Defending
Nature

Event details

Back to events

Students Planting trees for environmental sustainability

People happy

People laughing

Students Planting trees for environmental sustainability

0

CODAF AND PARTNERS ORGANIZE VALIDATION WORKSHOP FOR MINING IN EBONYI

Validation Workshop Report

On Friday May 16 th , 2025 Community Development Advocacy Foundation – CODAF with her partners Environmental Defenders Network – EDEN and Africa Just Transition Network – AJTN conducted a validation workshop to verify findings from a field research completed two months prior. The workshop brought together members and representatives from mining impacted and host communities including Ezillo, Ndiagu-

Obu, Ngbo and Ikwo communities, focused on evaluating the research results regarding mining operations, community agreements, environmental impacts and socioeconomic effects.

The validation workshop followed a comprehensive research conducted by CODAF in February, 2025 which investigated the impacts of mining operations on communities in Ebonyi State, with particular focus in Ezillo and Ikwo communities. The workshop was designed as a participatory verification process to ensure the accuracy of research findings and gather additional contextual information directly from affected community members.

 The workshop Objectives includes:

 To validate or refute the findings from the field research

 To Gather additional insights and testimonies from community representatives

 To build consensus on the actual impacts of mining activities

 To identify priority concerns for future advocacy and intervention

The workshop employed a mixed-methods approach to facilitate meaningful engagement such as plenary presentations of key findings by the research team, a focused roundtable discussions with all community representatives present, verification exercise where participants confirmed and corrected specific research findings and a consensus building discussions on priority issues. Special attention was given to ensure balanced participation across stakeholders including women, youth, persons with disabilities and the elderly.

 Key Findings Validated

 Mining Approval and Licensing Process

Participants unanimously confirmed that Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is consistently bypassed prior to the commencement of mining operations in Ezillo and Ikwo communities and generally throughout Ebonyi State. The workshop verified that the current practice follows a problematic pathway:

 Prospective mining companies are introduced to communities by influential local

indigenes

 Companies make initial payments to community heads/leaders to enable mineral

deposit exploration; in some cases companies start operation without this

process prior to when they want to make the payment sometimes they are

already in operation for 3-6 months already

 Upon discovery of deposits, land surveys are conducted

 Community development agreements and/or concept notes are developed

between host communities and mining companies

 Survey land coordinates are further submitted to the Ministry of Mines in Abuja to

obtain operational licenses

Participants stressed that this process circumvents proper environmental and social safeguards required by law, creating a foundation for subsequent problems.

 Community Development Agreements

The workshop validated significant concerns regarding Community Development Agreements (CDAs):

 Mining operations frequently commence before establishing formal agreements, particularly when companies have connections to powerful politicians or influential persons in the State

 Agreements are typically negotiated between mining companies, landowners, and selected stakeholders (such as President General of autonomous communities and village heads)

 These agreements consistently fail to:

 Represent the broader interests of impacted communities

 Account for gender-specific issues

 Address concerns of people with disabilities

 Consider the needs of the elderly population

 Protect the livelihood base of affected communities

Participants provided multiple examples of these shortcomings, including unilateral decisions that affected entire communities but were made by a small number of individuals with vested interests.

 Monetization of Social Responsibility

The workshop confirmed that community stakeholders engaged in mining agreements frequently opt for monetization of key social amenities rather than actual infrastructure development. Specific examples validated include:

 Cash payments instead of road construction

 Monetary compensation in lieu of promised boreholes

 Financial settlements replacing commitments to build hospitals

Participants noted that this monetization rarely benefits the broader community, as funds are often distributed among the limited stakeholders who negotiated the agreements. The promised infrastructure, which would have benefited the entire community, never materializes.

 Employment Practices

The workshop strongly validated concerns about exploitative employment practices:

 Employment of community members operates through third-party agreements without formal contracts between mining companies and local workers

 Companies typically recruit a single English-Chinese bilingual community member who then:

 Serves as intermediary between the company and other local workers

 Recruits additional community members on behalf of the company

 Acts as spokesperson for the recruited workers

 Local workers other than this appointed intermediary have no direct access to or communication with mining company management

 Community members are restricted to unskilled positions such as:

 Security guards

 Gatekeepers

 Pit workers

 Drivers

 Community liaison officers

 Public relations officers

Participants confirmed that no community members are employed in skilled positions such as engineers, accountants, administrative officers, or executive roles. Mining companies consistently cite lack of technical skills among locals as justification, even when qualified individuals are available.

 Compensation and Working Conditions

The workshop validated concerns about inadequate compensation and poor working

conditions:

 Monthly salaries for indigenous workers range between ₦40,000-₦50,000 ($48-

$60 USD)

 While payment is regular, workers cannot negotiate or complain about poor

compensation due to:

 Fear of job loss

 Threats to personal safety

 Absence of formal contracts or labor protections

 Working conditions are hazardous with minimal safety protocols

In a particularly significant validation, participants confirmed a previously reported incident where six indigenous workers lost their lives inside a mining pit in Ikwo community. This tragic event underscores the severe safety issues faced by local workers.

