Tag Archives: Namibian Marine Phosphate

Judgement reserved on Namibian marine mining halt

Michael Gaweseb

Werner Menges | The Namibian | 14 August 2017

THE minister of environment and tourism’s decision to set aside an environmental clearance certificate that gave the go-ahead for the start of marine phosphate mining in Namibian waters has come under attack in the Windhoek High Court.

The attack on a decision by the minister of environment and tourism, Pohamba Shifeta, to set aside an environmental clearance certificate issued to a company planning to start a controversial marine phosphate mining project off the Namibian coast came on Thursday last week, in oral arguments heard by judge Shafimana Ueitele in an appeal to have Shifeta’s decision reversed.

A fundamental breach of the company Namibian Marine Phosphate’s right to a fair hearing had taken place before Shifeta decided on 2 November last year to set aside the environmental clearance certificate that the environmental commissioner had granted to the company two months earlier, senior counsel Reinhard Tötemeyer, representing Namibian Marine Phosphate (NMP), argued.

Tötemeyer charged that an appeal process against the granting of the environmental clearance certificate to NMP took place behind the company’s back after NMP was not notified that an appeal hearing was to take place, with the result that NMP was not present at such a hearing at the end of October last year.

Since NMP was not given a chance to be heard before the minister took his decision on an appeal against the granting of the certificate to the company, the appeal process was fundamentally flawed, Tötemeyer argued.

He added that Shifeta’s decision to set aside the environmental clearance certificate was mainly based on a finding that sufficient public consultations did not take place before the certificate was granted. However, had NMP been given a chance to be heard, the company would have informed the minister that extensive public consultations, in fact, did take place before it received the certificate, Tötemeyer also argued.

The environmental clearance certificate would have allowed NMP to proceed with mining seabed phosphate in a part of the Atlantic Ocean about 120 kilometres south-west of Walvis Bay.

The company’s plan to start the world’s first marine phosphate mining project in Namibian waters has drawn fierce opposition from environmentalists and the Namibian fishing industry, who fear that mining activities could cause serious and long-term harm to the country’s marine resources and endanger fishing activities.

Shifeta’s decision to set aside the certificate was taken after a public outcry and an appeal that a community activist, Michael Gaweseb, lodged against the granting of the certificate.

Senior counsel Vincent Maleka, representing the minister, argued that regulations issued in terms of the Environmental Management Act do not prescribe a procedure that Shifeta had to follow with an appeal against the granting of a certificate, and did not require that an appeal hearing had to take place or that affected parties had to be present at a hearing.

NMP and Gaweseb were not treated differently during the appeal process, Maleka also argued.

Gaweseb’s lawyer, Uno Katjipuka-Sibolile, argued that NMP was not excluded from the appeal process. The company was notified of the appeal and made submissions that the minister took into account before he made his decision, she said.

Since NMP was complaining of alleged procedural shortcomings in the appeal decided by Shifeta, it should have asked the High Court to review the minister’s decision, rather than appealing against the decision regarding the Environmental Management Act, Katjipuka-Sibolile also argued.

Judge Ueitele reserved his judgement after hearing the oral arguments. He said he would try to have his judgement ready by 15 December, or earlier if possible.

NMP is also involved in another pending High Court case about its marine phosphate mining plans. In the other matter, three Namibian fishing industry associations and a fishing company are asking the court to declare the mining licence that was issued to NMP in July 2011 as invalid.

That case was last week postponed to 12 September for a further case management hearing to take place.

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmental impact

Namibian seabed mining approval suspended amid corruption claims


Environment and Tourism Minister, Pohamba Shifeta

See also: Nautilus Minerals linked to corruption allegations around Namibian seabed mining

Shifeta suspends NMP phosphate certificate

Albertina Nakale | New Era | November 3, 2016

Environment and Tourism Minister Pohamba Shifeta has ordered that the environmental clearance certificate granted to Namibia Marine Phosphate (NMP) to mine phosphate off Namibia’s coast be set aside for the sake of the public good.

This follows a massive public uproar surrounding the perceived secretive issuance of the certificate, which was granted by Environmental Commissioner Teofilus Nghitila on September 5, 2016.

