Read With interest the editorial in The Namibian published on 14 August.
I agree that clarity on the issue of marine phosphate mining is required.
The content of the editorial, however, served only to muddy the waters for the public. I, therefore, wish to address some common misunderstandings.
Having investigated the proposal for marine phosphate mining, the full environmental impact assessment (ETA) and the accompanying 28 specialist studies on potential impacts of the project, I believe that this project is good for sustainable development in Namibia.
Thirty-seven independent scientists have been involved, and their work has been subjected to four different sets of reviews.
The environmental commissioner has carried out due diligence and set in place detailed monitoring and stringent safeguard systems to protect Namibia’s marine ecosystem.
NEW ZEALAND VS NAMIBIA
The phosphate proposal in New Zealand involved taking up phosphorite nodules that would irreversibly destroy the habitat of rare stony corals and other species, which form the basis of a unique and fragile ecosystem.
The proposed mining area covered over 5 000km2, with 30km2 to be mined per year.
Namibia’s offshore ecosystem is mostly sandy rather than hard rock and silt, as found in New Zealand.
The phosphate is contained within the sand grains. The Benguela Current makes it impossible for coral species to grow in our coastal waters.
The area to be mined of Namibia’s coast is small – a total of 34km2 mined over 20 years at a rate of 1.7km2 per year.
Namibia has allowed dredging off our coast for many years to mine for diamonds.
Even though diamond dredging goes down to the bedrock, these areas recover completely within two to 12 years.
Dredging for phosphate does not go down to the bedrock and is designed to leave un-dredged strips to facilitate even quicker recovery.
The proposed phosphate project in Namibia is, therefore, entirely different to the proposal that New Zealand rejected.
FISHING VS PHOSPHATE
The second argument is that phosphate mining will harm our already beleaguered fisheries industry.
The process of dredging the seabed to bring up substrate for processing is not the same as trawling for fish.
Trawling is far more environmentally damaging – resulting in high levels of by-catch and disturbance of huge areas (over 18 000km2) where fish spawn.
Yet the decision to relax the 200m isobar fishing restriction was made without a single scientific study on its potential impacts.
Unlike trawling, dredging does not involve a huge net that catches every fish and other marine organisms in its path.
The dredger is like a submerged vacuum cleaner that is pulled slowly along the ocean floor.
The fish swimming above and around it are unharmed. According to a fish study conducted for the phosphate EIA, no hake or monk fish spawn in the area to be dredged by this project.
And no unique or special marine biodiversity will be impacted.
MONITORING AND SAFEGUARDS
The conditions under which the environmental clearance certificate was granted include extensive monitoring, continued scientific studies, and multiple levels of scrutiny for the resulting reports.
This certificate only applies to the mining operations at sea.
The proponent will have to get a separate certificate for the land-based processing plant.
While awaiting approval for the processing plant, the proponent will produce an updated baseline study to gauge the current state of the targeted marine system.
If thresholds of ecosystem change are breached during mining operations, either new mitigation procedures will be applied or operations halted entirely.
The levels of oversight and safeguards for this project far exceed normal land-based mining projects in Namibia.
These safeguards ultimately protect the Namibian people and the marine environment.
GUINEA PIG VS PIONEER
This is not the first time that Namibia has gone through the ‘guinea pig’ phase for a similar project.
Diamond dredging is also a world-first – to this day, the Debmarine operation off our coastline is the only one of its kind globally.
Rather than viewing Namibia as a guinea pig, I view Namibia as a pioneer. Namibia has taken 14 years to consider all potential pitfalls of this project, do all the studies and consult widely with the public.
Monitoring and oversight mechanisms have been stipulated. Now is the time to dip our toe in the water and pioneer this new opportunity.
The risks to Namibia’s marine environment and to the fishing sector are minimal.
Economic returns are significant, twice that of the fishing sector once the industry has developed, and almost as many jobs.
Given that the EIA and its specialist studies show that phosphate dredging and fishing can mutually co-exist, both the government and trade unions should embrace it. It’s a win-win.
- Chris Brown is the chief executive of the Namibian Chamber of Environment. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the chamber’s members.
