On Tuesday, 17 October
2013, Mr Speaker announced that the Standing Rules and Orders Committee had
nominated the following Members to serve on the Portfolio Committee on Youth,
Indigenization and Economic Empowerment:
Hon. Wadyajena (Chairperson); Hon. Chikuni;
Hon. Nyamupinga; Hon. Dube S.; Hon. Hungwa; Hon. Chibaya; Hon. Mathe; Hon.
Masuku; Hon. Matimba; Hon. Muzhavazhi; Hon. Madanha; Hon. Zhou T.; Hon
Porusingazi; Hon. Simbanegavi;Hon. Madubeko; Hon. Dziva; Hon. Chiwetu; Hon
Toffa; Hon. Madondo; Hon. Pedzisai; Hon. Mhlanga; Hon. Mahlangu; Hon. Matienga;
Hon. Beremauro; Hon. Chikomba; Hon. Nyahwo; Hon. Chipanga; Hon. Madzore P.;
Hon. Madzore S.; Hon Kadungure;. Hon. Sibanda; Hon. Chiwa
ORDERED
IN TERMS OF STANDING ORDER No. 159 THAT:
1) At
the commencement of every session, there shall be as many committees to be
designated according to government portfolios as the Standing Rules and Orders
Committee may deem fit.
2) It
shall be the function of such committees to examine expenditure administration
and policy of government departments and other matters falling under their
jurisdictions as Parliament may, by resolution determine.
3) The
members of such committees shall be appointed by the Standing Rules and Orders
Committee, from one or both Houses of Parliament, and such appointments shall
take into account the expressed interests or expertise of the Members and
Senators and the political and gender composition of Parliament.
TERMS
OF REFERENCE OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEES S.O. No. 160
Subject to these
Standing Orders, a portfolio committee shall-
a
consider and deal with all Bills and
Statutory Instruments or other matters which are referred to it by or under a
resolution of the House or by the Speaker;
b
consider or deal with an appropriation
or money bill or any aspect of an appropriation or money bill referred to it by
these Standing Orders or by or under resolution of this House;
monitor, investigate, enquire into and
make recommendations relating to any aspect of the legislative programme,
budget, policy or any other matter it may consider relevant to the government
department falling within the category of affairs assigned to it, and may for
that purpose, consult and liaise with such a department; and
consider or deal with all international
treaties, conventions and agreements relevant to it, which are from time to
time negotiated, entered into or agreed upon.
1.
Introduction
1.1 In line with its
oversight role as provided under Standing Order No. 160 (c), the Portfolio
Committee on Youth, Indigenization and Economic Empowerment undertook an
enquiry into the progress made in the implementation of the Indigenisation and
Economic Empowerment Laws. The enquiry was occasioned by the Committee’s desire
to fulfill the objectives of the Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic
Transformation (ZIM-ASSET) Social Services and Poverty Eradication Cluster. TheZIM-ASSET
economic Blueprint states in chapter 3 that, “By coming up with the ZIMASSET,
Government seeks to address on a sustainable basis, the numerous challenges
affecting quality service delivery and economic growth. The plan is expected to
consolidate the gains brought about by the Land Reform, Indigenisation and
Economic Empowerment and Employment Creation Programmes, which have empowered
the communities through Land Redistribution, Community Share Ownership Trusts
and Employee Share Ownership Schemes, among others”. In this regard, the
Committee noted that the realization of sustainable development and social
equity anchored on indigenization, empowerment and employment creation lies in
compliance with and full implementation of the indigenisation and economic
empowerment laws.
2.0 Objectives
2.1 In its inquiry the
Committee was guided by the following objectives;
i.
To assess the levels of compliance to
the Indigenisation policy by qualifying businesses;
ii.
To assess the extent to which the
indigenous have benefitted from the programme;
iii. To verify and ascertain the situation on
the ground in the wake of conflicting and contradictory statements about
developments in Chisumbanje; and
iv.
To proffer recommendations on the
achievement of community empowerment.
3.0
Methodology
In undertaking this inquiry the
Committee adopted the following methodology.
