Providing clarity on marine phosphate mining, Namibia’s most misunderstood project.

I read with interest the editorial in The Namibian newspaper published on Friday 14th August 2026. I agree with the Editor that clarity on the issue of marine phosphate mining is required. The content of the editorial, however, served only to muddy the waters for the Namibian public.

When assessing any development project, Namibia must be guided by three overarching principles, without which we may land up approving bad projects or blocking good projects. The first of these is basing our decisions on best available science and evidence, rather than popularity or public opinion. The second is to apply monitoring and adaptive management, which guides implementation. And the third is transparency and accountability, so that people have access to good quality information and understand how and why decisions are made.

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process that is governed by the Environmental Management Act (2007) is designed to collect evidence and examine it in a scientific manner. When the EIA process is conducted correctly (i.e., by suitably qualified individuals applying the correct procedures and adhering to all regulations), it provides the evidence required to make sound decisions, while considering the perspectives of multiple different stakeholders. A key component of this process is producing an Environmental Management Plan (EMP), which sets in place sound monitoring and (where necessary) rehabilitation plans that are implemented and adapted during the life of the project.

Having investigated the proposal for marine phosphate mining, the full EIA and the accompanying 28 specialist studies on potential impacts of the project, I believe that this project is good for sustainable development in Namibia. The Environmental Commissioner has carried out due diligence and set in place detailed monitoring and stringent safeguard systems to protect Namibia’s marine ecosystem.

Our objective should be to promote sustainable development in Namibia. Our country has a struggling economy and an unemployment rate of over 50% — amongst the worst in the world. Poverty and unemployment should be foundational concerns of all Namibians, including environmentalists, as these conditions place huge pressures on the environment. They also lead to civil unrest and political instability which would impact all sectors. Where projects are clearly bad for Namibia, e.g. the Stampriet in-situ uranium leach mining proposal which would pollute groundwater for decades and put at risk jobs and the economy of the east-central Kalahari region, we oppose such developments with clearly explained reasons.

Where projects are in the best interest of Namibia, we should have the strength of our convictions to explain clearly why this is our position, regardless of it being contrary to popular opinion. Such decisions to support or oppose a particular project are based on scientific evidence, taking full account of the source of such evidence and the track record of the professionals producing the studies.

Where project proponents hire environmental assessment practitioners who produce substandard EIAs that deliberately limit public input and produce questionable ‘studies’ to support their recommendations, we strongly oppose such developments. In many of these instances, we have questioned the Commissioner’s decisions to approve them. Yet the marine phosphate project’s EIA achieves a high standard of scientific rigour, was produced by a reputable assessment practitioner (plus 37 independent scientists) and includes several important safeguards in the final Environmental Clearance Certificate.

The problem therefore lies with public perceptions and ungrounded fears, which Friday’s editorial and other media reports unfortunately stir up. I therefore wish to clear some of the muddy waters by addressing some of the misunderstandings relating to this particular project. These include comparing New Zealand’s rejection of phosphate mining with Namibia’s situation and claiming that phosphate mining will damage the fishing industry.

New Zealand vs. Namibia

The phosphate proposal in New Zealand involved taking up phosphorite nodules by removing the upper hard layer of the seabed, which is covered in a fine layer of silt. This hard layer provides habitat for rare stony coral species and other species, which form the basis of a unique and fragile ecosystem. The predicted result of this mining was irreversible change of habitat, from a hard layer of rock with a silt covering it to silt only.

The proposed mining area covered over 5,000 km², with 30 km² to be mined per year. It overlapped substantially with a marine protected area and fish spawning ground, which were predicted to be negatively affected by the sediment released into the sea after processing. The stony corals taken up during mining would be killed and not replaced because the hard substrate that they grow on would be gone.

Namibia’s equivalent to such an ecosystem with rare species is on land – our Tsau //Khaeb (Sperrgebiet) National Park is a unique and fragile ecosystem with special plant species. As a result, we strongly oppose hydrogen development in this area. If the roles were switched – if the New Zealand government were in Namibia – it would most likely reject the Tsau //Khaeb hydrogen project. Similarly, if we were the New Zealand Chamber of Environment, we would have opposed phosphate mining under the above New Zealand conditions.

But copying and pasting decisions from one country to another without examining the affected environment and the specifics of the proposed project is unwise. Namibia’s offshore ecosystem is entirely different to New Zealand’s. Our seabed is mostly sandy rather than hard rock and silt. The phosphate is contained within the sand grains. The powerful, cold Benguela Current that supports our fisheries makes it impossible for coral species to grow in our coastal waters, which is where the mining project is to take place.

