First Thing, Daily Maverick's flagship newsletter

Join the 230 000 South Africans who read First Thing newsletter.

We'd like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick

More specifically, we'd like those who can afford to pay to start paying. What it comes down to is whether or not you value Daily Maverick. Think of us in terms of your daily cappuccino from your favourite coffee shop. It costs around R35. That’s R1,050 per month on frothy milk. Don’t get us wrong, we’re almost exclusively fuelled by coffee. BUT maybe R200 of that R1,050 could go to the journalism that’s fighting for the country?

We don’t dictate how much we’d like our readers to contribute. After all, how much you value our work is subjective (and frankly, every amount helps). At R200, you get it back in Uber Eats and ride vouchers every month, but that’s just a suggestion. A little less than a week’s worth of cappuccinos.

We can't survive on hope and our own determination. Our country is going to be considerably worse off if we don’t have a strong, sustainable news media. If you’re rejigging your budgets, and it comes to choosing between frothy milk and Daily Maverick, we hope you might reconsider that cappuccino.

We need your help. And we’re not ashamed to ask for it.

Our mission is to Defend Truth. Join Maverick Insider.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

UPL and Durban residents meet for the first time, 11 mo...

Our Burning Planet


UPL and Durban residents meet for the first time, 11 months after Cornubia chemical fire

The charred remnants of the UPL chemical warehouse. (Photo: Tony Carnie)

Nigh on a year after the Cornubia toxic chemical blaze, the UPL agrochemicals group has held its first face-to-face meeting with local community and business groups in Durban ‘to explore how both parties can work together’ to address the aftermath of the chemical spill on the human and natural environment.

For eleven months, the Indian-owned chemical giant has engaged with the public mostly via its lawyers, mailbox pamphlets or media statements posted on the company’s website – steadfastly spurning public meetings or direct talks with a 26-member interim “multi-stakeholder forum” established at the request of the national and provincial environment department heads, Barbara Creecy and Ravi Pillay.

Finally, on June 30, UPL senior company managers and legal representatives sat down with community forum members in Durban, essentially to talk about future talks during a “frank and cordial exchange of views”. 

This follows a public challenge to the company in a recent open letter by community representatives who complained that UPL refused to recognise them or their right to be consulted on issues that affect them, following the July 12 chemical fire involving more than 5,500 tonnes of pesticides, solvents and other agrochemicals.

The remains of the UPL warehouse with neighbouring homes and schools visible behind. (Photo: Steve McCurrach)

In a joint statement after the meeting, the company and the multi stakeholder forum (MSF) said they had agreed to meet again this month, where a presentation on recent events would be made by UPL’s specialist consultants and to allow forum members to raise questions and obtain clarity on issues of concern.

The statement was not clear on whether this would be an open public meeting, as several forum members are demanding.

For its part, the company said: “UPL explained that communication between it and the MSF to date had not been helped by the fact that the MSF and its terms of reference had not been finalised by [provincial environment MEC Ravi Pillay], and that it was reluctant to formally engage until that had been done.

“It [UPL] expressed its frustration that the enormous sums of money invested in clean-up and the progress that had been made by its team of experts had not been adequately acknowledged. It expressed its concerns at biased reporting that did not reflect the substantial reduction of contaminants in the affected environments and the return of life throughout the impact zone.”

In principle, the company recognised the role of a stakeholder forum, but queried how the forum would function within the statutory compliance processes, and what its powers and representivity would be.

For its part, the forum expressed concern that UPL’s refusal to engage with it “gave the impression that information relevant to the affected communities was being withheld”.

This was seen as counter-productive to everyone’s interests, and contrary to industry practice for chemical incidents such as this.

Toxic chemical clean-up crews at work in a visibly polluted stream near Cornubia (Photo: Supplied)

“[The forum] stressed the right of communities to know the risks to which they are exposed, and what steps are being taken in response – which is only achieved by inclusion in relevant decision-making.

“It further queried why UPL and the authorities have been reluctant to involve the MSF in the incident responses to date to the extent that they should have.

“There was a frank and cordial exchange of views. It was agreed at the culmination of the meeting that great progress had been made in understanding each side’s perspectives, and that a path to formal engagement and collaboration should be pursued to tackle the remaining challenges arising from the incident.”

The two parties had agreed to the following steps:

  • The terms of reference of the MSF would be revised to clarify its role and to reflect the consensus reached at the meeting;
  • The stakeholder base would be reviewed to ensure that all stakeholders are represented, and would include the landowners whose properties were contaminated by the incident;
  • A presentation would be made to the MSF within the next month by UPL’s specialists, at which the MSF would be apprised of current progress in the incident response and be able to raise questions and obtain clarity;
  • Further engagements will be discussed thereafter, including the manner in which the authorities, UPL and the stakeholders would interact to further progress toward a formal and acceptable strategy, which can be implemented urgently in the best interests of all affected parties.

“The parties have committed themselves to working together as the processes unfold, and expressed the view that this was a very significant step forward.”

The current 26 forum members represent a range of interest groups, including four attorneys, a local Anglican church leader, a medical doctor, subsistence fishers, environmental groups, hotel, tourism and industry bodies and two marine biologists. Their names and affiliations can be viewed here. DM/OBP  





Absa OBP

Comments - share your knowledge and experience

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or sign in if you are already an Insider.

Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the knowledge and the experience to contribute meaningfully to a discussion. That’s what we want from our members. Help us learn with your expertise and insights on articles that we publish. We encourage different, respectful viewpoints to further our understanding of the world. View our comments policy here.

No Comments, yet

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted