensation was too small. Her children, husband and a friend of the family have begun to make their own bricks to build an addition to the house. Photo: Jesper Kirkbak<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Josefina Torres, 37, and her family has been resettled to the Mualdazi area, because the area they used to live in was expropriated for coal mining. But the house they were given as compensation was too small. Her children, husband and a friend of the family have begun to make their own bricks to build an addition to the house. Photo: Jesper Kirkbak<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Water loss was expected<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The move to Mualadzi meant a drastic change for the affected communities that used to live in close proximity to the city, where unlimited access to the water running in the Zambezi and Revubo\u00e8 rivers allowed them to cultivate their land all year round.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Resettlement Action Plan shows that Riversdale Mining foresaw the challenges awaiting the families when they listed water availability as one of the anticipated losses connected to the move to Mualadzi. The plan describes how \u201cthe majority\u201d of the affected families in Capanga rely on drinking water from the Revubo\u00e8 river and other streams, especially during the dry season; it also describes how the families used to have access to community wells and how some had access to piped water outside their homes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThese water sources will no longer be accessible to the affected households when they leave the EZ (exclusion zone, red.) and the Capanga area,\u201d the plan states (p.116, list of key losses p.123). Paradoxically the choice of Mualadzi goes against Riversdale\u2019s own criteria for host area selection, including \u201cadequate and suitable existing or potential water supplies, occurrence of sufficient soils suitable for agriculture and easy access to the site.\u201d
The criteria, however, are not prioritised and Riversdale make clear reservations,
stating that<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhile the set of suggested criteria was applied (in the site selection,\u00a0red.) it was recognised that: it would be unlikely that all the criteria would\u00a0be met for any particular case. Thus, potential host areas which satisfied the\u00a0greatest number of critical criteria were selected,\u201d the plan reads.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

RIVERSDALE\u2019S CRITERIA FOR SITE SELECTION:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  • Distance from Capanga<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Adequate and suitable existing or potential water supplies<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Occurrence of sufficient soils that are suitable for agriculture<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Occurrence of sufficient land that is suitable for livestock grazing<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Low potential for mining activities (i.e. no mining titles or low\u00a0possibility of mineral deposits)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Easy access (or low cost to provide access to the site)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Presence of adequate social infrastructure (or low cost of\u00a0providing new infrastructure)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Presence and size of any host community living in the area<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
    Source: The Resettlement Action Plan, September 2009, p.146<\/h5>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

    A question of rights<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Despite the fact that mining-induced resettlements have been going on for years in Mozambique, no laws existed to regulate the resettlement processes itself until 2012 when the Resettlement Decree was issued, says Dr. Jose Macuane from the Eduardo Mondlane University in Maputo, who researches political economy and natural resources. But where specific legislation on resettlements falls short, other laws apply:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201cThis is essentially a rights issue. According to national law, companies should restore or improve the living conditions for the affected people, and the government should make sure that it happens, but the government in Mozambique hasn\u2019t been effective in this,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    According to the country\u2019s Land Law legislation that defines the rights to land use and rules of compensation, individual citizens, communities or other entities who occupy land in good faith and according to customary practices have the right to unlimited use and benefit from that land, a right which may only be taken away by fair compensation. Still, the conditions in Mualadzi have not caused the companies or the government to find an alternative, more hospitable location for the families.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Communities are left in the dark<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Before Mualadzi was chosen as the resettlement site, the communities in Capanga were wary about the location. They questioned whether the soil was suited for agriculture and they were concerned about the distance to Tete and the Moatize markets, the Resettlement Action Plan shows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    According to the plan, the community\u2019s concerns about the resettlement site were put forward on at least three different occasions. At a general meeting in February 2009 the community expressed concern about the location and conditions present in Mualadzi. In July 2009 they stressed the need for a location with sufficient water resources that would allow them to produce crops all year round, like they were used to. Similar points were made during focus group discussions in the same period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    THE RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN SHOWS:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    1. The companies knew about the difficult water conditions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. Implementation of the Resettlement Action Plan, including the first\u00a0transport of people to Mualadzi, was scheduled to commence before a\u00a0solution had been found to the water issue.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. Riversdale and the government would need to find an alternative\u00a0resettlement site if no sustainable solution to the water problem was\u00a0found.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    4. Reduced water availability figures on the list of anticipated losses\u00a0connected to the move to Mualadzi.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

      The plan summarises the conditions put forward by the communities, which contains demands like a location near a riverbank, good soils for fields (machambas) and grazing, access to Zambezi and Revubo\u00e8 islands and houses and other structures \u2013 structures such as cattle pens and chicken coops must remain close to the main residential structure for better control of the livestock.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Contrary to the community\u2019s wishes and despite the questionable conditions in the area, the government and Riversdale selected Mualadzi as a suitable resettlement site, while acknowledging the \u201clack of consensus.\u201d To date, a permanent solution to the water issue has not been found, and the community in Mualadzi still relies on the current owners of the Benga mine, ICVL and Tata Steel, for their water supply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Mining company: Too soon to judge<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      Danwatch has contacted all the implicated mining companies and presented them with our findings. Rio Tinto, which moved the largest group of people to Mualadzi, has declined to say why the company did not put an alternative plan into play when faced with the realities in Mualadzi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to water, is protected by article 11 in the UN International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). In a business setting, it means that companies should take \u201creasonable steps to ensure that their operations do not adversely impact the availability, accessibility and quality of clean water, both in the short and long term,\u201d according to the consultancy
      Global CSR in a guidebook to business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Rio Tinto, known for its strong CSR profile, also subscribes to the standards outlined in the IFC Handbook on Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan, which serves as the only comprehensive corporate guide dealing explicitly with the complex issue of involuntary resettlement. In a written statement to Danwatch from 13 August 2015, Rio Tinto
      states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \u201cWe take our responsibilities to local communities seriously and to the point of transfer, our activities worked to meet internal and international standards. This is difficult and complex work and its success cannot be judged after 12 months, two or even five years. In particular, livelihood restoration for households takes time given the multi-year nature of this process.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The Right to Resettle<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      Danwatch have asked Rio Tinto how the company\u2019s standards comply with its involvement in the resettlement of hundreds of families, but they have declined to answer the question. The responsibility lies with the government and the current owner ICVL, they say, stressing that \u201cthe Government of Mozambique reserves the right to choose and provide the land on which to resettle populations and this was the case with the Benga Mine
      resettlement.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      According to Tata steel, who holds 35 percent of the shares in the Benga\u00a0mine, the company \u201chas no executive part in leadership decisions regarding\u00a0the Benga mine.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n