3.1
Oral Evidence Sessions
The Committee held oral evidence
sessions with the management of Macdom and Green Fuel on the level of
compliance with the Indigenisation policy as well as their corporate social
responsibilities on community empowerment.
The Committee also accepted a request for interface made by the Platform
for Youth Development (PYD) to appear before the Committee on Chisumbanje
Ethanol Project. The Committee also received evidence from the Chisumbanje and
Chinyamukwakwa Traditional leaders as well as the Enivironmental Management
Agency (EMA).
3.2
Written Submissions
The Committee received written
submissions from PYD, Chief Garahwa, Headman Musuki Matambanadzo and Green Fuel Pvt Ltd Workers.
3.3 Fact Finding
Visit
The
Committee undertook a fact finding visit to the Ethanol Project in Chisumbanje
on 11 July 2014 with the main aim of verifying the existence of community
projects that Green Fuel claimed to have initiated for the community.
3.4 Public Hearing
The
Committee conducted a public hearing at Chisumbanje Primary School on 11 July
2014 to gather the views of the community on the Ethanol Project and its impact
on their livelihoods.
4.0 Background
4.1
In early 2008, Green Fuel represented by Macdom Investments, acquired the right
to lease land measuring 5 112 hectares from ARDA, where it built an ethanol
plant. The land has since increased to 9, 375 ha and is under sugarcane. The
project was initially welcomed as it was anticipated that it would lead to the
employment of people in the area and uplift the quality of life of households
in Chisumbanje.
4.2
Based on the geography of the area, most of the land came from adjacent land
owned by communal small holder farmers. This was to be done through progressive
accrual until the fully acquisition of the proposed 45 000 ha of cane by 2020.
4.3
In the process, the company started to encroach into surrounding communal land
in Chisumbanje, Chinyamukwakwa and Matikwa villages without adequate
consultation with the community, as the said land was not vacant but was used
by the villagers for their crop production, livestock grazing and for other
cultural uses.
4.4
An Inter Ministerial Cabinet Task Force headed by the then Deputy Prime
Minister, Professor A.G.O. Mutambara, was dispatched to Chisumbanje in 2012 to
help solve the simmering crisis besetting the Green Fuel Ethanol Plant and the
community. The Task Force made several recommendations, one of which was the
need to expand the District Ethanol Project Implementation Committee (DEPIC) to
include other stakeholders.
4.5
The recommendations carried in the Inter-Ministerial Cabinet Taskforce Report
suggested that:
4.5.1
Land acquisitions to the project were supposed to be regularized by Chipinge
Rural District Council in accordance with the Communal Lands Act (Chapter
24:04) and that Council decisions enabling this particular land acquisition be
reviewed, harmonized and aligned according to the Inter-Ministerial report.
4.5.2
The company should immediately compensate and resettle the 117 households that
had offer letters and were displaced from ARDA estates. The farmers and the
company were to engage directly to negotiate terms for the farmers to continue
to live on the estates as out growers and producers to the Ethanol Project.
4.5.3
The company should immediately compensate households that lost crops in the
process of developing the Project’s dams and canals in accordance with the
assessments of crop damages that were carried out by the department of
Agriculture Rural Extension (AREX) officials and further corroborated with
information obtained directly from the affected communities.
4.5.4
There be an asset audit (i.e. land, livestock, crops, buildings, equipment and
family size) for each displaced household so that compensation and resettlement
is meaningful and that some of the displaced households must be accommodated as
sugarcane out growers, and producers of other products and services, to the Ethanol
Project.
4.5.5
The grievance that not enough local people are being employed must be
addressed.
4.5.6
In order to avoid future acrimonious community relations, Government and ARDA
should maintain an effective oversight of the implementation of the project and
that the District Joint Implementation Committee should be broadened to include
the Council Chairperson, all local chiefs, the local Member of Parliament, two
councilors, two workers union representatives and four representatives of the
displaced and affected households, two being from Chisumbanje and two from
Chinyamukwakwa.
4.6 It was against this
background that the Portfolio Committee on Youth, Indigenization and Economic
Empowerment visited Chisumbanje on 11 July 2014.
5.
