Uranium Mining in Tanzania_ Are We Ready

URANIUM MINING IN TANZANIA: Are We Ready?

Community Scoping Study in the Exploration Areas and the Legal Framework

URANIUM MINING IN TANZANIA: ARE WE READY?

Community Scoping Study in the Exploration Areas and the Legal Framework

Uranium Mining in Tanzania: Are We Ready?Uranium Mining in Tanzania: Are We Ready?

iv v

URANIUM MINING IN TANZANIA: ARE WE READY? Community Scoping Study in the Exploration Areas and the Legal Framework

First Edition, August 2012

Photos by: Evans Rubara

Design, Layout and Printing: Jamana Printers Limited

Jointly Published by:

Tanzania Episcopal Conference (TEC)

National Muslim Council of Tanzania (BAKWATA) and

Christian Council of Tanzania (CCT)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Foreward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

CHAPTER ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

What is Uranium? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Uses of Uranium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Uranium and Environmental Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Health Effects from Uranium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

CHAPTER TWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Uranium in the Tanzanian Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Issuing Prospective Licences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Issues Raised by Community Members on Exploration Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

CHAPTER THREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Institutional, Policy and Legislative Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

The Ministry of State, Vice President’s Office (Environment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

The National Environmental Council (NEMC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission (TAEC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

The Geological Survey of Tanzania (GST) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Policy Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

The Energy Policy of Tanzania 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

The National Energy Policy 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

The National Environmental Policy 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21


vi vii

The Mineral Policy 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

The National Investment Policy 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Legal Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

The Atomic Energy Act 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

The Mining Act 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

The Environmental Management Act No. 20 of 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

International Standards on Uranium Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

CHAPTER FOUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Lessons, Challenges and Practices from Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Niger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Namibia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

CHAPTER FIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Conclusion and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

The Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

National Environmental Management Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

CSOs and the Interfaith Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ANSTO Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation

ASX Australian Stock Exchange

BP British Petroleum

CESOPE Civil Education is the Solution for Poverty, Tanzania

CNSC Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

CRIIRAD Research and Independent Information on Radioactivity Commission

EIA Environment Impact Assessment

EMA Environmental Management Act

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

FEMAPO Foundation for Environmental Management and Campaign Against Poverty

GoT Government of Tanzania

GST Geological Survey of Tanzania

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

MEM Ministry of Energy and Minerals

MRP Mkuju River Project

MRTL Mantra Resources Tanzania Limited

NEMC National Environmental Management Council

NEP National Energy Policy

PL Prospecting Licence

RAB Rotary Air Blast

SGR Selous Game Reserve

TAEC Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission

TRA Tanzania Revenue Authority

UGF Undendeule Game Reserve

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

UTL Uranex Tanzania Limited


viii ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The report has been commissioned by the Interfaith Standing Committee for Economic Justice and the

Integrity of Creation, comprising of the Christian Council of Tanzania, the National Muslim Council of

Tanzania (BAKWATA) and the Tanzania Episcopal Council (TEC). The main objective of the Interfaith

Standing Committee is to work on all issues related and incidental to justice and integrity of creation.

We are grateful to individuals/community members, groups and organizations who contributed to the

production of this research. Their contribution is highly valued for it provided the insights which were

needed at that appropriate time.

This report has been researched and written by Evans Rubara. We also acknowledge with gratitude the

contributions from Ms. Gloria Mafole and Mr. Stephen Msechu on the legal components of this report.

Our appreciation could not be complete without acknowledging the assistance received from Norwegian

Church-Aid Tanzania..

It is our hope and prayer that this report gives a glimpse of what is happening in Tanzania with respect

to uranium mining in the Tanzanian context. In this report we have attempted to highlight some areas of

concern. We call for constructive yet inclusive action from all development stakeholders as we venture into this

area of mining. Most of the information contained herein was generated from the field and some collaborated

through desk research. All pictures were taken during field trips where uranium mining is explored.

Thank you ALL so very much for your support as we move together in pursuit of justice.

The Most Rev. Paul R. RuzokaChairperson ISC

Disclaimer: The views contained in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Interfaith Standing Committee or the religious

leaders. A significant degree of due diligence has been exercised in preparing this report but the Interfaith Standing Committee cannot

be held liable for any factual errors or misrepresentation of data or otherwise which may be contained in the report.

This report has been published with the support of Norwegian Church Aid


x xi

FOREWORD

This report comes at a time when the demand for energy in the world has reached its highest peak and

most countries are looking for alternative sources of energy. Tanzania is not left out in this pursuit for

sustainable energy. Reports of Tanzania’s new-found venture on Uranium mining are not just one of the

most talked about ‘adventure’ but also the most debated. Our interest as Interfaith Committee has not just

risen from what is being discussed now, but the dangers we have also read about Uranium Mining.

This report draws our attention to two important factors. First, it highlights negative impacts of uranium

mining and related health hazards on human and livestock, and its long lasting impact on the environment.

Secondly, the report highlights the gaps and weaknesses in the mining policy and legal framework in

relation to uranium mining. Tanzanians have been made to believe, and are motivated to accept Uranium

extraction as the solution to our power problems and a way to foster our economic gains. However, we

find this to be a shallow way of handling this mineral classified as the World’s deadliest. The trend of

mining industry [extractive industry] in Tanzania has taught us that we are not yet ready even for the

well generalised mining, namely Gold mining and other metallic minerals. We are still struggling with the

environmental protection issues, just as much as we are struggling as a nation on policy formulation that

would create a win-win situation from the mining sector. But this is seldom realised due to high levels of

politicising everything including the lives and well-being of Tanzanians.

Religious Leaders’ role is in holding human rights, promoting human dignity and encouraging peaceful

co-existence of all creation and this extends to the ecology around us. In protection of the environment;

results in the protection of all living creatures on earth, under the water bodies and other living creatures

that are sheltered by the ecosystem. Human life and that of all living creatures depends by and large on

a clean environment. This will not be achievable with the glaring weaknesses in our policies against the

government’s urgency on Uranium Mining.

In our understanding Uranium mining is the top ranking polluters of the environment and the impacts

thereof takes billions of years to clean. But even if it was to be passed to be a golden opportunity to drain

all the troubles of the people of Tanzania; we suspect that this will only concentrate wealth in the hands

of a few in the society. It should be remembered that the health of eco-systems is essential to our survival

and that of all creatures that are supported by it. Uranium Mining in Tanzania will not be the solution to the

problems of the people of Tanzania and visitors sojourning here, but rather will amplify them.

This report comes with important recommendations to the governing authorities to reconsider the move

to allow Uranium mining to be carried out in Tanzania, but instead look at the long term impacts that will

come from this activity.

Christian Council of TanzaniaTanzania Episcopal ConferenceThe National Muslim Council of Tanzania


xii xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BackgroundUranium mining in Tanzania has attracted a lot of interest from stakeholders in the religious and civil

society circles dealing with social, economic and environmental issues with regard to safety, as mining of

this world’s deadliest mineral is imminent in the country.

Safety of the local community members, the added value of uranium mining activities to the national

economic grid, and the environmental impacts that would result from this activity has raised concerns.

These facilitated the call for this study by the Interfaith Committee on Economic Justice and Integrity of

Creation, to shed light on this new mining activity in Tanzania.

The study is an attempt to start a discussion on the following concerns:

i. The level of involvement of the local community members in various discussions related to uranium

mining development agreements, and

ii. The existence of policies to govern the uranium mining, which would safeguard the welfare of the

citizens in the mining areas and scale up national economy.

The methodology of study included desk review which involved identification and documentary review

and a look at the policies related to uranium mining. It also involved field trips in the study pilot areas

earmarked for uranium mining ‘preparatory’ activities in Tanzania: Namtumbo District; Njombe in Makete

District; Dodoma in Bahi District and Singida in Manyoni Districts.

The findings of the study revealed that the local communities have not been consulted in the exploration

activities in their area, and that there are many complaints around that. There are issues of food security,

environmental pollution, human rights violations, water pollution and health hazards reported in the areas

where exploration activities are taking place.

The analysis of institutional, policy and legal frameworks shows that there are many gaps that need to be

addressed before proper mining of the uranium starts. The gaps include the low professional capacity of

the institutions like the National Environmental Management Council (NEMC), the Tanzania Atomic Energy

Commission (TAEC) and the Geological Survey of Tanzania (GST). Policies and laws are also silent about

disposal of radioactive materials since they lack social impact assessment, and the Constitution does not

provide in the bill of rights the right to a clean environment. Lastly, there is no specific law that regulates

the mining of uranium in Tanzania.

RecommendationsSince the United Republic of Tanzania does not have a specific act to regulate uranium mining activities,

this study recommends the following:

1. GOVERNMENT

communities during this exploration stage before signing the mining contracts.

mining activities.

2. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

District Commissioner’s office, and in Bahi and Manyoni to establish the extent of radioactive pollution

and take measures to prevent further effects.

3. CSOs and INTERFAITH STANDING COMMITTEE


xiv 1

CHAPTER 1:Background Information

What is Uranium?Uranium is the heaviest naturally occurring element on earth. “When refined, it is a silvery white,

weakly radioactive metal, which is harder than most chemical elements. It is malleable, ductile, slightly

paramagnetic, and strongly electropositive and is a poor electrical conductor. Uranium metal has very high

density, approximately 70% denser than lead but slightly less dense than gold”.1

Uranium is found at low levels in virtually all rock, soil and water. As the uranium atoms slowly split-up over

time, a multitude of radioactive by-products are formed – thorium-230, radium-226, radon-222 and the

infamous radon daughters, including lead-210 and polonium-210. Uranium in ores can be extracted and

chemically converted into dioxide or other chemical forms usable in industry. Sometimes uranium can be

enriched to be produced in power reactors and for making nuclear weapons.

Uses of Uraniumi. Military use Uranium metal is very dense and heavy. When it is depleted, it is used for military purposes such as

shielding to protect army tanks, and also in parts of bullets and missiles. The military also uses enriched

uranium to power nuclear propelled navy ships and submarine and in nuclear weapons.

ii. Civilian use The main use of uranium in the civilian sector is to fuel commercial nuclear plants where fuel is typically

being enriched in U-235 to 2-3% to produce electricity. Depleted uranium is used in helicopters and air

planes as counter weights on certain wing part.

Other uses of uranium include ceramic glazes where uranium adds colour. It is used in some lighting

fixtures and as a photograph developing chemical. Phosphate fertilizers often contain amounts of natural

uranium because the mineral material in which they are made is typically high in uranium. It is also used

in cancer therapy in hospitals.

__________________________________________________________________________________

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium


2 3

Uranium and Environmental ChangesNaturally occurring uranium is composed of three major isotopes (variants of a chemical element). While

all isotopes of a given element share the same number of protons, each isotope differs from the others in

its number of neutrons. The three isotopes of uranium are uranium-238, uranium-235 and uranium-234.2

All uranium isotopes are radioactive, and they undergo radioactive decay by emissions of alpha ( ) and

accompanied by weak gamma ( ) radiation. The dominant isotopes, U-238 form a long series of decay

products that includes the key radio nuclides radium -226 and -222. The decay process continues until a

stable, non-radioactive decay product is formed. The release of radiation during the decay process raises

health concerns.

A person can be exposed to uranium by inhaling dust in air or ingesting water and food contaminated

by uranium. When uranium gets inside the body it can lead to cancer or kidney damage. About 99% of

uranium ingested in food or water will leave a person’s body through faeces and the remaining will enter

blood. Absorbed uranium is removed by the kidneys through the urine a few days after exposure. Small

amounts that remain are deposited in a person’s bones where it remains for years.

Health Effects from Uranium3 There are many harmful effects to human health caused by uranium:

1. All solid tumours as a group

2. Cancers of the stomach, colon, liver, lung, breast, ovary, bladder, thyroid

3. For non-melanoma skin cancers

4. Most types of leukaemia

5. It interferes with human reproductive system

6. Causes mental retardation by radiation exposure in the womb

7. Causes cancer of the sinuses, and

8. It can be used for mass destruction of cities in the form of nuclear weapons

Herds drinking dirty water in Chikopelo village in Bahi district. The water as seen in this pond is the same used by human beings

with fears of radioactive elements as uranium is explored.__________________________________________________________________________________

2. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_uranium

3. Dr. Dave Sweeney, Nuclear Free Campaigner - Australian Conservation Foundation


4 5

Even though Tanzania was

identifi ed to have the potential

for uranium or radioactive

minerals mining fi ve decades

ago, it wasn’t until late 1990s

that the commercial interest to

explore became evident and

the investors started arriving

for discussions with the

government authorities. Since

then, an infl ux of multinational

investors has been carrying out

exploration activities in villages

all over Tanzania.

Issuing of Prospective LicencesThe Ministry of Energy and Minerals opened its doors to issue prospecting licences (PL) in 2005.

Among those companies which have received these licences from the Commissioner of Minerals at the

Ministry of Energy and Minerals, several are subsidiaries of same foreign company registered under

different names. Of the 70 or more5 licences issued, 50% are for exploration activities in Namtumbo’s

Mkuju area and adjacent Bahi and Manyoni areas.

pushing for mining licences so to ‘begin’ processing activities, only two names are prominent in the

CHAPTER TWOUranium in the Tanzanian ContextIntroductionUranium and radioactive mineralization in Tanzania was identifi ed in the pre-independence era and a

number of uranium occurrences are known in Tanzania.4 As long ago as the 1950s uranium mineralization

occurrences were identifi ed in the Bahi swamp. In early post-independence era (1961 – 1970s) the country

was subjected to a systematic airborne survey for radioactive occurrences. In this period it was evident that

four geological areas in Tanzania contain potentially signifi cant uranium deposits viable for commercial

mining activities.

These uranium occurrences are found in;

i. Sandstones, mainly of the Karoo Super group and Bukoban Super group. These are the “Sandstone

uranium, model 30c” of Cox and Singer (1986);

ii. Carbonatite complexes of Mesozoic to Recent age. These are the “carbonatite, model 10” of Cox and

Singer (1986);

iii. Calcrete related secondary environments in Quaternary deposits; e.g. Ndala, Itigi and Iseke; and

iv. At the unconformity between the Karagwe-Ankolean and Bukoban Supergroup for vein-like type of

uranium mineralisation: also part of the Ubendian/Bukoban unconformity.

In addition, minor occurrence of uranium and thorium are known in pegmatites and river and beach

sands. None of these are likely to become economic, although small amounts of hand-sorted uraninite

were recovered from pegmatites of the Uluguru Mountains before 1955. Geological survey reports in

Tanzania carried out on different occasions indicated that uranium and or radioactive occurrences have

been identifi ed in a number of areas [see fi gure 1 below] yet until now only four areas show occurrences

which are considered to be viable for commercial exploitation.

Figure 1: Geological Map of Tanzania

showing areas where uranium

radioactive occurrences are found,

Source: MEM

__________________________________________________________________________________

4. The best references to radioactive minerals in the country are in Harris (1961), Uranerzberbau GmbH (1979) and Geosurvey (1981, 1982) and in various unpublished reports in the Geological

Survey fi les in Dodoma. The Geo-Survey International (1982, p 56-58) present a summary inventory of radioactive mineral occurrences in Tanzania, based on group follow-up of the Geo-Survey’s

airborne of potential exploration interest are in sandstones of the Karoo Supergroup in the southwest, or in carbonatites. The latter are described briefl y above in the section on carbonatites.

__________________________________________________________________________________

5. Mantra Resources Tanzania Limited and Uranex Tanzania Limited are accused of mining uranium already in Namtumbo and Manyoni respectively. Already The East African of Monday, 14

September 2009 reported that uranium mining company Mantra Resources Ltd (Mantra) of South Africa and Uranex “have been given the go ahead by the Tanzania government to mine uranium

after they met all environmental conditions as mandated by the National Environment Management Council.”


6 7

uranium mining ‘preparatory’ activities. Activities carried out by Mantra Resources Tanzania Limited –

(MRTL) are described as “close to production and only waiting for the licence to be awarded after the

Environmental Impact Assessment report gets approval from the National Environmental Management

Council – NEMC” Ally Semaje, Assistant Commissioner for Licensing and Mineral Rights Management –

MEM. Uranex Tanzania Limited – UTL activities are described as close to maturity by the same authority.

A. Mantra Resources Tanzania LimitedMantra Resources Tanzania Limited - MRTL is currently developing and making fi nal ‘preparations’ for the

uranium mining, milling and processing to begin soon. Their designated site located at Mkuju River Project

(MRP) within the Undendeule Game Reserve (UGF) and comprises part of the Selous Game Reserve

(SGR), located 470km north-east (in straight line) south-west of Dar es Salaam but can also be accessed by

road along the Dar es Salaam to Songea Highway which covers a total of 980km and 180km from Songea

town. The distance between the

project site and the neighbouring

villages is approximately 55km.

The host rocks are the Upper

Carboniferous to Lower Jurassic

Karroo 22 System [See fi gure 2].

Exploration activities for uranium have mainly been carried out within the Nyota Prospect of the Project area

Mining in this area will be carried out through the traditional open pit mining using mechanical excavators.

According to the information from Mantra’s offi cial website, “other mining works will follow, including

clearing, removal and stockpiling of any usable soil.” (TPDC)

Successful test work conducted at both the Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organization -

ANSTO in Sydney and at SGS Laboratories in Perth confi rmed that there is viable uranium/radioactive

mineralisation for commercial exploitation.

Uranium exploration activities began in the Mkuju River escarpment in 2005. Since then a number of

concerns have surfaced. One of the concerns associated with the imminent processing of uranium

products in this location is that it is within the Selous Game Reserve, a World Heritage Site under

the care of the Tanzanian Government and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization – (UNESCO). Besides, there are fears of the ecological damage and a bleak future to

the wildlife in the reserve.

Irrespective of the challenges this project may face, MRTL has carried out an environmental impact

assessment which has been presented to the National Environmental Management Council (NEMC) for

consideration and widely shared with the regional and district authorities in Ruvuma region and Namtumbo

District.

According to their production projection, MRTL predicts extracting up to 3.7 million pounds of uranium

per year by mining 4.5 million tons of ore at their Nyota prospect for 12 years. MRTL was bought out by

Rosatom Corp., Russia’s nuclear holding company, through its ARMZ Uranium Holding Co. subsidiary.6

This same company, Rosatom Corporation was reported to have pulled out7 of the deal after the 2011

nuclear reactor explosion in Fukushima, Japan.

In June 2011 Uranium One (a Canadian uranium mining giant) was declared to be the operator at the

Mkuju River Project, formerly owned and operated by Mantra Resources Tanzania Limited. This followed Figure 2: Mantra Resources Tanzania

Limited’s location, showing Mkuju river

project and Nyota Prospect, Source: MRTL __________________________________________________________________________________

6. http://mantraresources.com.au/upload/documents/releases/asx/20101215_101215-ARMZALL-CASHOFFERRELEASE_Final2.pdf

7. http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/Russian+nuclear+fi rm+suspends+uranium+mining+deal+in+Tanzania/-/2558/1129432/-/item/1/-/14ufnu0/-/index.html


8 9

“Pursuant to an Operating Agreement between Uranium One and ARMZ, Uranium One is currently the

operator of Mantra’s Mkuju River Project (MRP).”8

With this development, it is assumed that capital gains were realized by Mantra Resources Tanzania

Limited: for the general market outlook in the 2011 fi scal year, a 15% capital gain was common. With this

factor in the picture; the Government of Tanzania (GoT) through the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA)

should have recorded 15% capital gain taxes (revenues) from this seemingly lucrative sale.

Another concern is that Mantra Resources Tanzania Limited is now defunct as far as the operations of

the Mkuju River Project are concerned. But Uranium One is still operating under the fl agship of Mantra

Resources Tanzania Limited which will make it challenging for regulating authorities to hold the rightful

operator of the MRP accountable in the Selous Game Reserve (SGR) in any event of accident or harm.

B. Uranex Tanzania Limited - UTLUTL activities are found mainly in three different areas. They have projects in Itigi, Manyoni, Bahi and

Mkuju areas. The company recently announced fi nding uranium prospects in Manyoni and Itigi that are

viable for commercial exploitation. Located about 80km west of the capital Dodoma, the proposed area

for uranium mining in central Tanzania is known as the Bahi-Manyoni-Uranium-Province [see fi gure 3],

which is part of the East African Rift Valley with the landscape characterized by fl at plains broken by single

rocky hills. The life-line of the area is the River Bubu which crosses the area from north-east to south-west

towards the Bahi Swamp.

Uranex Tanzania Limited (UTL) commenced their exploration activities in the central part of Tanzania in

uranium occurrences for commercial exploitation.

__________________________________________________________________________________

8. http://www.miningweekly.com/article/uranium-one-takes-the-wheel-at-mkuju-river-2011-06-07

Figure 3: A Geosurvey map showing Uranex Tanzania Limited’s uranium exploration and exploitation threshold in Bahi District

and Manyoni including Itigi area respectively. Source: Uranex homepage.

C. Lake Bahi Project Exploration work commenced in Tanzania at the Lake Bahi Project within two weeks in November 2005.

A programme of pitting and rotary air blast (RAB) drilling was carried out. The programme received early

encouragement with visible uranium and counts of up to 10x uranium mineralisation background. Fifty-

pits were excavated for a total of 341 metres. The RAB drilling encountered channels up to 30m deep

regarded as highly prospective for roll front style uranium mineralization.


10 11

D. Itigi ProspectThe Itigi Prospect contains prospective playa (dry lake) depositional environments, coincident with a series

of radiometric anomalies stretching for some 40km, and is considered to have high potential to add further

uranium resources in the vicinity of UTL’s Manyoni Project.

E. The Manyoni Project This project covers an area of approximately 4,000km2. The project area is linked by road and rail to

Tanzania’s designated capital of Dodoma, located 70kms to the east.

The region incorporates an extensive natural closed draining system developed over weathered uranium

rich granites. This drainage captures dissolved uranium leaked from underlying rocks and transports

it to suitable precipitation trap sites (playa lakes) along the drainages, and ultimately into the enormous

40x30km Bahi Playa Lake. UTL holds the rights to approximately 400km2 (or approximately one-third) of

the ‘head waters’ entry in the northwest area of Lake Bahi.

Within a prefeasibility study in the beginning of 2010, UTL introduced its Multiple-Source-One-Plant

concept to exploit the resources in the area. They propose the uranium mining activity should start at the

Manyoni Playa C deposit which has reached the highest status of exploration so far.

Uranex is proposing to use the “heap-leaching-method”9 on site and then the loaded solution will be

brought to a central processing plant where Triuranium octoxide - U3O8 is recovered and packed. This

method enables the investor to have large harvests at minimal cost. However, heap leaching is known as

the most problematic method of mining: the consumption of water is extreme and the leached stockpiles

are a permanent source of pollution.

It is worth noting that Uranex Tanzania Limited listed on the Australian Stock Exchange on 25 October

2006 after raising USD 6.56m and the offer was substantially oversubscribed. The funds raised leave Uranex

in a sound cash position to pursue its planned aggressive exploration programmes in Tanzania and Australia.

Increased demand and high uranium prices continue to enhance the value of the UTL’s uranium assets.10

__________________________________________________________________________________

9. Where ore is stacked on site and rinsed with extractive solutions, the loaded seepage has to be collected from the bottom of heaps

10. Until now, the three areas discussed briefly in this section seem to be Uranex’s threshold in Tanzania as far as uranium mining preparation activities are concerned

Issues Raised by Community Members on Exploration Activities (Field visits conducted in 2011 between April 1st and May 18th)

A. Community participation in the negotiation processThe right to information is guaranteed by article 18 (2) of the 1977 Constitution of United Republic of

Tanzania. The article says,

“Every citizen has the right to be informed at all times of various events in the country and in the

world at large which are of importance to the lives and activities of the people and also of issues of

importance to the society”

In uranium exploration areas, local community members in the areas covered in this study revealed

that they were “not consulted on the introduction of exploration and are not sufficiently informed about

the effects of uranium.” There is substantial outcry and fear amongst communities on potential forcible

relocation to areas away from mining activities, which threatens their livelihood.