The mining area itself – 34 km² about 120 km from Walvis Bay with only some 1.7 km² to be mined per year – hosts no unique species and the ecosystem recovers relatively quickly from dredging. How do we know that it recovers quickly? Because Namibia has allowed dredging off our coast for many years already – this is how Debmarine mines for diamonds. Specialist monitoring studies of the areas that have been dredged for diamonds reveal that the area recovers completely within 2-12 years. Diamond dredging goes down to the bedrock where possible, because the high density of diamonds cause them to sink through the substrate. The slower recovery times in some areas are related to the time it takes for sediments to form before the seabed organisms can start to recolonise. Dredging for phosphate does not go down to the bedrock, so we could expect recolonisation to begin almost immediately.

The proposed mining area in Namibia is therefore entirely different to the proposal that New Zealand rejected. The two simply cannot be compared.

Fishing vs. Phosphate

The second argument is that phosphate mining will harm our already beleaguered fisheries industry. The current state of that industry is a result of mismanagement and over-fishing. The recent decision to relax the 200 m isobar fishing restriction indicates that the government (and fishing companies that lobbied for this) is not serious about allowing our fish stocks to recover. The sudden concern for our fish stocks due to an imagined threat of phosphate mining is therefore ironic. Yet, without doubt, if phosphate mining were to go ahead, the fishing industry would blame any further decline in fish stocks on that tiny industry, as they blame the seals for their own unsustainable fishing practices – scapegoats that are, unfortunately, too readily believed by some uninformed politicians.

The process of dredging the seabed to bring up substrate for processing is not the same as trawling for fish. Trawling is far more environmentally damaging – resulting in high levels of bycatch and disturbance of huge areas where fish spawn. This is why we take the relaxation of the 200 m isobar fishing restriction so seriously – a decision taken without a single scientific study on its potential impacts.

Unlike trawling, dredging does not involve a huge net that catches every fish and other marine organism in its path. The dredger is a machine that is pulled slowly along the ocean floor – like a submerged vacuum cleaner. The fish swimming above and around it are unharmed. According to a fish study conducted for the phosphate EIA, no hake or monk fish spawn in the area to be dredged by this project.

Another concern from the fishing industry is that heavy metals and other toxins currently trapped in the sand could be released into the ocean during the dredging process or when processed material is released back into the ocean. These valid concerns were taken seriously by the Environmental Assessment Practitioner, which requested other experts to conduct independent studies on the matter. Among these scientists are three fish experts who are actively engaged in the fishing sector.

One specialist study found that, while heavy metals exist naturally in the substrate of our ocean floor, these are highly unlikely to land up in fish. Nutrients and other chemicals in the disturbed substrate are consumed by plankton, which digest it rapidly and eject it again onto the ocean floor. This quick process means that the fish feeding on plankton will be largely unaffected. Trawling creates the same kind of disturbance on the ocean floor but on a far larger scale, covering over 18,000 km² off our coastline each year, and our fish have not been poisoned as a result. It is worth noting that the area to be disturbed each year by phosphate mining is 0.009% of the area disturbed by bottom trawling.

The individual studies like the ones cited above were subjected to peer review, while the whole EIA was independently reviewed four times by other experts. All of the scientists doing the studies and expert reviewers agreed with the conclusion that the potential impacts of this project on fisheries are likely to be insignificant.

Monitoring and safeguards

A scientific study prior to starting a project is limited, however, because the scientists are making predictions based on studies conducted elsewhere and laboratory results. The data provided by the Fisheries research department for these studies tend to focus on commercial fish species rather than the whole marine ecosystem, leaving gaps in our knowledge.

Consequently, the conditions under which the Environmental Clearance Certificate was granted include extensive monitoring, continued scientific studies, and multiple levels of scrutiny for the resulting reports. This Certificate only applies to the mining operations at sea. The proponent will have to get a separate Certificate for the land-based processing plant. It is therefore likely that mining will only start in about three or more years from now, pending the other Certificate and construction of the processing plant.

At the top level of oversight is a Government Technical Task Team chaired by the Environmental Commissioner and comprising relevant government regulators and authorities, which will support and advise the Commissioner. This body will oversee the next level – a Marine Environmental Scientific Advisory Committee comprising relevant government ministries and independent technical specialists. This Committee is based on a similar one that oversees marine diamond mining.

At the bottom level, Namibia Marine Phosphate (the mining proponent), must commission independent baseline and monitoring surveys to track all of the possible environmental threats. These technical reports will be presented to the upper oversight levels regularly (quarterly for some, bi-annually for others). The data, monitoring reports and proceedings of the oversight committee meetings will be made available on a public website. This project will therefore generate important scientific information that otherwise would not be obtained, putting Namibia in a better position to make decisions about future phosphate mining projects.