Critics of the proposed contentious project have demanded updated scientific facts in order to make an informed decision on the issue. The decision of Nghitila to grant the certificate to NMP prompted considerable debate and reaction.

NMP’s Sandpiper project constitutes more than N$5 billion in investment capital and is estimated to yield 1.8 billion tonnes of phosphoric sand. NMP is owned by Mawarid Mining (Namibia) (42.5 percent) and Sea Phosphates (Namibia) (42.5 percent), both wholly owned subsidiaries of Mawarid Mining LLC (85 percent), an Omani company, and Havana Investments (Pty) Ltd (15 percent), a Namibian company.

Shifeta yesterday delivered his more than two-hour ruling in the matter between appellant Michael Gaweseb – who is a trustee of Economic Social Justice Trust – Nghitila and NMP. The hearing was held on October 31, when Gaweseb appealed against the commissioner’s decision to grant the certificate to NMP, based on two reasons: that the activity of phosphate mining has a long devastatingly adverse impact on the marine environment, and lack of public consultation.

Shifeta said he took the liberty to study the facts and all evidence presented before him by the appellant surrounding the issuance of the phosphate certificate.

Although Shifeta said there was no secrecy surrounding the awarding of the certificate – after closely studying the evidence presented before him he reached the conclusion that the certificate granted by Nghitila should be set aside and that the commissioner should notify the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, the fishing industry and all other interested parties to finalise their inputs in the report within three months. He said that in accordance with Article 95 (1) of the Namibian Constitution, which evidently underlines the importance of environmental protection, he reached his conclusion based on that provision and the cause of the public good.

“That whole process of consultation should be completed within six months from today. That this order is with immediate effect and binds all parties, directly or indirectly affected, unless set aside by the High Court as per section 51 (1) of the Act,” Shifeta announced.

He also agreed with the appellant on the issue of further public consultation, saying caution should be taken to balance the rights of the respondents and the sake of the public good.

“Accordingly, Section 50 of the Act and Regulation 25 as its delegated law should be applied with caution and in a special manner because of the value and obligations Article 95 (1) of the Constitution impose on citizens and residents of Namibia,” he said.

He still maintains that the fisheries ministry failed to respond to the request of the commissioner for a review.

“It is clear that on 13 June 2016, the commissioner’s request made to the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources to review the final report was ignored or not seen necessary to respond to, hence the commissioner’s correct application of Section 44 (2) of the Act (Environmental Management),” Shifeta maintained.

He defended that the Environmental Management Act of 2007 only came into force in 2012, saying it’s a brand-new legislation while the mining licence was issued in 2011.

“I will accept the notion that ‘ignorance of the law is not an excuse’. However, you may agree with me that the fishing industry is a big industry whose contribution to the national economy is very significant. The fishing industry, I assume, was supposed to channel their inputs to the final report for review through their line ministry but the ministry failed to respond to this, for the reason only known to them,” Shifeta said, adding that such failure cannot be blamed on the entire fishing industry.

NMP, in a statement issued on Sunday, challenged critics of its envisaged project to present counter-scientific evidence to back up claims that seabed mining would destroy the country’s marine life.

Leave a comment

Filed under Corruption, Environmental impact

Urgent application against Namibian seabed mining approval


LEGAL BATTLE: An urgent application has been filed in the High Court against phosphate mining in Namibia

See also: Nautilus Minerals linked to corruption allegations around Namibian seabed mining

Ellanie Smit | Namibian Sun | 02 November 2016

An urgent application has been filed in the High Court yesterday against the awarding of the environmental clearance for marine phosphate mining at the coast.

The application was filed by lawyer Sisa Namandje who is acting on behalf of the Confederation of Namibian Fishing Associations.

The urgent application follows after the environmental clearance certificate for Namibian Marine Phosphate’s Sandpiper Project was quietly issued on 5 September and it only came to light more than a month later.

At the time of going to print last night, it was not clear as to when the matter will be heard.

Affected parties had only 14 days to appeal the decision from the date of granting the certificate.

Namandje last week accused environmental commissioner Teofilus Nghitila of committing a number of irregularities and that he had not complied with the Environmental Management Act.

These accusations were contained in correspondence between Namandje and government attorney Mathias Kashindi, who is representing Nghitila after the fishing confederation, demanded through their lawyer, that Nghitila should provide detailed information on the processes followed with regard to granting the environmental clearance.