In Namtumbo, communities were not involved in the process and they are afraid that they will be relocated

as they are close to the mining sites.

In Makete, local community members said that the mining company personnel came with the District

Commissioner and other officials. These visitors arrived unannounced and were not introduced to the

villagers, nor did they inform them about the work that was about to be carried out.

Villagers were left “...only to see heavy machines coming in and drilling activities already starting. They had

a small gadget in their hand and wherever this phone-like machine made an alarm sound; they brought the

machines, drilled using pipes of varying sizes, then took some round rocks from the holes and went away.”

In Ujuni and Mkenja villages, villagers resisted these activities and the exploring company, whose name

was not given, moved from the site. The uranium ore from these two villages was moved to a small yard on

600 metres from the District Commissioner’s office.


12 13

Radioactive pit drilled in a compound at Nkenja village – Makete district

Like their counterparts in the Namtumbo District, Bahi dwellers are also concerned about their livelihood

and where they will go in case they are told to vacate their homes to pave the way for uranium mining

activities. This happened in exploration activities in Manyoni District.

One overall aspect shared in all locations is the discontent at being side-lined by the government,

not know, all in the name of exploring for uranium.

It is also unanimously confirmed by representatives in central and local government authorities that

“awareness on uranium mining activities in the areas covered in this study has only been imparted to

representatives of the Central Government at the Regional and District levels, including those from the

local government authorities.” Besides this disclosure, the District Commissioners and their colleagues at

deliberate measures by the government through the central governing portals at the regional and district

levels, down to the local government administrations to create awareness on uranium mining activities.”

B. Right to clean and safe waterThe right to clean and safe water is among the basic human rights to which every state has to guarantee to

its people. Following the exploration activities of uranium in different sites, the communities around those

areas are concerned about water pollution and are at threat because they have no clean and safe water

for domestic use. This is because uranium processing uses a lot of water.

For example in Namtumbo district (Likuyi Sekamaganga, Likuyi Mandela & Mtonya Vilages) the exploration

activities are located 60 km from the Mkuju, Lwengu and Mbalangandu rivers which are the main sources

of water in these villages and many parts of the district. The villagers’ concern is that the water is polluted

by exploration for uranium and that with time, a struggle to find clean water will take place.

It was reported by Likuyi Mandela residents that Mantra Resources Tanzania Limited personnel visited the

village and placed notices in village blackboards warning against drilling new water wells until tests were

done to prove the safety of the local water for human consumption.

A similar concern about water pollution and access to water was heard in Makete where a South African


14 15

company was exploring (the villagers could not recall the name). The villagers also complained about

the way the exploration team carried out their sampling tasks. “These people came here and when they

started doing the sampling, they drew water from the river and mixed the water with chemicals they called

‘easy core’ and ‘easy mix’ which were used to lubricate the drilling pipes. The most surprising thing is that

after using the water which was stored in locally made wells11 they drained the same water back into the

river where we draw our water for domestic and livestock consumption.”

In Bahi District, water pollution is also a concern among the communities. Bahi Swamp is topographically

described as a ‘closed depression’. Geological faults divert as well as superficial underground water flows

off the Bahi drainage basin into the swamp. Inhabitants have indentified 8 major and 10 smaller perennial

swamps. Information from trusted sources12 indicates that lab tests on water samples taken along the

Bahi swamp stretch and from the surrounding area show uranium concentration greatly exceeds the

international recommended safe levels.

C. Health issuesAs discussed earlier, health effects of uranium takes a long time to be discovered as it goes through inhaling

of dust contaminated by uranium through air and wind and through eating food or water contaminated

with uranium. In areas like Manyoni, community members interviewed during the field visits narrated

stories of death and harmful health effect. For example, in Muhalala village, villagers reported sickness

and one death among the young men who worked with the explorers from Uranex Tanzania Limited. The

cause of this death remains under unknown as there have not been any investigations conducted. The

deceased young man, Severin Eveli Mdede13 is said to have died after working for a number of months as

a casual worker digging holes and trenches for uranium samples.

In Bahi issues of food security and health arise in the event of active open cast uranium mining starts in

the Bahi swamp area. While such life threatening activities are planned in the Bahi area; information on

potential effects of uranium are concealed from the local population. Intensive rice-farming, sunflower

growing, salt- harvesting and other large scale farming activities are taking place around the Bahi Swamp

and these farming activities play an important role in food security in the region and beyond. Salt harvest,

rice, sunflowers and other grains harvested here are not only used by Bahi dwellers but are also supplied

elsewhere in the country. With time, there is the potential for many people to be affected through consuming

foods from the polluted areas.

D. Land issuesIn Namtumbo, MRTL has attempted to obtain significant tracts of land from villagers, asking the Village

Council in Likuyi Sekamaganga for 100 acres to build their operations camp on. This is a large piece of

land, and if proper procedures are not followed then land disputes can arise. The same perceptions of

invasions of peoples’ land and digging holes for exploration without permission have been recorded in

Bahi and Manyoni.

E. Employment and labour related issuesDuring exploration activities, companies use labour from the communities surrounding the areas.

Concerns raised include working without employment contracts and on a temporary basis and people

working as cooks, trench diggers and engineers are poorly paid. These issues were found in Bahi, Bahi Swamp

__________________________________________________________________________________

11. The exploring team dug simple chemical ponds during the activity

12. Names and source of identification is not given for their security

__________________________________________________________________________________

13. It is reported that local work force executed the tasks assigned without any protective gears. With the high level of uranium concentration one would assume that after working for a month

digging out possible uranium ore, one’s life could possibly be at stake


16 17

Manyoni and Namtumbo Districts.

Furthermore, protective gears, especially instruments that detect high radiation areas, are not given to the

Bahi District sickness and one death were reported among the young men who worked with the explorers

from Uranex Tanzania Limited.

CHAPTER THREE:Institutional, Policy And Legislative FrameworkIntroductionThe administration and regulation of all mining activities in Tanzania are the portfolio responsibility of the

Ministry of Energy and Minerals (MEM). Other institutions include:

The Ministry of State, Vice President’s Office (Environment)

of the Environmental Management Act, 2004 (EMA 2004). As far as uranium mining is concerned,

the Ministry is responsible for reviewing, approving or disapproving project applications, reviewing

reports by the National Environmental Management Council (NEMC) on proposed projects as well as

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) project reports (as a final stage of an EIA process according

to the Environmental Management Act 2004 and the Environmental Impact Assessment and Audit

uranium mining with or without conditions.

In enforcing the EMA 2004 the Minister is given the mandate to issue a conservation order so as to

preserve, among other things, wildlife resources, fauna and flora. However, despite the obvious danger

posed by uranium prospecting activities inside the Selous Game Reserve, the Minister has so far not

invoked a conservation order.

The National Environmental Management Council (NEMC) NEMC is an institution under the Vice-President’s Office that provides advice on all matters pertaining

to environmental conservation and management. It is the leading advisory, coordinating, and regulatory

agency responsible for the protection of the environment and the sustainable use of natural resources

in Tanzania.

NEMC has the mandate of undertaking enforcement, compliance, review, and monitoring of environmental

impact assessment and in that regard; NEMC is obliged to facilitate public participation in environmental


18 19

decision making and to exercise general supervision and coordination over all matters relating to the

environment.

NEMC has been ineffective due to the following constraints:

and disseminate information/data relevant to the implementation of the comprehensive Environmental

oversee environmental management and compliance of the law all over the country.

to lack of independence, overlapping roles and irresponsibility. Various environmental incidents have

occurred in the country, especially in the mining sector, such as an alleged toxic spill into River Tigithe,

North Mara on a number of occasions between 2009 and 2011. Surrounding villages alleged that up to

40 people and between 700 to 1,000 domestic animals died from the contaminated water and the

nearby community is still experiencing health problems.

