Council says ‘yes’ to Walvis beachfront projects

TWO of three controversial developments on prime stretches of beach on Namibia’s central coastline were given the green light at the monthly Walvis Bay Council meeting.

On June 17, Council re-affirmed its decision to approve applications by two developers for land at Farm 46, popularly known as Guns and Farm 36, despite the Ministry of Environment and Tourism not yet having approved the environmental impact assessment (EIA). The proposals caused huge debate after environmentalists raised concerns over the development of the area.At the same meeting, Council decided not to approve an application by Riverview Investment for the development of a seafront area bordering the Swakop River mouth on the south side.This development also caused an outcry from people attending public meetings that formed part of the EIA.The development was not approved because of the negative findings of the EIA.In its further motivation for not approving the application, Council states in its agenda that the land in question is zoned for “conservation”, like Farm 36 and 46.”It is anticipated that serious objections will be launched should Council consider this application.Therefore, the opinion is held that before any further vacant land along the coastline is to be considered for development, a Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment Study be undertaken by Council in order to determine the areas along the coastline where development can and should be allowed.”A total of 18 and seven objections were received from the public for the Farm 46 and 36 projects respectively.These include the Wildlife Society of Namibia, the Namibia Surfing Association and the International Surfing Association, the Coastal Environmental Trust of Namibia, the Tour and Safari Association of Namibia, the Atlantic Guano Syndicate, Dr Rob Simmons of the National Biodiversity Programme and several individuals.Some of the issues raised covered the loss of prime, unspoilt beachfront areas, negative impacts on the area that is a designated Important Bird Area, the need for a strategic EIA, water shortages and the ultimate disappearance of the sea view from the road.In its motivation for approving the two developments, Council maintained that the economic benefits and financial gain for the town outweighed any possible negative aspects.”The majority of concerns raised, if not all of them, which form the essence of the objections, would in practice be dealt with successfully by implementing mitigatory measures.”The recommendation stated that the mitigatory measures be included as additional conditions in Council’s standard agreement of sale with the two developers.According to a synopsis of the EIA in the agenda, indications are that the negative impacts are not as significant as some of the positive socio-economic benefits that would be derived from the project.As no income is derived from the site at the moment, the Municipality is expected to receive a significant increase in revenue from rental, provision of services, rates, levies and licences.In answer to a question raised at the public meeting on how many jobs the two developments would create, the agenda listed these as 360 permanent jobs for the Farm 46 development, while the Farm 36 development would create approximately 6 800 direct and 20 000 indirect jobs over the eight-year construction period.The two developments will, according to the Council, boost the local economy by N$385 million and N$750 million respectively.A further point raised in the agenda on the much-debated endemic Damara Tern that breeds on the central coastline, is that, according to Seal Consulting Engineers, no Damara Tern nests were found at the project site.While Council recommended sending a letter to the Minister of Regional, Local Government and Housing to approve the resolution, the EIA documents have not been made public yet, nor has the Ministry of Environment and Tourism issued a clearance certificate for the study.The consultants conducting the EIA said at the public meeting that the final report would be submitted to the relevant authorities, with the Ministry of Environment and Tourism having the last say on whether to approve the developments or not.The proposals caused huge debate after environmentalists raised concerns over the development of the area.At the same meeting, Council decided not to approve an application by Riverview Investment for the development of a seafront area bordering the Swakop River mouth on the south side.This development also caused an outcry from people attending public meetings that formed part of the EIA.The development was not approved because of the negative findings of the EIA.In its further motivation for not approving the application, Council states in its agenda that the land in question is zoned for “conservation”, like Farm 36 and 46.”It is anticipated that serious objections will be launched should Council consider this application.Therefore, the opinion is held that before any further vacant land along the coastline is to be considered for development, a Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment Study be undertaken by Council in order to determine the areas along the coastline where development can and should be allowed.”A total of 18 and seven objections were received from the public for the Farm 46 and 36 projects respectively.These include the Wildlife Society of Namibia, the Namibia Surfing Association and the International Surfing Association, the Coastal Environmental Trust of Namibia, the Tour and Safari Association of Namibia, the Atlantic Guano Syndicate, Dr Rob Simmons of the National Biodiversity Programme and several individuals.Some of the issues raised covered the loss of prime, unspoilt beachfront areas, negative impacts on the area that is a designated Important Bird Area, the need for a strategic EIA, water shortages and the ultimate disappearance of the sea view from the road.In its motivation for approving the two developments, Council maintained that the economic benefits and financial gain for the town outweighed any possible negative aspects.”The majority of concerns raised, if not all of them, which form the essence of the objections, would in practice be dealt with successfully by implementing mitigatory measures.”The recommendation stated that the mitigatory measures be included as additional conditions in Council’s standard agreement of sale with the two developers.According to a synopsis of the EIA in the agenda, indications are that the negative impacts are not as significant as some of the positive socio-economic benefits that would be derived from the project.As no income is derived from the site at the moment, the Municipality is expected to receive a significant increase in revenue from rental, provision of services, rates, levies and licences.In answer to a question raised at the public meeting on how many jobs the two developments would create, the agenda listed these as 360 permanent jobs for the Farm 46 development, while the Farm 36 development would create approximately 6 800 direct and 20 000 indirect jobs over the eight-year construction period.The two developments will, according to the Council, boost the local economy by N$385 million and N$750 million respectively.A further point raised in the agenda on the much-debated endemic Damara Tern that breeds on the central coastline, is that, according to Seal Consulting Engineers, no Damara Tern nests were found at the project site.While Council recommended sending a letter to the Minister of Regional, Local Government and Housing to approve the resolution, the EIA documents have not been made public yet, nor has the Ministry of Environment and Tourism issued a clearance certificate for the study.The consultants conducting the EIA said at the public meeting that the final report would be submitted to the relevant authorities, with the Ministry of Environment and Tourism having the last say on whether to approve the developments or not.