They wanted to know, among others, the date on which he had received the assessment report from the NMP, as indicated in Section 35 of the Environmental Management Act of 2007, the details and all particulars of the notifications made to the public and interested parties, as well as the closing date for submission contemplates, again in terms of Section 35 of the same Act.

However, after Nghitila provided the information to his lawyer, Kashindi in his correspondence with Namandje admitted that Nghitila had to a certain extent not complied with some of the requirements of the act.

Contradicting remarks

Nghitila has refuted claims of irregularities on his part and expressed concern over the fact that his lawyer had written to Namandje without his consent and provided contradicting information than what was discussed between them.

According to Nghitila, he answered all of the questions that Namandje asked on the process followed in the granting of the environmental clearance.

“I have dealt with questions posed by Namandje in my response as prepared for discussion with the government attorney. All evidence and documentation have been provided,” he said.

Nghitila has also expressed his concerns to the Attorney-General Sacky Shanghala and the Minister of Environment of Tourism, Pohamba Shifeta with regards to this misrepresentation by the government lawyer.

Some of the issues pointed out by Nghitila were that the issue of phosphate mining was discussed at a Special Cabinet Committee on Trade and Economic Development meeting of 15 February 2016.

He said that the environment ministry was given three months to pronounce itself on the matter with regard to the two mining licenses that have been issued for offshore phosphate mining.

According to him, at a meeting of 1 June, the environment ministry requested the deferment of the matter to allow technical consultation with the Ministry of Mines and Energy and the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources.

At a meeting on 11 August Nghitila gave a presentation at which a notice was given of the decision as regard to ML 170 of Namibia Marine Phosphate.

He said that both ministers of mines and fisheries were part of this meeting.

The meeting agreed that Nghitila be granted the independence to decide on the matter as per the provisions of the Environmental Management Act.

“This served as notification to the competent authority, mines ministry and fisheries ministry,” said Nghitila.

He added that the notification of the application and requests for written comments were made through the company on 17 April 2012 and a number of notices were made inviting the public for public meetings.

With regards to the fact that Nghitila did not advise all interested parties, including fisheries associations of his decision to grant environmental clearance, he said Section 37 of the Act and Regulation 18 refer that only notifying the proponent and competent authority is required.

Nghitila also responded to claims about the review process that was not followed, saying that this already started in 2012 after the Environmental Impact Assessment report was submitted.

He said this review process included consultation with both the fisheries and mines ministries including ordering the company to do the verification study. After the submission of the verification studies, which forms part of the EIA Report, Nghitila satisfied himself with the report and consultation with the relevant ministries were undertaken which culminated in a workshop held on 27 April 2016 in Swakopmund.

Leave a comment

Filed under Corruption, Environmental impact

Nautilus Minerals linked to corruption allegations around Namibian seabed mining


The giant machines Nautilus wants to use to mine the seafloor in Papua New Guinea

PNG Exposed | 31 October 2016

Prospective Solwara 1 seabed mining company Nautilus Minerals can be linked to the allegations of corruption surrounding a controversial decision by the Namibian government to allow seabed mining.

Namibia’s Fisheries Minister, Bernhard Esau, is crying foul over a government decision to allow phosphate mining on the seabed.

He says the decision to grant an environmental permit to Namibian Marine Phosphate was done behind closed doors and in defiance of an earlier government imposed ban. As Fisheries Minister, he says he was denied an opportunity to present his own proposal for a detailed 3-5 year environmental study before any approvals were granted.

Namibian Marine Phosphate is owned by the same company, MB Holdings, that is the largest shareholder in Nautilus Minerals.

MB Holdings owns 85% of Namibian Marine Phosphate through its wholly owned subsidiary, Mawarid Mining LLC.

MB Holdings is owned by Omani business man Mohammed Al Barwani.


Filed under Corruption, Papua New Guinea

Namibian Fisheries Minister wants phosphate mining clearance withdrawn

Corruption allegations threaten to sink experiemental seabed mining approval in Namibia


Shinovene Immanuel | The Namibian | 27 October 2016

FISHERIES minister Bernhard Esau wants Cabinet to instruct the environment ministry to immediately withdraw the environmental clearance certificate issued to Namibia Marine Phosphate.