Despite these serious allegations and the enormous powers of NEMC under the EMA 2004, there has

been no remarkable intervention by the Council. Under the EMA 2004, NEMC is mandated with restoration

powers and/or orders which is the basis to hold a mining company operating nearby an incident of pollution

responsible for the effects regardless of the cause of the pollution. The United States of America invoked

the same type of restoration order to hold British Petroleum (BP) accountable for the 2010 petroleum spill

in the Gulf of Mexico.

Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission (TAEC) This institution is established under the Atomic Energy Act, No. 7 of 2003 and its basic responsibility is to:

With respect to uranium mining, TAEC is responsible for all matters relating to safe and peaceful use of

atomic energy and nuclear technology including radio-active materials and radioactive devices, with a

view of ensuring promotion of their applications and the protection of workers, patients and the general

public from harm resulting from radiation. It is also responsible for adopting and supervising standards

of safety for protection in all undertakings involving the use of atomic energy and radioactive materials

including raw uranium.

Another important function of TAEC is to establish and implement a system for the control and authorization,

through registration and licensing, of the importation, exportation, transportation, possession or use of

atomic energy and radioactive materials. (It should be clearly noted that the registration and licensing by

TAEC does not cover the registration and licensing of uranium mining companies. Uranium exploration

companies are licensed and registered by MEM.)

The Commission is also responsible for approving applications for projects involving research, development

and peaceful utilization of atomic energy and nuclear technology ‘with its own resources’. In reaching

a decision to approve a project or not the TAEC is obliged to take into account how radiation safety

and radioactive waste management issues have been addressed in the project plans. Unfortunately, this

role does not extend to uranium extraction projects, therefore excluding such a critical oversight role in

uranium extraction projects.

The Geological Survey of Tanzania (GST)The Geological Survey of Tanzania (GST) was established as a Government Executive Agency in October

2005.14

mineral prospects in order to encourage further evaluation by the private sector.

GST also provides confidential and customized expert services to exploration, mining companies and small-

scale miners. These include all aspects and scale of mineral exploration and prospect evaluation, from

planning and implementing regional exploration programmes (geological, geochemical and geophysical),

to detailed mineralogical studies and deposit modelling.

Unfortunately, despite having such a useful agency, most discoveries and prospects, especially on

uranium, are developed by the private sector through licensing by the Ministry of Energy and Minerals. It

is the authors’ view that it is time this agency took a proactive operational approach, instead of operating

like private investors with a profit-driven vision and mission for geological surveys.

__________________________________________________________________________________

14.The Executive Agency Act No. 30, [CAP 245] of 1997, establishment order, 2005, Government notice no: 418 published on 9/12/2005


20 21

Policy FrameworkA. The Energy Policy of Tanzania 1992

policy promotes and encourages development of natural gas resources at Songo Songo and Mnazi

Bay to substitute for expensive imported petroleum fuel. The Policy also expresses government support

on investment in transportation of natural gas to Dar es Salaam for use in industries, transport; power

generation and in the commercial sectors. There is also a mentioning of establishment of standards and

regulations on transportation and use of natural gas to ensure safety. (Para 2 & 60)

Shortcomings/ Challenges:

system from one party to a multiparty system while the policy expressly stated its main objective was to

execute the manifesto of ‘Chama Cha Mapinduzi’ (the Revolutionary Party).

Mnazi Bay only. No specific provisions or mentions were made of uranium, solar, wind, and geothermal

energy as alternative sources of energy worthy investing in.

B. The National Energy Policy 2003Due to policy framework dynamics that have occurred since 1992 and the numerous developments

in the energy sector, the National Energy Policy (NEP) was formulated in 2003. The 2003 policy takes

into account the structural changes that had occurred in terms of changes in the economy and political

transformations at national and international levels. The NEP spells clearly the vision and mission of the

energy sector.

The vision of the sector is to contribute to the growth of the national economy and thereby improve the

standard of living for the entire nation in a “sustainable and environmentally” sound manner. It seeks to

create conditions for the provision of “safe, reliable, efficient, cost-effective and environmentally appropriate

energy services” to all sectors on a sustainable basis.

This policy includes uranium under ‘other abundant, but so far not fully tapped, indigenous energy sources’

The policy seeks to address the environmental impacts of energy exploration, production, distribution and

consumption. According to the policy, environmental impacts and hazards shall be addressed by rigorous

environmental management regimes. This is aimed at discouraging the use of environmentally unsound

energy technologies.

Shortcomings and Challenges

mining, where peaceful extraction and uses of atomic energy can be attained.

C. The National Environmental Policy (NEP) 1997With respect to energy, the National Environmental Policy (NEP) stipulates its objective as to ensure

sound management of the impacts of energy development and use in order to minimize environmental

degradation.

The policy objectives to be pursued are, inter alia:

wood-fuel energy efficiency;

This policy indirectly provides for the prevention, reduction, control and elimination of damage, and

minimization of the risk thereof from the generation, management, transportation, handling and disposal

of hazardous wastes, other wastes and emissions which can include (but not limited to) uranium

radioactive waste.

The policy also recognizes the importance of tackling immediate environmental problems, advocating

precautionary, anticipatory and preventive approaches as the most effective and economical measures

in achieving environmentally sound development. Therefore an EIA is mandatorily recommended for any

mining project. The policy also provides for public consultations and public hearings in the EIA procedures.


22 23

The policy also articulates the importance of public participation in environmental management: something

which is relevant in uranium mining. With regard to public participation the policy stipulates that it is the

responsibility of government institutions and non-governmental organizations to assist local communities

to become aware of their own situation and to support them to become responsible for their own destiny.

This is in recognition that local communities will participate if they can be persuaded that it is right and

Shortcomings and Challenges:

established that immediate impacts of most projects carried out in Tanzania are social, such as

reallocation which in most cases deprives the affected community of its means of livelihood, and causes

and social impact assessment (ESIA).

in general, in practice this has never been the case in Tanzania. Different studies and reports [Maro et

al] have concluded that even communities living around uranium sites in Tanzania such as Manyoni,

the environment despite the possible negative implications for these communities.

informed opinions in cases where the community is consulted. In Tanzania, non-governmental

organizations have been executing this duty but due to limitations on resources, few communities have

benefited from these services.

D. The Mineral Policy of 2009The Mineral Policy is primary concerned with promoting economic integration between the mineral sector

and other sectors of the economy, so as to maximize the contribution of the mineral sector. The vision of

the policy is to have a safe, environmentally-sound and beneficial mineral sector. Harvesting of salt is one of the entrepreneurial engagement for a number of females in the Bahi Swamp area. If they have to be

relocated, they have fears of losing their livelihood.


24 25

The wording of the Mineral Policy of 2009 suggests that the Government envisaged a mandatory

mechanism or system that will make sure that mining companies are forced to set aside a rehabilitation

bond that will be used to reclaim the land after mining operations cease. However, the Mining Act of 2010

that implements the policy has deviated and instead it has made asking for the bond from a company at

the discretion of the Minister responsible, . Considering the serious environmental damages that are likely

to be caused by mining activities, especially uranium mining; a mandatory and prepaid rehabilitation bond

is important provided that the responsible Ministry can design a simple means of assessing the deposit

amount and ensuring it is used exclusively for the intended purposes.

and the investor to cover compensation costs and actual relocation. The policy suggests legislative

reforms to some existing laws such as the Land Act of 1999 which recognizes the government as the sole

E. The National Investment Policy 1996The National Investment Policy acknowledges the existence of substantial proven natural gas reserves

that can be exploited for industrial use and power generation. The Policy promotes reducing national

dependence of bio-mass fuel by developing possible sources of energy, uranium and nuclear included,

with the emphasis on utilization of domestic resources so as to ensure security and continuity of supplies.

It also seeks to ensure that production, distribution and use of energy is not detrimental to the environment.

