Sostenus Wilherm
The IPC shadow minister of environment, forestry and tourism Rodrick Likando has intensified opposition to the proposed Sandpiper Marine Phosphate Project, warning that Namibia could repeat the environmental and economic consequences experienced in Tunisia, Jordan and Nauru if large-scale phosphate mining proceeds without independent oversight.
In a statement issued on Friday, Likando said the experiences of the three countries should serve as a warning to Namibia as debate continues over the proposed marine phosphate mining project and its potential impact on the Benguela marine ecosystem and the country’s fishing industry.
“Every country that mined phosphate at scale without honest oversight is now living with the bill. Namibia is being asked to sign up for the same arrangement and call it progress,” Likando said.
He said the proposed Sandpiper Marine Phosphate Project should be considered against what he described as the documented experiences of communities in countries where phosphate extraction was initially presented as a source of prosperity and development.
Likando pointed to Tunisia’s Gafsa region, where phosphate mining has been conducted for more than a century, saying communities there continue to face serious environmental and social challenges.
Citing research by Hamed et al. published in Environment, Development and Sustainability in 2023, Likando said the phosphate industry has been linked to concerns over pollution, heavy-metal contamination and pressure on scarce groundwater resources in the region.
He said the situation in Gafsa demonstrates how communities can continue carrying environmental and health consequences while the economic benefits promised through mining fail to reach ordinary residents.
“The industry did not lift the region out of poverty; it emptied the region of its water, its health, and increasingly, its youth,” Likando said.
The shadow minister also referred to Jordan, arguing that the consequences of phosphate mining can continue long after mining operations have stopped.
He cited research by Al-Jundi published in Radiation Measurements, which found elevated levels of natural radiation at the Russaifa mine site years after the closure of mining activities.
According to Likando, Jordan’s experience highlights the importance of independent environmental monitoring and long-term oversight.
“Oversight cannot be an afterthought,” he said, warning that weak, delayed or industry-controlled monitoring could leave communities dealing with environmental consequences for generations.
However, Likando described Nauru as perhaps the strongest warning for Namibia.
Once among the world’s wealthiest countries because of its phosphate reserves, Nauru was heavily transformed by decades of extensive mining, leaving large portions of the small island unsuitable for agriculture and habitation.
Likando said the destruction of productive land left the country increasingly dependent on imported food and vulnerable after its phosphate reserves became depleted.
“Nauru is not a cautionary tale from history. It is a preview; it shows what happens to a small nation that trusts extractive promises over independent, enforced environmental oversight,” he said.
Likando argued that Namibia faces an equally serious decision because the Sandpiper project concerns the marine environment.
He warned that the Benguela marine ecosystem, which supports Namibia’s fishing industry and coastal communities, could be particularly vulnerable to large-scale disturbance.
“Nauru proves that phosphate extraction can permanently destroy the productive capacity of the land it touches. Namibia’s marine environment, a cornerstone of the Benguela ecosystem and our fishing industry, is arguably more fragile and less forgiving than terrestrial mine sites,” Likando said.
He questioned who would ultimately benefit from Namibia’s phosphate resources and who would carry the environmental consequences should the project cause long-term damage.
“Namibians deserve a transparent answer, before a single permit is finalised, on who actually stands to profit from Sandpiper’s phosphate exports and who will be left to live with what remains,” he said.
Likando further raised concerns over the Sandpiper Environmental and Social Impact Assessment and ongoing legal challenges surrounding the project.
He said the matter should not be treated as a simple bureaucratic process, arguing that independent legal and scientific scrutiny was necessary before the project could proceed.
“The Sandpiper Marine Phosphate Project must not proceed on the basis of an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment that has not withstood independent legal and scientific scrutiny,” he said.
Likando warned that the government should not gamble Namibia’s fisheries, coastal communities and the Benguela ecosystem on promises of economic benefits without ensuring that potential environmental consequences have been properly addressed.
He said Namibia has the advantage of learning from countries that have already experienced the consequences of large-scale phosphate extraction.
“Three nations have already lived through the version of this story the ministry is asking us to believe will be different this time. We do not have to make their mistake to learn their lesson,” Likando said.