Esau’s rejection of the phosphate project and recommendations are contained in a draft report obtained by The Namibian this week which proposed a detailed study on marine phosphate mining over three to five years.

The minister wanted to make an urgent submission to Cabinet on Tuesday, but his attempt was blocked, possibly by the powerful group in Cabinet and some state officials who support phosphate mining.

The report also shows how Cabinet resolutions adopted by former President Hifikepunye Pohamba’s administration in 2013 were ignored when the ministry of environment approved an application to mine phosphates from the bottom of the ocean.

Efforts to get comment from Esau were not successful as his mobile phone was unreachable.

Environment minister Pohamba Shifeta and economic planning minister Tom Alweendo said the matter was not discussed at Cabinet this week.

Environmental commissioner Teofilus Nghitila issued an environmental clearance certificate to Namibia Marine Phosphate (NMP) on 5 September 2016.

Nghitila based his judgement on a secretive environmental impact assessment report by NMP.

NMP, which wants to mine marine phosphate to make fertilisers for sale abroad, is 85% owned by Omani oil billionaire Mohammed Al Barwani through his company Mawarid Mining LLC, while 15% is owned by serial middleman Knowledge Katti through his company Havana Investments.

Esau’s report said the fisheries ministry is concerned by the decision of the environment ministry to issue an environmental clearance certificate.

In fact, the fisheries ministry described that decision as “premature, and perhaps in contradiction of the precautionary principle as espoused by the Latin phrase in dubio, pro natura (when in doubt, favour nature)”.

Esau wanted Cabinet to know that his ministry was not consulted before the clearance certificate was issued to NMP.

The fisheries ministry is “concerned that marine phosphate mining may commence immediately, which may cause irreparable damage to the marine ecosystem, including fisheries stocks, and hence cause a conflict between the mining and fishing industries”.

In the report, Esau said Cabinet issued a ban on offshore phosphate mining, a decision that was backed up by a legal opinion obtained on 13 December 2013 and 2 July 2015 from the attorney general as binding on the ministry of fisheries, mines and other state organs.

“This moratorium, therefore, still stands until Cabinet pronounces itself otherwise,” the minister stated.

The conditions of that ban were that no phosphate environmental clearance would be issued in 18 months, and that an independent scoping study (a preliminary study to define the scope of a project) should be done.

After that, a comprehensive strategic environmental assessment – a process of predicting and evaluating the impact of a strategic action on the environment, and using that information in decision-making – would be conducted during the ban under supervision of the fisheries ministry, in consultation with the environment and energy ministries.

Esau said during that moratorium, a scoping study was done by an independent consultant from Norway, who recommended that a strategic assessment should be conducted in order to get sufficient scientific knowledge and regulatory mechanisms in place to mitigate the impact of seabed mining on the ocean.

That strategic assessment, which is the responsibility of the fisheries ministry as the “competent authority on the marine environment”, is still not yet completed, Esau said, adding that the findings of that report will inform the environment impact assessment process.

“It was expected that the ministry of fisheries will commence on the strategic assessment once Cabinet has pronounced itself on the scoping report,” Esau said.

The fisheries ministry presented the scoping study report to the deliberative Cabinet meeting, but the matter was referred to the Cabinet committee on trade and economic development chaired by Alweendo for further discussion.

“This process is still ongoing (the last meeting was on 27 April 2016, the last communication on 7 July 2016 raised questions that are still pending),” Esau said in the report.

This appears to be the point where Esau was sidelined by his fellow ministers on that committee. Instead of discussing the scoping report, the majority of ministers on the committee directed the environmental commissioner to decide on the phosphate application.

The fisheries ministry wants Cabinet to re-endorse the decision and conditions made in 2013, and to ban phosphate mining and direct the environment ministry “to immediately withdraw the environmental impact assessment clearance certificate issued for marine phosphate mining on emergency grounds”.

Esau said once Cabinet clarifies the earlier decision, the next step in the marine phosphate mining consideration is to conduct a strategic environmental assessment, a process which will take three to five years.

Once the recommendations of the strategic assessment are completed, the fisheries ministry will submit the findings for a final environmental impact assessment on marine phosphate mining.

