Phosphate battle escalatesNMP lashes out at eco-critics Namibia Phosphate Mining has criticised those opposed to its planned seabed mining of failing to submit evidence of an environmental threat. 0 While resistance is building against the environmental clearance issued for offshore phosphate mining, Namibia Marine Phosphate (NMP) has spoken out for the first time since the news broke, saying there has been no scientific evidence provided in the ongoing arguments against it.The Economic and Social Justice Trust is the latest group to call for the withdrawal of the environmental clearance certificate, saying that some provisions of the law were ignored in the decision.
Environmental commissioner Teofilius Nghitila issued environmental clearance to Namibia Marine Phosphate for its Sandpiper Project, located about 120km southwest of Walvis Bay, on 5 September.
However, it only became public when the media reported about it more than a month later and by then the official time to appeal the process had lapsed.
Since then the issue has become a heated topic between the fisheries and environment ministries and environmental pressure groups.
The chairperson of the Economic and Social Justice Trust, Herbert Jauch, yesterday called for the withdrawal of the certificate without delay. According to him the trust is convinced that the granting of the environmental clearance was not only legally, but morally and economically flawed.
“The trust therefore calls on the environment minister to set aside the environmental certificate in the interest of the rule of law, the protection of public interest and in the interest of environmental sustainability.”
Jauch said the environment minister has the opportunity to restore public trust in the government by adhering to its mandate of protecting Namibia''s natural resources in the public interest.
“We cannot allow individual private interests driven by short-term profits to endanger and undermine our country''s development prospects. Private interest groups must not be allowed to capture state institutions to further their own narrow interests,” he said.
He added that the majority of Namibians, especially the thousands employed in the fisheries sector and those concerned about Namibia''s long-term development prospects, do not approve of this certificate.
“We fail to understand how the environmental commissioner did not consider the many concerns raised. Instead, the proponents of the marine phosphate project were allowed to conduct their own biased environmental assessment studies, which constitute a classical conflict of interests.”
Jauch added that while the Environmental Management Act makes provision for public scrutiny of the environmental commissioner''s decisions, the appeals process is clearly prohibitive.
According to him the charge of N$1 000 for lodging an appeal is discouraging in a country with a huge economic divide like Namibia.
“This is undermining the right of all citizens regardless of their economic abilities to hold public officials accountable and to subject their powers to administrative review.”
Namibian Marine Phosphate yesterday responded to the allegations that the awarding of the environmental clearance certificate was flawed.
The company said the allegation that this decision will result in “scandalous damage to the ecosystem” is unsupported by scientific data and intentionally sensationalistic and intended to mislead public opinion.
The company also said that these claims were purposefully chosen to ignore the scale of the proposed phosphate dredging operation and deflect any discussion on the relevance of the related impacts caused by the fishing (bottom trawling) industry or marine diamond mining.
“Not one shred of credible scientific evidence has been provided by any of these parties to support their positions,” NMP said.
According to the company, the scale of operation will be significantly less than that of the existing fishing and marine diamond mining activities.
It said the proposed phosphate dredging would affect an area of 2.5 to 3 square kilometres per year at a fixed location, while current marine diamond mining operations affect an area of approximately 10 to 14 square kilometres per year.
The company said a single bottom trawler can affect up to 10 square kilometres of seabed per day.
“It is clear that the cumulative effects of the current active trawler fleet in Namibia are likely to be substantially larger than the current diamond mining operations or the phosphate dredging at the proposed scale of operations.”
NMP also said that it followed due process and the environmental impact assessment, environmental management plan, verification study and the two studies independently commissioned by the environmental commissioner confirmed that phosphate mining would have minimal impact on the marine environment.
It said despite the due process followed the Confederation of Namibian Fishing Associations and the fisheries ministry have continued to distort facts and promote a sensationalised stance that the proposed dredging of phosphate sediments would cause substantive impacts on the marine environment and the commercial fishing industry, without providing any scientifically substantiated facts.
“The clear consensus of independent expert opinion with knowledge of the Benguela Large Marine Ecosystem is that at the scale of the proposed operations, the project can be safely developed and also be well managed within the existing Namibian mining and environmental regulations without impact to fishing resources and in co-existence with the fishing industry,” the company claimed.
ELLANIE SMIT