While awaiting approval for the processing plant, the proponent will produce an updated baseline study to measure several aspects of the current state of the targeted marine system. The proponent will then set thresholds for each of the possible changes (e.g., concentrations of problematic substances) that it must operate within. These thresholds will be vetted by independent experts, who will advise the Commissioner on their appropriateness prior to his decision. If these thresholds are breached during mining operations, previously agreed management actions will be taken immediately – either to apply new mitigation procedures or halt operations entirely.

The current Clearance Certificate is valid for three years, and will be renewed prior to the commencement of mining. After three years of mining, the systems of monitoring and management may be reviewed. If the proponent does not keep their end of the deal, or serious impacts have been identified that were not predicted, their Certificate may be revoked altogether.

The levels of oversight and safeguards for this project far exceed normal land-based mining projects in Namibia. This is a good example of an adaptive management approach, which is especially important for a new kind of industry. These safeguards ultimately protect the Namibian people and the marine environment.

Is Namibia being used as a guinea pig?

A number of politicians have made statements that reflect a fear of the unknown. This is perhaps because these busy politicians have not had time to study the voluminous specialist scientific studies and reviews that form part of the EIA report.

Marine phosphate mining is a new concept that remains to be tested. In the absence of the thorough environmental studies by reputable scientists that have accompanied the long EIA process, I would also be sceptical of a brand-new industry. But I have read the studies by the independent specialists and spoken to independent marine biologists and reviewers. These specialists are comfortable that the marine phosphate project poses no significant risk to Namibia’s marine ecosystem nor to the fishing sector. They are puzzled by the opposition expressed to what is in all respects a win-win situation for Namibia – marine phosphate income and jobs at no significant risk to the marine ecosystem and to the fishing sector. The government should be embracing this opportunity, and so too should the trade unions.

Namibia venturing into marine phosphate mining is much less scary when you consider that we have already gone through the ‘guinea pig’ phase for a similar project. Diamond mining using dredging methods is also a world-first – to this day, the Debmarine operation off our coastline is the only one of its kind globally.

Prior to Debmarine receiving approval, there were similar fears about how dredging would impact the marine environment. These fears were allayed by establishing the strong oversight and safeguard mechanisms that now provide a model for the marine phosphate project. The long-term monitoring studies accompanying Debmarine’s operations provide solid evidence for what will happen to our seabed and the marine species in the area during and after dredging. The results: surprisingly little.

The natural recovery of the ocean after dredging for diamonds stands in stark contrast to the results of mining on land. On land, there is little one can do about the massive pit left by an open cast mine. Even with the best rehabilitation practices, the giant hole in the ground remains and the area never looks like it did before mining took place. Yet if one were to scuba dive in the areas that were dredged for diamonds in 2015, you wouldn’t know it. The seabed and marine species around you would look the same as untouched areas.

Namibia as a pioneer – dipping our toe in clear waters

Rather than viewing Namibia as a guinea pig that is being used by powerful external forces to test their ideas, I view Namibia as a pioneer. Namibia has taken considerable time (14 years since the project was first proposed) to consider all potential pitfalls, do all the studies and consult widely with the public. Now is the time to dip our toe in the water.

This relatively small project proposed by Namibia Marine Phosphate is really like dipping a toe. In a whole year, they will dredge less than 2 km² of our seabed (0,0003% of Namibia’s Exclusive Economic Zone). By the time the Clearance Certificate is up for renewal, they would have dredged about 5.1 km². If things don’t look good at that point, the Certificate will not be renewed. If things go well and they mine for 20 years as planned, they would have covered all 34 km² in their proposal. About 75% or more of that area would already have recovered to its pre-mining state. This relatively small project is expected to create over 600 direct and indirect jobs.

If the pioneering mining project proves successful, Namibia may consider further options for expansion. A fully fledged industry would include processing the phosphate into final products (including fertiliser and electric car batteries) within Namibia that supports a new manufacturing sector. The locally-produced fertiliser could further be used to support agriculture.

The potential long-term value of a phosphate-based industry is estimated to be 9% of the GDP (double the fishing industry) and generate over 18,000 direct jobs (similar to fishing), excluding indirect jobs related to the industry. These estimates are derived from an economic study in 2018 by South African economy research company Stratecon, commissioned by Namibia Marine Phosphate.

I have investigated marine phosphate carefully to produce my considered, evidence-based view. I hope that the arguments above provide the necessary clarity for Namibians to decide whether they want to dip their toe in these waters or not. There is little to lose and much to gain from this foray into phosphate.