0
Findings
5.1
Compliance Issues – Indigenization and
Economic Empowerment Act
5.1.2
The Committee gathered that, whereas the Indigenization and Economic
Empowerment Act (Chapter 14:33) as read with the Indigenization and Economic
Empowerment (General Regulations, 2010) stated that investment should be 49/51%
in favour of local investors, and that local communities should benefit from
such investment through 10% share community ownership. This is not the case in
Chisumbanje where the investment has a contentious 90% stake through Macdom
Investments and the government owns the remaining 10% through ARDA. ARDA has an irrevocable option to acquire up
to 51% shareholding, but it is not yet clear how this is going to be achieved.
It was also noted that Green Fuel was granted an ethanol blending license
despite not fulfilling the 51/49% Joint Venture with government according to
the spirit of S.I 17 of 2013 on Mandatory Blending.
5.2 Community
Projects
5.2.1
The Committee was briefed by Green Fuel management on the Ethanol Project as
well as community projects that the company claimed to have initiated for the
benefit of the community. The Committee was informed that the Green Fuel was
the first large-scale ethanol producing factory in Africa producing anhydrous
ethanol from sugarcane. The Joint Venture partnership with the Agricultural
Rural Development Authority (ARDA), saw 40 000 hectares of Chisumbanje land
earmarked for the project. Currently, only 9 375ha of land is being utilized
with a total production of 6 million litres of ethanol per month. The Committee
heard that, at full capacity, the current plant can produce 120 million litres
per annum, which translates to approximately US$120 million.
5.2.2
Green Fuel management informed the Committee that 10% of the project land was
set aside for the community as part of its corporate social responsibility
scheme. To this end, the Green Fuel officials told the Committee that the
company had developed 1060 ha of land for farmers in the community at a total
cost of $10.6 million. Of the above-mentioned hectarage, 660 ha was set aside
for two groups of out-grower farmer; 250 ha for War Veterans, and 410 ha for
“settlers”. The remaining 400 ha is under a community irrigation scheme. The company claimed to be assisting these
farmers with land preparations as well as provision of inputs such as
irrigation water, fertilizers etc.
5.2.3
The officials also indicated to the Committee that the company, through
‘Vimbo-hope of a better future‘ was also involved in social services
infrastructural rehabilitation and development at schools, clinics, roads and
boreholes. The Committee was also told that Vimbo was setting up of a
Technology Centre, a Sewing workshop, training workshop, bee project and
indigenous tree nursery project.
5.2.4
On its guided tour of the community projects, the Committee was only shown some
plots in the plantation which the officials claimed had been set aside for
out-grower farmers and War Veterans but there were no beneficiaries present to
support the claims. The Committee did not see the other projects which were
mentioned by officials to the Committee during the briefing meeting in the
morning.
5.2.5
After the tour of the “community projects”, the Committee conducted a public
hearing at Chisumbanje Primary School later in the day. The super-charged
public hearing was well-attended by community members, amongst them youths,
women, out-grower farmers, Green Fuel workers’ representatives, War Veterans
and traditional leaders. The gathering did not mince their words to the Committee.
They informed the Committee that while they did not object to the project per se, they had burning grievances
which had remained unresolved despite several government delegations that had
visited the area in the past dating back to the Government of National Unity
(GNU) when government set up an Inter-Ministerial Committee to look into their
grievances.
5.3. Compensation
5.3.1
The community dispelled the claims by Green Fuel during the oral evidence
session that it had compensated the community for land and livestock losses
suffered due to the Ethanol Project. The Committee observed that the issue of
non-compensation by Green Fuel to affected communities in Chisumbanje Village,
Chinyamukwakwa Village and Matikwa Village became very emotive and thus
captured the mood of the community regarding the Ethanol Project.
5.3.2
The Committee gathered that most villagers whose land was “swallowed” by the
project have not been compensated up to this day despite undertakings by Green
Fuel to do so when the project was first established. The affected villagers
told the Committee that as a result of the expropriation of their land, they no
longer had any source of income as their livelihood depended on small-scale
farming, especially cotton.
5.3.3
The Committee heard that when the project was first established, displaced
farmers were not given a chance to harvest their crops but instead they were
promised compensation, which has not been forth-coming. The community pointed
out that while Macdom had given them small pieces of land, measuring 0.5 ha,
which are not adequate for the needs of each household and their livestock, it
had not yet compensated them in monetary terms in accordance with the agreement
they had made.
