The controversial phosphate mining issue is popping up again like the proverbial frog on a beer mug.
Let us, for context, refer to some newspaper headlines. “Phosphate divides opinion” was a recent headline in New Era.
Then, an editorial in The Namibian read: ‘We Need Clarity On Phosphate Once and For All.’
Recently, two articles were published in The Namibian: one by Chris Brown, titled ‘Clarity on Marine Phosphate Mining, Namibia’s Misunderstood Project’, and the other by Juane van Aardt and Meyer van den Berg titled ‘Sandpiper Environmental Clearance – Legal Framework and Available Recourse’.
I am neither a scientist nor an environmentalist, so I will not argue about the environmental impact of phosphate mining on our marine resources, nor am I disputing the 37 independent scientists who have been involved in this project.
Some of the statements made, however, especially those of Brown, are outrageous.
He says: “The risk 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.”
He goes on to say the two can coexist and that phosphate is good for sustainable development. But he does not tell us why New Zealand rejected a similar project.
I am joining the debate from an ideological perspective.
Does this natural resource belong exclusively to two individuals, in this case businessman Knowledge Katti and his Omani partner?
In layman’s language: Who do natural resources in any given country belong to? To answer that question in its proper context, we must turn to our basic document, the Namibian Constitution.
Article 100 of Namibia’s Constitution says that marine resources in the nation’s 200-mile exclusive economic zone belong to the people of Namibia.
“Everything that has happened over the last decade in terms of fisheries policy makes a lie of this provision,” writes Roman Grynberg, who is an economics professor.
The same can be said of phosphate, oil and the recent headline maker, lithium, which seems plentiful if the latest find in the Kunene region is anything to go by.
Lithium is too important a natural resource to be left in the hands of a few individuals and their foreign partners to make massive profits while the rest of us settle for paltry crumbs.
For comparative purposes, when it comes to land and other natural resources, the Constitution of Ghana states: “Every mineral in its natural state in, under or upon any land in Ghana, rivers, streams, water course throughout Ghana, the exclusive economic zone and any area covered by the territorial sea or continental shelf is the property of the Republic of Ghana and shall be vested in the president on behalf of, and in trust, for the people of Ghana.”
OWNERSHIP
So what does our constitution say about our natural resources?
The Namibian Constitution is framed in the same terms as that of Ghana. The article on sovereign ownership of natural resources states: “Land, water and natural resources below and above the surface of the land and in the continental shelf and within the territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone of Namibia shall belong to the state if they are not otherwise lawfully owned.”
The question is, are we in breach of Article 100 of our Constitution? “Yes”, as Grynberg pointed out in the fisheries sector.
Because Article 100 is not enforced, it has enabled some politically connected individuals to exploit the system – phosphate and the lithium saga being recent cases in point.
WHAT IS OURS?
Amid the excitement over the oil found offshore, former president Hage Geingob has said: “Legally it is not ours. Legally it is owned by the investors, with 90%, but we are going to get it through taxes and royalties until we nationalise and become socialists.”
So, what is ours? We are told that Namibia typically owns 10% of projects involving the country’s natural resources.
Former member of parliament Mike Kavekotora has labelled Namibia’s economy a franchise, saying we do not benefit sufficiently from our resources.
ENTRENCHED INTERESTS
Why has the ruling elite been silent on these issues? The answer is not hard to pinpoint. Blame it on the system – the neo liberal economic ideology called capitalism we have religiously been following.
And within that system, there are winners and losers.
The winners are the elite who own farms, have exclusive prospecting licences, easy access to government tenders, and fishing quotas, among others.
As research specialist Christie Keulder puts it: “Namibia now has a firmly entrenched political class – politicians, bureaucrats, and tenderpreneurs – whose personal wealth stems from access to public resources. Personally, they stand to lose from changes to the status quo and may thus not be open to change.”
In addition to their class interests, we are also being governed by people of whom some cannot think conceptually and laterally.
So how do you expect them to come up with new insights and imagine a different world?
Quo vadis phosphate mining?
We are told the two can coexist and that the risks to Namibia’s marine environment and to the fishing sector are minimal.
- Alexactus Kaure is a freelance writer and a deconstructionist scholar.