 Environmental and Social Impacts

The workshop strongly validated numerous severe environmental and social impacts:

 Environmental Pollution:

 Water contamination from mining effluents, particularly from lead mining operations and quarrying sites

 Air pollution affecting respiratory health

 Land degradation rendering agricultural areas unusable

 Property and Livelihood Impacts:

 Loss of farmlands without adequate compensation

 Destruction of crops and economic trees without reparation

 Structural damage to buildings (cracks) due to mining activities

 Disruption of road networks

 Cutting off of access roads to communities and farmlands

 Health Impacts:

 Confirmed cases of chronic coughing among community members

 Respiratory ailments particularly affecting children and the elderly

 Skin conditions associated with water contamination

Participants provided detailed testimonies and specific locations where these impacts are most severe, adding crucial context to the research findings.

 Additional Insights from Workshop

Beyond validating the survey findings, the workshop revealed several additional

concerns not fully captured in the initial survey:

 Community Division: Mining operations have created divisions within communities between those benefiting from employment or land sales and those suffering negative impacts without compensation.

 Power Dynamics: Community members described significant power imbalances that prevent effective advocacy, with those raising concerns often facing intimidation from both mining companies and local power brokers.

 Gender-Specific Impacts: Women participants highlighted unique challenges they face, including:

 Loss of agricultural livelihoods that traditionally supported household food security

 Increased burden of care for family members suffering health impacts

 Exclusion from compensation discussions and decision-making processes

 Regulatory Failure: Participants described multiple attempts to engage regulatory authorities that yielded no meaningful intervention, suggesting systemic challenges in enforcement.

 Long-term Concerns: Communities expressed deep worry about what will happen when mining companies eventually leave, particularly regarding:

 Environmental remediation of damaged lands

 Long-term health effects from exposure to contaminants

 Economic alternatives for communities whose traditional livelihoods have been disrupted

 Action Points and Recommendations

Based on the validated findings, workshop participants identified several priority actions:

 Legal and Regulatory Intervention:

 Advocate for companies to carry out Post-Impact Assessment in communities where they are already operating and Environmental Impact Assessment in places where they are yet to start operations and strict

enforcement of it requirements

 Push for review of existing mining licenses issued without proper assessment

 Seek legal remedies for environmental damages and breach of agreements

 Community Empowerment:

 Develop capacity building programs to help communities negotiate fair agreements

 Create platforms for affected communities to document and report violations

 Establish community-based monitoring mechanisms for environmental impacts

 Mining Company Accountability:

 Demand formal employment contracts for all local workers

 Push for implementation of proper safety standards at mining sites

 Advocate for fair compensation and benefits aligned with national

standards

 Inclusive Community Development Agreements:

 Develop templates for inclusive agreements that protect vulnerable groups

 Ensure broader community participation in negotiations

 Establish monitoring mechanisms for compliance with agreements

 Environmental Remediation:

 Conduct independent environmental assessments to document damage

 Develop remediation plans for already affected areas

 Implement water quality monitoring programs in affected communities

 Conclusion

The validation workshop successfully confirmed the accuracy of the field research findings while providing additional context and nuance. Community testimony strongly validated concerns about environmental impacts, exploitative employment practices, inadequate compensation, and exclusionary decision-making processes. The workshop revealed that mining operations in Ezillo and Ikwo Communities, and broadly across

Ebonyi State, consistently circumvent proper regulatory procedures and fail to adequately address community interests.

The tragic loss of six workers in the Ikwo community mining pit, alongside documented cases of chronic illness and environmental degradation, underscores the urgent need for intervention. The findings from this workshop provide a solid evidence base for advocacy efforts aimed at reforming mining practices, strengthening regulatory enforcement, and ensuring equitable benefits for affected communities.

 Next Steps

CODAF commits to:

1. Preparing a comprehensive report incorporating both survey findings and workshop validation

2. Engaging relevant regulatory bodies with documented evidence

3. Supporting affected communities in seeking appropriate remedies

4. Developing capacity-building programs based on identified needs

5. Facilitating dialogue between communities and government agencies

WHAT'S CODAF

CODAF also known as Rural Community Empowerment Initiative (RUCEi) works to bridge the communication gap between policy makers and the grassroots AND raise awareness of rural dwellers and empowering them to be active players in environmental decision making.

This mandate is anchored on article 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights which states that “All peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development

OurGoal

To engage in intervention projects that builds the capacity and empowers rural community people to defend their collective rights to participating in natural resource governance through a right-based approach

OurMission

OurVision

We envision a self-sufficient community in the management of their environment and resources without any form of marginalization.

Defending Nature