5.3.4
The Committee gathered that no compensation has been paid as yet to
businesspersons who lost shops and grinding mills which had to make way for the
project, for example, in Matikwa where ARDA had encouraged a businessman to
erect a shop to service the area.
5.3.5
Members of the community are now in their sixth year without receiving any
compensation. They are concerned that the company has not erected a fence
between their grazing land and the small pieces of land they had been allocated
for irrigation purposes, as promised.
5.4 Grievances of Out-Grower
Farmers
5.4.1
The Committee noted that even those villagers who were accommodated in the
Green Fuel project as out-grower farmers bemoaned the insufficient size of
their plots, averaging 3 ha per family.
5.4.2
The out-grower farmers also expressed fears regarding lack of security of
tenure over their allocated plots in the plantation. They said there was no
clarity as to who the land belongs to. Hence they recommended that they be
given permits or some form of security of tenure.
5.4.3The
out-grower farmers accused Green Fuel of exposing them to harmful toxic
substances, which has a taken toll on their health.EMA provided the committee
with evidence (backed by an independent expert) that Green Fuel is illegally
discharging millions of litres daily of harmful and acidic effluent (vinasse)
from its plant into the environment. Vinasse is very acidic due to high
concentrations of potassium and sulfur among other substances. They also said
the company was releasing these toxic substances into the river system, thus
affecting their livestock and the ecosystem.
5.4.4
The farmers complained about the pricing model of their sugarcane, which they
described as day-light robbery. They bemoaned lack of transparency with the
scheme since Macdom controls the whole process from land preparation. The
absence of a weigh bridge to weigh the cane made them feel shortchanged. The
Settler farmers were concerned that the current price of US$4.00 per ton which
Macdom is buying their cane at is not realistic, even after factoring in
improvements and other costs. Green Fuel did not allow them to sell their
sugarcane to other buyers offering better prices. The out-grower farmers told
the Committee that Hippo Valley was buying sugarcane, for sugar production, at
prices up to $70 per tonne.
5.4.5
The out-grower farmers also informed the Committee that they had not been fully
paid for their sugarcane by Green Fuel since 2010. Farmers have been negatively
affected by the non-payment of their sugar cane. The company owes farmers US$300
000-00 according to a valid contract they signed with the company at the rate
of US$4.00/tonne. Farmers prefer to get one-off payments instead of part
payments as is currently obtaining. The reason they were given was that they
owed the company $2.4 million from contractual arrangements, a debt they did
not agree with.
5.4.6The Committee
gathered that land sizes have remained stagnant since 1967 when the settler
program was introduced. The farmers feel that they should be allocated more
land size for sugar cane out growing as part of the process of empowering black
people. They have been farming 3 hectares since 1967 and feel that cane growing
needs to be done on larger pieces of land for it to be profitable.
5.5
Limited alternative Land for People Displaced by the Investment
5.5.1 The Committee
noted that there is limited alternative land for the people who were displaced,
as the 0.5 hectares have not been allocated to all those whose land was taken
up by the investment. Some of the beneficiaries of the 0.5 ha travel long
distances of between 10-15 kilometers to the allocated land. The Communal Land
Act [Chapter 20:04], Section 12 requires that those who suffered dispossession
or diminution of their right to occupy or use the land be provided with alternative
land or be compensated. This has not been the case with the Chisumbanje
community.
5.5.2 The Committee
observed with concern the resettlement problem faced by Mr William Mhlanga of
Chinyamukwakwa Village under Chief Garahwa, who was negatively affected by the
introduction of the Chisumbanje Ethanol Plant which took the greater part of
Ndooyo Communal Lands for sugar cane plantation fields. He has a family of 58 children, 600 cattle,
70 goats, 6 donkeys and 24 sheep. His homestead is about ten (10) meters away
from the sugar cane plantation fields and as such, his livestock has nowhere to
graze. He was ploughing 30 hectares which have been engulfed by the project and
his wish is to get another piece of land anywhere in Chipinge as he is having
challenges securing pastures for the livestock. The situation has not improved
in spite of appeals made on his behalf by Headman Chinyamukwakwa to the DA
Chipinge and various letters from Mr Mhlanga himself to the DA.