Esau said since 1990, the issue of phosphate mining has been one of the most important policy decisions for the country, apart from the issue of the dumping of nuclear waste, the poaching of wildlife and the international trade in endangered species.

“Therefore, it would have rendered a united government if adequate consultation had occurred before the environmental clearance certificate was issued,” he noted.

Esau also wants Cabinet to consider authorising the development of Namibia’s blue ocean economy policy, to act as government’s policy coordinator on cross-cutting issues.

This policy will be developed by the fisheries, mines and energy, environment, works and other line ministries.

The attorney general’s office will provide legal guidance on the process which involves these ministries.


Filed under Environmental impact

Seabed mining ‘catastrophic’

NOT CONVINCED: Professor Edosa Omregie.

NOT CONVINCED: Professor Edosa Omregie has given an apocalyptic prognosis

Marine phosphate mining is nothing like diamond dredging and will have extreme and irreversible consequences for millennia to come, says an expert.

Catherine Sasman | Namibian Sun | 26 October 2016

Marine biologist and former director of the Sam Nujoma Marine and Coastal Resources Research Centre of Unam, Professor Edosa Omoregie, has warned that marine phosphate mining, however small or large the scale, will lead to devastating and long-lasting effects on the marine ecosystem.

He said this could cause serious damage to the productivity of the Namibian marine environment and the country’s fisheries.

Omoregie made these remarks at the first annual research conference of the Sam Nujoma campus at Henties Bay in late September.

Despite strong resistance from environmental groups, environmental clearance has been granted to start with marine phosphate mining.

The Ministry of Environment and Tourism has granted the certificate to Namibia Marine Phosphate, which is developing the world”s first marine phosphate project off the coast of Namibia.

Omoregie said marine phosphate mining involves massive seabed dredging that removes as much as 20 metres of the top sediments that have accumulated for millions of years.

With massive removal of this large quantity of sediments, reclamation after mining would be practically impossible, hence other countries with huge marine phosphate deposits have refused to allow mining.

The presentation noted that the high productivity of the Namibian marine ecosystem is dependent on the biological and chemical processes taking place in these sediments.

Once these sediments are disturbed and eventually removed, the consequences could be extremely devastating to marine life.

Another concern raised by Omoregie is that marine sediments rich in phosphorite are known breeding grounds for several commercial fish species and other marine life. The removal of these sediments would, therefore, directly affect fish stocks.

There is currently no scientific data on the effects of marine phosphate mining on fish productivity because it has never been done anywhere in the world.

And for good reason, figured Omoregie, because of what is known about disturbances of the seabed, which should concern everyone, including decision-makers and politicians.

“Remedying phosphate mining on land is easy but in the deep sea reclamation would be practically zero and will take several million years to recover,” was Omoregie’s apocalyptic prognosis.

Another concern he raised is the release of several types of nutrients into the water column, including inorganic phosphates that have been locked up within aggregates in these sediments.

One consequence of this release would be red tide and sulphur eruptions, which the mariculture industry is scared of. Another consequence would be the direct toxic effects of nutrient over-loading.

Omoregie and others have investigated the effects of varying concentrations of a single superphosphate fertiliser on the survival and respiratory dynamics of Nile tilapia under laboratory conditions.

They concluded that fertilisers in water bodies stimulate growth of phytoplankton and waterweeds, which in turn provide food for fish.

However, at certain concentrations of these fertilisers, algae and waterweeds grow wildly, clogging the waterways and depleting the dissolved oxygen present in the system.

In short; aquatic life suffocates as a result.

Moreover, said Omoregie, the geology of the seabed is poorly understood and for this, it is not clear to what extent massive removal of seabed sediments would disrupt underlying rock formations.

It is a known scientific fact that there are several vents within underlying rocks of seabed sediments. Massive sediment dredging could expose some of these vents, making whatever has been locked up within the vents erupt into the water column.

Omoregie likened this eventuality to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, recognised as the worst oil spill in the history of the USA, in which an estimated 3.19 million barrels of oil spilled into the sea.

“The incident in the Gulf of Mexico will be child’s play if anything should happen here,” he warned, as it is a known fact that there are massive gas reserves beneath the sea bedrock.