Legal FrameworkA. The Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania of 1977The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977 is the fundamental law in Tanzania, overriding all

other legislation. The right to life is guaranteed under Article 14, and the judiciary in Tanzania interpreted

this right in the case of JOSEPH KESSY and OTHERS vs DAR ES SALAAM CITY COUNCIL to include

the right to a safe, clean and decent environment. The right to life is very relevant in uranium exploration

and mining operations considering the radioactive and fissionable features of uranium which, if not well

managed, can seriously impede the right to life.

However the Constitution does not expressly provide for environmental protection and this is a serious gap

that ought to be addressed in the forthcoming constitutional process: this has been elaborately expressed

and made enforceable in the 1995 Uganda Constitution and the new Constitution of Kenya, 2010.

B. The Atomic Energy Act 2003This law establishes the Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission (TAEC) and tasks it with controlling the

use of radioactive material and the promotion of safe and peaceful uses of atomic energy and nuclear

technology. This Act also repealed the Protection from Radiation Act of 1983.

The Act generally prohibits using, possessing, exporting, importing, storing and transporting of ionizing

radiation sources, unless registered and licenced under this Act, ranging from radiation protection, physical

protection, nuclear safety, radioactive waste management and emergency preparedness. Specifically it

prohibits unless licenced the importation of any nuclear installation, material, plant or any other source of

radiation.

In relation to radioactivity the law covers only food stuffs in that it empowers the TAEC in consultation with

the Tanzania Food and Drugs Authority to establish a system for control of radioactivity in foodstuffs.

The law establishes the Central Radioactive Waste Management Facility which serves as the national

centre for collection, characterization, conditioning, segregation and generally safe management of

radioactive wastes.

Owing to low awareness about uranium exploration in the country in the early 2000s when the law was

enacted, this Act gave extra attention to upstream uranium and radioactive operations at the expense of

downstream operations. This has made this Act and TAEC toothless in regulating uranium exploration

and development.

C. The Mining Act 2010The Mining Act 2010 generally regulate matters relating to prospecting for minerals, mining, processing

and dealing in minerals, to granting, renewal and termination of mineral rights, payment of royalties, fees

and other charges and any other relevant matter. Uranium mining is therefore also governed by the scope

and applicability of this law. The Act repealed the Mining Act of 1998, however all subsidiary legislation


26 27

made under the 1998 Act continue to be in force until new rules are made by the Minister or the old

rules are revoked. (This is by virtue of Section 116 (2) of the Mining Act, 2010.) Because of this saving

provision, regulations made under the Mining Act, 1998 such as Mining (Environmental Management and

Protection), GN. No. 218 of 1998; and Mining (Safe Working and Occupational Health), 1999; and Mining

(Dispute Resolutions) Rules, 1999, are still operative.

The Mining Act 2010 amends the method by which Government of Tanzania (GOT) royalties are calculated

so that they are now be levied on the gross value of minerals, rather than the present method of calculation

which refers to the net value. The rate of royalties now levied by the GOT on uranium is 5%.

In respect of environmental management, the Mining Act, 2010 provides that the Minister for Energy and

Minerals may enter into a ‘development agreement’ in which environmental issues are to be addressed.

In addition the Act states that the ‘development agreement’ will be reviewed every five years to evaluate

such as environmental protection and fiscal charges is a significant flaw that creates the potential for

abuse. The authors call for an immediate amendment of the Act to ensure consistency with existing and

comprehensive environment and fiscal laws in place.

Another concern is the discretionary nature of the rehabilitation bond for the protection of the environment.

The Buhemba mine abandonment in 2004 and its aftermath is one case where such a bond may have

protected the community. The community members in Buhemba area are now faced with skin diseases,

abnormal livestock births and lack of safe water for use including lack of food.

The Act prohibits any licensing authority, including TAEC as explained earlier, to issue a dealer’s or

brokerage licence for uranium.15

of the Atomic Energy Act of 2003, but still leaves its control in the hands of TAEC16 while at the same

time depriving TAEC the power to issue permits to export and import radioactive minerals.17 Instead, this

role rests with the Commissioner of Minerals, an office that has no expertise and capacity to deal with

radioactive materials.

D. The Environmental Management Act (EMA), Act No. 20 of 2004The EMA 2004 provides the legal and institutional framework for sustainable management of the

environment. This law outlines principles for management, impact and risk assessment, prevention and

decisions involving environmental issues, and implementation of the National Environmental Policy (NEP).

It is this law that repeals the National Environmental Management Act, 1983 and establishes the continued

existence of the National Environmental Management Council (NEMC).

An important tool under EMA 2004 is the environmental impact assessment (EIA) which is a scientific

assessment of the possible positive or negative impacts that a proposed project may have on the

Uranium ore as captured within the timber-fenced compound in Makete town __________________________________________________________________________________

15. Section 86 16. Section 108(1) 17. Section 108(2)


28 29

environment. Section 53 articulates the conditions which must be attached to a mining licence, including

Uranium mining activities are likely to produce hazardous radioactive waste in the course of exploration

and extraction, once the radioactive ores are exposed to bare earth surface. The EMA 2004 provides for

management of hazardous waste, including radioactive waste, especially in exportation in that where such

materials are to be exported from Tanzania, it is a precondition that the exporter obtain a written permit

issued by a competent authority from a receiving country.

Lastly, but not in any case least, the EMA 2004 has adopted a bio-centric approach and provides for an

expanded legal standing for environmental litigation, in that it covers affected individuals; individuals in

interest or on behalf of another person where that person is unable to bring the matter; representatives suit,

suits for public interest even if one is not affected directly; and interestingly, in the interest of environment or

habitat. This means, according to EMA 2004 that even the environment has legal standing [locus standi].

This provision is fundamental as far as uranium mining in Tanzania is concerned in the sense that there is a

legal backing for environmentalists and other interested members of the community to intervene wherever

there is a violation of environmental law in uranium mining operations.

Shortcomings and Challenges:

to be undertaken’ on the project applicant or developer, at his own cost. This provision has been the

subject of critical debate as to whether an EIA conducted by a firm hired by the project applicant will

be transparent and unbiased. Considering the weak institutional capacity and multiplicity of activities of

supervisory authorities such as the National Environmental Management Council, it is recommended

that an independent body be established to be responsible for monitoring and supervising EIAs carried

out by representative of the project applicant or developer.

is disposed into the soil, air or body of water. However in practice, this is not being done and there are

reported cases of uranium exploration sites where it is alleged that a considerable amount of radioactive

ore has been disposed on land without meeting the precondition of EIA.

Impact Assessment and Audit Regulations, 2005 which regards all documents relating to EIA as public

documents. However in practice this is not the case, especially for uranium mining projects.

uranium mining in Tanzania are conducted while remaining undisclosed to the local government

authorities, or with the intervention of the central government that makes it impossible for local

government to exercise their supervisory powers.

Water source used by local community members at Chali Isanga in Bahi District. Uranium mining is water intensive,

if mined, miled and processed in this area there will be water based conflict between locals and the investors.


30 31

International Standards On Uranium Mining1. The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear MaterialThe Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material was opened for signature on 3 March 1980,

pursuant to Article 18 of the convention. The Convention recognises the right of all States to develop and

apply nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and their legitimate interests in the potential benefits to be

derived from the peaceful application of nuclear energy. It calls for the need for facilitating international

co-operation in the peaceful application of nuclear energy to avert the potential dangers posed by the

unlawful taking and use of nuclear material and also the importance of international co-operation to

establish, in conformity with the national law of each State Party and the Convention, effective measures

for the physical protection of nuclear material in domestic use, storage and transport.

Article 3 specifically calls for States to take appropriate steps within the framework of their national law and

consistent with international law to ensure as far as practicable that, during international nuclear transport,

nuclear material within its territory, or on board a ship or aircraft under its jurisdiction insofar as such ship

or aircraft is engaged in the transport to or from that State.

Shortcomings and Challenges:Looked at critically, it is unlikely that a country like Tanzania will strictly adhere to these standards,

considering the level of its economy and technology. There are consistent cases of lapses in checking

cargo vessels that are originating from or transiting through the country, looked as potential to weapon

smuggling weapons into the Great Lakes Region. It is therefore difficult to see the proper application of

Article 3 when it comes to the stage where the country is engaged in full uranium production.