5.5.3 The Committee
gathered that those displaced by the project should be allocated at least two
(02) hectares per household to grow sugar cane for sale to the project as a
source of income. The community stressed that further displacements from the
land they had been living on historically should be stopped forthwith as land
for resettlement is no longer available.
5.5.4 Chief Garahwa
informed the Committee that families are now running short of food and
occasionally going hungry as they no longer cultivate the larger pieces of land
that they used to. The current 0.5 ha is so inadequate that the harvest cannot
satisfy the nutritional requirements of an average household. Hence, he
advocated for chiefs and other traditional leaders to be allocated an
additional four (04) hectares for ‘zunde ramambo’ to augment food security and
fulfill their cultural obligations to the community.
5.5.5 The community
also informed the Committee that the Ethanol Project had taken up grazing land
for their animals. Livestock farmers said they had no alternative pastures to
graze their cattle and as a result they were forced to sell their cattle at
give-away prices. They also have not received any compensation for livestock
lost due to the chemicals in the effluent water discharged from the plant which
they are exposed to.
5.5.6 It emerged that
due to this land challenge villagers now preferred to return to the previous
status quo where they would go back to their original homesteads and continue
farming on their land as before, while the ethanol plant uses ARDA’s land only.
5.6
Lack of Genuine and Inclusive Consultations
5.6.1 Members of the
community were also riled by lack of adequate consultation by the company of
all stakeholders in the affected community. They bemoaned the lack of genuine
consultations and accused the company of selective consultation which they said
was done just for window-dressing purposes. The Committee noted that the
designing and implementation of the land deal lacked transparency and
accountability. It was further worried about the lack of a clearly shared
implementation plan of the investment.
5.6.2 The Committee
learnt that the community was greatly concerned about the disbandment of DEPIC
which had been set up in line with recommendations of the Inter-Ministerial
Cabinet Taskforce led by the then Deputy Prime Minister Professor A.G.O.
Mutambara in 2012. The Committee gathered that DEPIC has been disbanded by the
former Minister of Energy and Power Development, Hon Dzikamai Mavhaire, acting
in cahoots with the Member of the National Assembly for Chipinge South
Constituency, Hon Enock Porusingazi, and the Company, principally to safeguard
and advance the interests of Green Fuel at the expense of the communities in
the general area of Chisumbanje. It emerged that the community suspected that
money and/or other inducements had changed hands between the trio an allegation
disputed by the former Minister in a letter he wrote to the committee. As a
result, this has deprived the community of a platform through which to raise
their grievances and share ideas on how best the company should serve the
interests of the local community.
5.6.3 It was felt that
DEPIC was better able to represent the interests of all stakeholders, and
thereby help avert any potential source of conflict but that since its disbandment,
relations between the company and the community had deteriorated.
5.6.4 Some of the
villagers at the public hearing accused Government of siding with white capital
and of having lost interest in their welfare. The company owners and management
were also accused of arrogance and lack of respect to traditional leaders as
well as lack of appreciation of cultural customs and values. A case in point is
the alleged assault of Headman Chinyamukwakwa by a white Green Fuel senior
employee.
5.7 Employment Opportunities
5.7.1 The other bone of
contention regarding the Ethanol Project was the issue regarding employment
opportunities for the locals. Chief Garahwa informed the Committee that, the
people of Chisumbanje, which hosts the project, should be given priority when
it comes to employment at the project. The community expressed disappointment
at the investor for failing to employ them since most of the employees at the
company, especially general-hand workers, were from other provinces at the
expense of the unemployed youths in the Chisumbanje community.
5.8 Unfair Labour
Practices
5.8.1
Green
Fuel’s labour relations are less than satisfactory as workers are not allowed
to have a worker’s committee and those who try are victimized and often end up
losing their jobs. The responsible union, Zimbabwe Energy Workers Union (ZEWU),
is not allowed to intervene on behalf of the workers. The Committee gathered
during the public hearing that the workers were not affiliated to a relevant
NEC, in breach of existing labour regulations and statutes. It also emerged
that the company does not have a job grading structure. In addition, the
workers go for months without being paid.