He said while taking cognisance of rapid economic development in several countries and the global need for more food production both for human and bio-fuel production, extensive removal of deep seabed sediments would set up disruptive events that cannot be reverted for millions of years to come.

“Why would Namibia want to play the guinea pig?” he asked, since no other country has allowed massive removal of deep seabed sediments for whatever reason, be it marine phosphate mining or any other kind of mining based on the outcry from the scientific community.

“What we as scientists refer to is what can be proven scientifically but the choice lies with decision-makers and politicians,” Omoregie said.

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmental impact

Namibia approves world’s first marine phosphate mining project


African News Agency via Mining Weekly | 19 October 2016

The Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) has approved the marine phosphate mining application from an Omani mining company, paving the way for the opening of the world’s first ever sea-bed phosphate mining project.

In a letter addressed to the company and circulated on local media, Namibian Environmental Affairs commissioner Teofilus Nghitila said the environmental impact management plan submitted by Namibian Marine Phosphate (NMP) was sufficient enough to mitigate the anticipated impacts of sea-bed mining operations.

NMP is a subsidiary of the Omani mining joint venture company, Mawarid Mining, which is 85% owned by billionaire Mohammeb Al Barwani while the remaining 15% stake is held by local company Havana Investments. The mine will cover part of a sea-bed phosphate concession that lies about 120km into the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Walvis Bay.

“This letter serves as an environmental clearance certificate for the (marine phosphate mining) project to commence,” Nghitila said.

He said the company should carry out regular environmental monitoring and evaluation and set timelines for further improvement of the environmental impact management model.

He said the plans should be advanced in line with government regulations. Among other regulatory demands, the company would be required to regularly monitor sea-bed and water quality and submit reports on a quarterly basis.

“In view of the fact that your project is located in an environmentally sensitive area, this ministry reserves the right to attach further legislative and regulatory conditions during the operational phase of the project,” Nghitila said.

However, he said the clearance letter did not ‘in any way’ hold the Ministry of Environment and Tourism accountable for misleading information or any adverse effects that may arise from the implementation of the project.

“If it is identified at any time during the environmental monitoring and reporting stages that significant negative environmental impacts have been proven to be associated with the proposed mining, processing or beneficiation techniques, such operations will be terminated,” the commissioner said.

Meanwhile, the ministry has called on members of the public and interest groups, such as fishing companies, to submit any objections to the phosphate mining projects to its offices across the country. Local fishing groups have vehemently opposed the proposal for marine phosphate mining saying it was a threat to the industry while environmental conservation groups said it would upset an already fragile marine ecosystem. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Mine construction

Namibian govt clarifies moratorium on marine phosphate mining


Star Africa

An 18-month moratorium on marine phosphate mining on Namibia’s seabed that was issued by the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources in September 2013 is still in force, because it was never lifted. That was all that the permanent secretary in the Fisheries ministry, Moses Maurihungirire, was prepared to say to the media on Monday when asked about the ongoing scuffle between the government and mining companies vying to exploit large quantities of marine phosphate deposits in the Atlantic Ocean.

This came after an announcement by Lev Leviev Namibia Phosphate that it will go ahead with plans to set up a plant at Làderitz to test the feasibility of mining marine phosphate, at the southern harbour.

Lev Leviev Namibia Phosphate has signed a memorandum of understanding with Israel Chemicals, a Tel Aviv based multinational to set up a fertilizer manufacturing industry in Namibia.

The Ministry of Mines and Energy has listed more than 46 sites off the Namibian coast for exploration of industrial minerals from the seabed.

However Fisheries Minister, Bernard Esau has been resolute in his opposition to phosphate mining, having been quoted on numerous occasions arguing that the Namibian government will not rush in permitting mining activities before proper scientific studies are conducted.

The minister has argued that marine phosphate exploitation was never done anywhere in the world, and that there is little information available about its long-term effect on the marine environment.

Lev Leviev Namibia Phosphate and Namibian Marine Phosphate have been granted mining permits by the government to exploit marine phosphate in the Namibian waters at Làderitz and Walvis Bay.

Others such as the New Zealand’s Chatham Rock Phosphates and Gecko Phosphate (Pty) Ltd have been putting pressure on the government to lift a ban on phosphate mining on the country’s seabed.

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmental impact