2. United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural RightsArticle 1 Art. 1 of the Covenant clearly states the rights of self-determination; people have the right to pursue their

economic, social and cultural development. The current activities of uranium exploration carried out by

uranium mining companies have already posed a threat to these rights. The tendency of the companies to

perform exploration activities on village land, fields and agricultural areas without prior consultation with

the people is disturbing the people in pursuing their economic activities.

Shortcomings and Challenges:In the Bahi area, drilling activities were performed on agricultural land (rice, sunflower, and millet fields)

for uranium exploration with neither prior information to nor the consent of the local people. In one case,

people were told that the drilling was performed in order to build a tower for cell phone communication.

People who opposed drilling activities on their land were intimidated: police officers were sent to tell

people that they had to allow drilling activities in their fields/on their village land. If uranium mining projects

are approved to proceed, the mining activities will lead to the relocation of people and appropriation for

land, depriving the people of their means of existence. Compensation paid to people in similar cases is

minimal and does not remunerate properly for the loss of land as a means of existence.

Article 11

clothing and housing and continuous improvement of the living conditions. Article 11 also recognizes the

right of everyone to be free from hunger.

Shortcomings and Challenges:The Bahi area - as explained above - is a significant food production area which the communities in Bahi

and Tanzania at large depend on for food security. Uranium mining will endanger this area significantly;

this may result in food shortages which will be a clear violation of Article 11 of the Convention.

Uranium mining will not guarantee a good living standard and improved living conditions for the people

in the Bahi area. The experience from other countries that have gone through uranium mining and the

experience of gold mining in Tanzania have shown that governments have little control over multinational

companies and communities are left at the mercy of these companies whose priorities are profit making

rather than protecting human rights. The study that was done by CESOPE in 201018 found that the economic

value of the Bahi wetland is of high importance to the communities in Bahi and adjacent areas, and people

are benefiting more from the services of the Bahi wetland than they will benefit from the planned uranium

mining activities.

Article 12 Art. 12 of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognize the right of everyone to the

enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

__________________________________________________________________________________

18. Summary Report on Human Rights under Threat due to Uranium Exploitation in Tanzania FEMAPO + CESOPE, Tanzania - UN CESCR - December 2011 2 / 7


32 33

Shortcomings and Challenges:Uranium mining poses a serious threat to this right, due to the negative health impacts that result from

these activities. There have already been concerns as a result of uranium exploration in Bahi.

Companies are neglecting the best practices of uranium exploration, for example in Bahi, Ilindi village,

the communities complained of companies digging deep exploration pits which were then left without

covering. People from the community who are hired for short-term support to uranium exploration activities

are not given protective safety gear and not educated of the dangers of uranium mining.

FEMAPO and CESOPE investigations in these areas confirmed these complaints: there are people already

affected as a result of uranium exploration. There is ample scientific evidence and experience on the

detrimental effect of uranium mining on the health of miners, workers and people in the areas of the

mines, in African countries and worldwide.

A finished Uranium Trench


34 35

CHAPTER FOUR:Lessons, Challenges and Practices from countries with Uranium MiningIntroduction Uranium mining must be carried out carefully, as the effects of uranium on human beings and habitats

will last for generations. Tanzania has to make sure that it has a specific and protective policy and

assessments MUST be conducted. The government must establish proper regulatory authorities and

develop local capacities in different departments of the sector to support and enhance efficient and

effective implementation of uranium mining activities.

Alongside regulation and capacity, political will for the proper enforcement of laws governing uranium

mining activities is essential to prevent harm to the people of Tanzania.

It is imperative that the Government move forward to implement the laws with a special focus on the gaps

identified in this report. Otherwise, the resource curse that has been experienced in the gold mining sector

will likewise be experienced in areas earmarked for uranium mining.

If these concerns are repeatedly ignored, Tanzania will continue to experience unstable economic input

from the mining, lack of strategies for rural development, potential clashes between companies and

communities, environmental degradation, land issues and health hazards. Social unrest could potentially rise.

The lessons from different countries show that there is a need to develop a strong legislative and

regulatory framework, establish of regulatory authorities with skilled staff, and conduct environmental

impact assessment and plan for proper disposal of waste materials. The following countries mine uranium,

their experience is presented here.

A. NigerUranium mines in Niger are operated by the state-owned French nuclear giant AREVA and continue to

create a radioactive hazard for the people living nearby.19 Greenpeace carried out soil, water and air tests

in Arlit and Akokan, located a few kilometres from the mines. The samples were studied in collaboration

with the France-based Research and Independent Information on Radioactivity Commission (CRIIRAD).

Analysis showed uranium contamination exceeded World Health Organisation safety limits in four out of

five water samples. They found evidence of chemical elements and radon, a radioactive gas dissolved in

water. Despite this, water is still being distributed to the population and AREVA’s workers for consumption.

Local environmental and human rights organizations say that radioactivity increases poverty because it

creates more victims. With each day passes they are exposed to radiation and continue to be surrounded

by poisoned air, polluted water and land – while AREVA makes hundreds of millions of dollars from their

natural resources.

Half of AREVA’s uranium comes from two mines in Niger, one of Africa’s poorest countries and the world’s

third largest uranium producer for more than 40 years. AREVA has also signed a deal to start tapping

a third mine in the desert nation from 2013 or 2014. AREVA claim that it is an environmentally friendly

company; however stakeholders such as Greenpeace are disputing this claim and call for an independent

study around the mines and mining towns in Niger followed by a thorough clean up and decontamination.

The shocking levels of contamination in Niger reveal the lies behind AREVA’s claims. Stakeholders

are calling for AREVA to take immediate action to end the routine radioactive contamination of villages

surrounding their Nigerien mines. They call for AREVA to take responsibility for its actions not only in

Niger, but worldwide and also to put in place long-term health monitoring of the local population.

B. AustraliaThe presence of a uranium resource in Australia had been known since the 1890s. The first uranium

mining activity was reported in Radium Hill, South of Australia in 1906.20

successive roll-out of other mining sites between 1911 and 1944, with offers of tax concessions in 1948.21

This development paved way for mining operations run by the Commonwealth in 1954.22

__________________________________________________________________________________

19. A report released by Greenpeace reveals contamination levels in the air, water and soil above internationally accepted limits.

20. Australian Map - Radium Hill former uranium-radium mine: http://australianmap.net/radium-hill/; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Hill

21. Smith, Julie: Essay Tax policy (Analysis/Planning) - June, 1997 Source Volume: 8 Source Issue: 1 - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Economic-Labour-Relations-Review/237940766.

html; Economic and labour Relations: ©1997 Centre for Applied Economic Research and Industrial Relations Research Centre ISSN: 1035-3046

22. Gavin M. Mudd: An analysis of historic production trends in Australian base metal mining

Ore Geology Reviews - Volume 32, Issues 1–2, September 2007, Pages 227–261


36 37

Oblivious of the awaiting dangers, this child is playing on the ground which would pose unknown future health hazards with the

mining of uranium

With such a background, Australia claims the longest experience in uranium mining in the world. But even

in the face of such experience; there has been opposition against uranium mining citing environmental

damage, indigenous land access and nuclear proliferation as reasons for ending mining or restricting the

industry. The debate has resulted in limitations on mining and export activities, with Federal and State

governments occasionally debating on public policy. In the meantime, mining companies have pursued

exploration activities, and in some instances stockpiled mined ore with an expectation that the eventual

removal of restrictions and uncertainties will occur due to the scale of economic benefits on offer.