5.8.2 The Committee was
further told that seasonal workers were made to work for long hours from 6 AM
to 6 PM for a daily rate of $2.50. Ill-treatment of workers was also cited as
rampant at the company.
5.9 Unfulfilled
Community Projects
5.9.1
The
Community was not amused by Green Fuel’s failure to fulfill promises that it
made at the establishment of the project, especially those projects meant to
benefit the community by alleviating poverty. Hence the community members
questioned the government’s sincerity on its Indigenization and Economic
Empowerment Policy and its current economic blue print, ZIMASSET, which both
stipulate that investors should plough back 10% equity to the communities they
operate from.
5.9.2 The Committee
gathered that, the company has not fulfilled the promises it made to the
villagers and as a result, their quality of life has deteriorated as they are
no longer earning the income they used to get from cotton prior to the coming
on-board of the company. Some children have stopped attending school as the
parents’ source of income has been removed.
5.10 Pollution
& Health Issues
5.10.1 As gathered from
the community and EMA, Green Fuel has been discharging toxic effluent into
Jerawachera stream, Musazvi River and eventually Save River. Livestock and
aquatic deaths have been recorded due to contact with polluted water
downstream. This was in contravention of the Environmental Management Act
(Section 57) which stipulates that it is an offence for any person to discharge
or apply poisonous or toxic, noxious or obstructing matter, radio-active waste
or other pollutants into the aquatic environment.
5.10.2 In its defence,
the company asserts that it carried out the Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) report and submitted it to EMA on 22 February 2011 and that in terms of
Section 100 of the Environmental Management Act (Chapter 20:27), in the event
that EMA does not respond within 60 days after the submission, the EIA report
shall be deemed approved. Green Fuel
argues that EMA did not respond within the requisite time frame and thus the
EIA was deemed to be approved.
5.10.3 Upon further investigations, the committee on
23 September 2014, heard from Environmental Management Agency (EMA). EMA
verified that the ethanol plant is a prescribed project in terms of section 97
(1) of the EMA Act, and therefore should only be implemented upon granting of
an EIA certificate. The committee was informed that at the onset of the project
in June 2010, Green Fuel was required to do a full EIA study, but they
proceeded to implement the project without, thereby contravening the law. The
agency informed the committee that during a couple of inspection visits in
February 2011 and September 2012, they issued Green Fuel tickets for violating
the law, and issued an order to cease operations and regularise, which the
company received but refused to sign and continued operating. In between these
visits, on 22 June 2011, Green Fuel partially submitted an EIA document to EMA,
which to date has not been processed since the company doesn’t want to complete
the submission procedures, among them payment of a fee. Despite receiving of
tickets and instructions on what to do to safely handle effluent, Green Fuel
has to date not complied but argues that it is expensive implying that they
find it cheaper to continue polluting the environment and paying fines. EMA, on
24 September 2012 opened a docket for operating without and EIA. The matter is
yet to be finalized after the company had got away with a $20 fine, before EMA
applied for the docket to be re-opened.
5.10.4 The Committee
gathered from Mr Dhliwayo that his younger brother, Robert Chivaura, had been
affected by ‘dhanda’ water on his legs, which has vinasse, potash and other
chemicals from the plant, as a result of which he has wounds and could no
longer walk properly. The victim, Robert Chivaura, was present at the public
hearing and the Committee was able to physically witness his state and even
took photographs of him. Since he was affected, he had been failing to secure
money for medical treatment as the investor did not want to help him. It
emerged that many other people in the village had fallen ill due to the
contaminated water coming from the plant, pointing out that there is need for
urgent health intervention for everyone in the village.
5.11 Inadequate Consideration of the
Balance between the Investment and Food Security
5.11.1
The relationship between the investment and food security and vulnerability was
not given adequate analytical attention. The community was concerned that, in
the absence of a clear set of operational guidelines on investment, land use,
access to market and credit, land transfers under the investment could have
tremendous implications for livelihoods, food security and social justice.
