Meeting between UPL and stakeholder forum was not meant for broader community or media

11 Aug 2022

The fact of the matter is that the interim Multi-Stakeholder Forum and UPL agreed to discuss their engagement with the media as part of their discussions in respect of future ‘public’ meetings.

The article, “UPL ban Daily Maverick from community meeting on Cornubia pesticide warehouse fire aftermath” (Daily Maverick, 26 July 2022) refers.

The facts represented in the article about the meeting between UPL’s experts and the interim Multi-Stakeholder Forum (MSF) on 23 July are mischaracterised and misrepresented. This is made even more regrettable given that it was a successful and constructive engagement, which spent a substantial amount of time reviewing the significant progress made by UPL in restoring the areas affected by the consequences of the arson attack on its leased warehouse.

The facts are that this was never a “community meeting” and that Daily Maverick was not banned from the meeting. The meeting was jointly set up by UPL and the interim MSF as an orientation meeting between the members of the MSF and the UPL experts. On the request of the interim MSF, there was late agreement to invite the Joint Operations Committee, but it was never intended that the broader community or any media would be invited.

The correspondence quoted in the article, between UPL’s environmental attorneys and the convenor of the interim MSF, is unfortunately selective. Below is the complete exchange of correspondence between UPL’s environmental attorney and the convenor of interim MSF after he requested that only Mr [Tony] Carnie (and not all media) attend the engagement.

UPL’s environmental attorney [Norman Brauteseth]:

“Your anticipation of UPL’s response is correct. I’m afraid the meeting cannot go ahead if the MSF insists on journalists being present. This is a meeting for the interim committee of the MSF, and we can talk about reportage on the meeting once it has been held. What we do about further meetings, and whether there should be a more open public meeting in due course, is the next step in our interactions.

Please confirm that this is agreed.

Regards.”

The interim MSF convenor, Mr [Jeremy] Ridl, responded:

“Your response is as expected.

No invitations to the media until we have decided how future ‘public’ meetings might be conducted.

All the best.”

It is therefore clear that Daily Maverick was not banned from a community meeting, as it alleges. Rather, the interim MSF and UPL agreed to discuss their engagement with the media as part of their discussions in respect of future “public” meetings.

This was a meeting between the interim MSF and UPL (and Mr Carnie is not a member of the former or latter). Indeed, there is a significant difference between being banned from a community/open event or meeting and not being invited to a closed, non-public meeting. It is disingenuous to have claimed the former and the title of the article is wholly misleading.

During the recent engagement with the interim MSF, UPL South Africa’s team of independent experts presented on the work done over the past 12 months since the attack on its leased warehouse. The presentations include the following points:

Air-quality surveys: Continuous monitoring and testing for pollutants during and after the fire revealed that, once the fire was extinguished, harmful pollutants were substantially lower, while airborne dust samples no longer contained arsenic.

Water-quality surveys: Ongoing testing of the estuary and marine environments show that metal levels of arsenic, manganese, copper and zinc are now below the guideline levels set for the South African coast (including estuaries).

The emphasis remains on continuing to decontaminate the warehouse site, the tributary and the lower wetland, which will in turn see further significant improvements in the estuary environment.

When it comes to the Pollution Control Dam, analysis from independent laboratories has shown low levels of residual pesticides present, and low overall toxicity.

Scientific modelling, which looks at a number of factors, suggests that this water is now safe to release into the system as, when combined with the water already there, it will reach such significant dilution levels as to pose no harm to the environment.

Geohydrological and soil surveys: The soil and sediment samples in the tributary and estuary show some residual organic and inorganic impacts; however, the levels have decreased significantly when compared to the initial sampling event. Some of the elevated levels are due to naturally occurring compounds not associated with the UPL fire.

Finally, the surface water samples also revealed that none of the organic or inorganic determinants exceeded the adopted RISC Screening Levels for Water Used for Recreation.

Human health surveys: Testing and monitoring to determine human health impacts is ongoing in the surrounding area in order to finalise the human health risk assessment report.

Encouragingly, it appears from both the testing of first responders and on-site personnel, as well as those few people who have attended the clinic set up by UPL in the neighbouring Blackburn community, that there is very little by way of serious health impacts attributable to either the fire or the spill.

It was agreed by all participants that the meeting was constructive and helpful. It was also agreed that there will be discussion on the timing and form of future engagements, particularly with regard to the public health risk assessment process, and the need to finalise and implement the remediation action plan.

UPL South Africa is proud of the significant progress that has been achieved over the past year and remains committed to working with all stakeholders when it comes to the ongoing rehabilitation work that continues on and around the warehouse site. DM/OBP

Japhet Ncube is spokesperson for UPL South Africa.

Footnote: Mr Brauteseth’s own email exchange above confirms that media were excluded at the behest of UPL. The MSF requested that media should attend, but UPL threatened to cancel the meeting if that occurred. That’s hardly “mutual agreement”. – Tony Carnie

Categories:

Tags:

DM is much better if you are signed in...

South Africa