It is also reported that by December 2005 in Australia, on average, each tonne of uranium extracted has

led to the production of 848 tonnes of mill tailings and 1,152 tonnes23 of combined low-grade ore and

tonnes (grading about 0.03% of Triuranium octoxide - U3O8) with roughly 175 million tonnes of combined

low-grade ore and waste rock. In comparison to the volumes of radioactive waste in the nuclear fuel chain,

challenges involved in uranium mining. There have been numerous incidents at the now closed Nabarlek

mine and the operating Ranger, Olympic Dam and Beverley projects. The most common examples include

mismanagement of water, sometimes leading to unauthorised releases to adjacent creeks, significant risks

to mine/mill workers, waste rock leaching, and ongoing seepage impacts from tailings.

of uranium mines from the Cold War, namely Rum Jungle, Radium Hill, Mary Kathleen and the South

Alligator group of mines, all still present environmental and radiological management problems and

remnant tailings and disposal into former pits, re-contouring and engineering soil covers over low grade

ore and waste rock dumps, acid mine drainage continues to pollute the Finiss River, and the complete

__________________________________________________________________________________

23. SRK Consulting: MOL004 NI43-101 Technical Report Spinifex Ridge July 2008 (appendix 16 & 17) -

http://www.aspectfinancial.com.au/asxdata/20080821/pdf/00871856.pdf;

http://antinuclear.net/2010/01/07/can-uranium-mines-be-operated-safely/


38 39

24 , minimal earth works were undertaken in the early

1980s, mainly only engineering soil covers over the tailings piles. Erosion is a continual problem and

C. NamibiaAccording to a report by the Namibian Press Agency (NAMPA) of 29 February 2008, the Namibian

Chamber of Mines had decided to establish a Uranium Stewardship Committee25 to safeguard the interest

of the uranium industry in the country. The Chairperson of the Uranium Stewardship Committee was

Michael Leech, who was the Managing Director of Rössing Uranium.

The committee was to develop minimum standards for environmental health and environmental

management for uranium mines and to assist with a regional Strategic Environmental Management Plan

(SEMP). This was done with the participation of public and private stakeholders and also in conjunction

with the Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (SAIEA), the World Nuclear Association

(WNA) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The Chamber of Mines of Namibia also established a committee that would deal with radiation protection

issues in the uranium industry. In addition, the chamber has appointed a medical practitioner as a principal

adviser to help with the development of minimum standards for occupational health and environmental

management for uranium mines.

health, and environmental management.

D. CanadaCanada is the world’s largest producer and exporter of uranium, but despite its extensive experience in

uranium mining, Canada is still struggling with the regulatory and administrative needs of the industry.

On 14 February 200326, the Government of Saskatchewan and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

__________________________________________________________________________________

24. Australia’s First Atom Age Ghost Town Documentary – Chinese Sound review: Radium Hill Is Now A Ghost Town 1962: http://www.britishpathe.com/video/radium-hill-is-now-a-ghost-town/

25. Namibian News Agency – News report (February 29, 2008): Chamber of Mines Decides to Establish Uranium Stewardship Committee; http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1274814/

namibia_chamber_of_mines_decides_to_establish_uranium_stewardship_committee/

26. http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=bc2463c6-a300-4b6a-9519-d0375d965817

(CNSC) announced the signing of an agreement “that will lead to greater administrative efficiency in

regulating the uranium industry. This initiative was in response to a recommendation that was made by the

Joint Federal-Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining developments in Northern Saskatchewan, and which

laid a foundation for the two groups to coordinate and harmonize their respective regulatory regimes.” 27

According to a report that was prepared by a consultant for the Saskatchewan Environment Ministry and

released by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) on 7 April 2009, the Ministry has a ‘massive

capability and capacity deficit’28 in the uranium mining sector. The report states that the Saskatchewan

Environment Ministry is falling behind critical work, especially in the uranium mining sector, and should

undergo a complete re-organization.

The report found that, despite the Province’s long uranium mining history, the ministry does not have the

staff or capability to monitor and regulate the current industry,” the report found. It said that only a handful

of people have the appropriate expertise and experience to perform the Ministry’s oversight functions.

The report states that the ministry “is in a massive capability and capacity deficit when considering new

mining and milling projects, let alone support, the value-added activities the province has announced

it intends to pursue.” The environmental consultant suggested Saskatchewan could contract a private

sector expert to support its uranium regulation work.

In New Brunswick the Government was seriously criticized by the public for not doing enough to protect

the environment and health of residents. The critics wondered why the government would introduce

guidelines that aren’t mandatory. They also argued that the guidelines are standard conditions that are

applied to various development projects.

Therefore despite their long experiences in uranium mining, environment issues, land issues, regulatory

issues, policy and legal framework and human resource capacities are important lessons before establishing

uranium mining. The Government of Tanzania has to learn from others before extraction of uranium.

__________________________________________________________________________________

27. CNSC-Saskatchewan Administrative Agreement for the Regulation of health, safety and the environment at Saskatchewan uranium mines and mills: http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/pdfs/Sask_e.pdf

28. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Media Report (Tuesday, April 7, 2009) http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2009/04/07/environment-overhaul-uranium-123.html


40 41

CHAPTER FIVE:Conclusion and RecommendationsConclusionThe United Republic of Tanzania does not have specific policies and laws to efficiently and effectively

regulate uranium mining. The latter should be the benchmark of all pre- and post-operational activities in the

uranium mining industry, which is just beginning to take root in the country. At the present, the laws and policies

in place leave communities in proposed mining areas at risk. The negative effects are already visible at the

exploration stage and the Government needs to take serious measures to protect life and the environment.

It is also clear that local community members in the areas earmarked for uranium mining activities are

absolutely unaware of what dangers they would be facing once mining activities are underway. The benefits

that could be accrued to the local community members when these operations begin are also unclear.

Under current legal, regulatory and policy frameworks, the people of Tanzania experienced pain and

whether things can be better with uranium under the same policy framework.

RecommendationsTo address issues raised and highlighted in this report, the following has to be done:

GOVERNMENT

during the uranium exploration stage before signing the mining contracts.

mining activities.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

office, Bahi and Manyoni) and establish the extent of pollution, take measures to prevent further

damaging effects.

CSOs and INTERFAITH COMMITTEE


42 43

REFERENCES

Bernd G. Lottermoser, P. M. Ashley: Environmental review of the Radium Hill mine site, South Australia/

World of Mining – Surface & Underground 57 (2005) No. 57 (2005) No. 2

Dr. Daniel Nkhuwa & Sakwiba Musiwa: Prosperity unto Death: Is Zambia Ready for Uranium Mining – 2010.

Dr. Gordon Edwards: URANIUM: Known Facts and Hidden Dangers September 14, 1992 – Quebec

FEMAPO 2010: Background Document on Uranium Mining in Tanzania

http://uranium-news.com/2010/01/07/poor-safety-record-of-australias-uranium-mines/

http://www.aboriginalaffairs.gov.on.ca/english/news/2008/nov28nr_08.asp

IAEA Technical Reports: Establishment of Uranium Mining and Processing Operations in the Context of

Sustainable Development - http://www.downtheyellowcakeroad.org/userfiles/file/gavin%20

mudd%20u%20mining%20milling.pdf; http://www.ies.unsw.edu.au.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/docs/

Mudd_045_Uconfpaper-v2.pdf

Isotopes of Uranium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_uranium

Jenkins, H. & Obara, L. 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the mining industry – the risk of

community dependency.

L. J. Obara & H. Jenkins 2006: The Centre For Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and

Society Working Paper Series No. 36

Ministry of Energy and Minerals 2005: Tanzania: Opportunity for Mineral Resource Development

PMO/NEMC: http://www.tanzania.go.tz/environment.html#Agencies under the Division

Rachel Keeler, Ratio Magazine: Tanzania Mining Industry: Revenues, Resentment and Overregulation?

Radon & Radon Daughters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_radon

Share Trader: http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?3282-Uranex-UNX)&s=9cd9f742b12d0ae3

5483b076a0b4f51c

TAEC: Functions of TAEC - http://www.taec.or.tz/Downloads/Functions_of_TAEC.pdf

Uranex Tanzania Limited: http://www.uranex.com.au/Projects/Tanzania/Manyoni.aspx

Uranex Tanzania Limited: http://www.uranex.com.au/Projects/Tanzania/Itigi.aspx

Uranium Mining in Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_Australia

Uranium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

Uranium Mining in Tanzania: Are We Ready?

45

CHRISTIAN COUNCILOF TANZANIA

CATHOLIC SECRETARIAT

TANZANIA EPISCOPAL CONFERENCE

Documents

Uranium Mining in Tanzania_ Are We Ready