5.12
Traffic Accidents
5.12.1 The Committee
gathered that the community was up in arms against the company for its reckless drivers who have caused 15
fatal accidents of children in the area. Members of the community said that the
company did not even have the courtesy to assist with burial costs but
arrogantly referred parents of the victims to its lawyers. As a result, the
community has now developed an aversion to the employment of unlicensed drivers
by the company.
5.13 Preference for an Alternative Model
5.13.1 The Committee
learnt that, in light of the problems currently facing the people, there is preference
for a model where resettled households themselves are given inputs to grow
sugar cane and sell it to a company of their choice, just like the model used
by cotton companies where farmers are given seed, fertilizers and pesticides
and sell the cotton to the contractors.
It was felt that the envisaged model would be more effective in
empowering farmers than the one Macdom was using.
5.14
Insensitivity to Local Culture and Customs
5.14.1 The community
was concerned about the insensitivity and disrespect shown by the company to
local culture and traditional practices, for example, when it tempered with
graves and burial places during excavations.
6.0
Recommendations
6.1 In view of the
above findings, the Committee recommends:
6.1.1.
That the decision to disband DEPIC be immediately reversed and that the role of
the former Minister of Energy and Power Development, Hon Dzikamai Mavhaire and
the Member of the National Assembly for Chipinge South Constituency, Hon Enock
Porusingazi, be investigated to establish the truth of what transpired.
6.1.2.
That the ARDA Board Chairman, Mr Basil Nyabadza, clarifies the issue of land
ownership between ARDA, Green Fuel and the community.
6.1.3.That
land sizes allotted to farmers resettled in 1967 be reviewed upwards in line
with their needs.
6.1.4.That
the audit on land, buildings, livestock, crops, family sizes and business
enterprises lost to make way for the project be expedited to facilitate meaningful
and realistic compensation before the 2015 farming season.
6.1.5.
That human, animal or avian victims of ailments arising from contact with
contaminated water be adequately compensated and that the company takes urgent measures
to facilitate their treatment and rehabilitation.
6.1.6.
That the local component in the entire investment by Macdom, Rating and Green
Fuel be progressively increased in line with the Indigenization and Economic
Empowerment Act (Chapter 14:33) and that a Community Share Ownership Trust for
Chipinge South and Chipinge District, in general, be set up during this Second Parliament
Session along the lines of the Zimunya-Marange Community Share Ownership Trust.
6.1.7.
That Green Fuel fully complies with the requirements of the Environmental
Impact Assessment process by December 2015, and that the penalties for
non-compliance with provisions of the Environmental Management Act be immediately
reviewed upwards.
6.1.8
That Green Fuel lives up to its undertaking to rehabilitate roads, schools,
boreholes, clinics and animal health infrastructure, among other Corporate
Social Responsibility activities.
6.1.9.
That Green Fuel takes immediate, deliberate measures to reduce fatalities due
to accidents caused by project vehicles around the plant, fields and access
roads.
6.1.10.
That Green Fuel respects the traditional leadership, as well as the norms,
values and customs of the local people, including the allocation of an adequate
number of hectares to each traditional leader for the ‘zunde ramambo’.
6.1.11.
That for any further recruitment, Green Fuel gives priority to the employment
of qualifying and trainable people from the local area and adheres to standard
labour practices.
7.0
Conclusion
The Indigenization and Economic Empowerment (General) Regulations, 2010
(IEE), in its enshrined Community Share Ownership Trust (CSOT) scheme, offers a
lucrative 'quick gain' in line with the Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable
Socio-Economic Transformation (ZIM ASSET). The Committee appreciates that the
ceding of 51% stake in foreign controlled entities is not an overnight
fast-track task. However the 'sustainable economic empowerment and social
transformation' of communities like Chisumbanje can be surely be done with
immediate benchmark gains through more robust and evaluable social
responsibility schemes like CSOT. It is high time government make a strong
statement of intent and also review the shambolic way in which the IEE Act,
especially its community empowerment objective is being implemented by entities
like Green Fuel with whom it has Joint Ventures. It is sad to note that the
state has not shown any urgency to bring to order the evident dis-empowered of
the people of Chisumbanje, but has shown more concern to support the business
side of the Ethanol Project.
