Scoop has an Ethical Paywall
Namibia Never Requested Chatham Rock Phosphate's Assistance
Swakopmund Matters 2 - 2015 –
Namibia Never Requested Any Assistance From Chatham Rock Phosphate
In its media release on 4 February 2015 Chatham Rock Phosphate claims it is “sharing its experience of New Zealand’s environmental consenting regime to assist Namibia in designing an environmental assessment process for its seabed phosphate resources”.
By going public with what was at most a comment submission of a few pages, CRP created the impression of telling Namibians how to do its assessment as if CRP had done its assessment the ideal way and Namibia could use that as an example.
Self serving actions to promote a company’s fortunes are seen for what they are. Pronouncements like those by CRP will not endear the company or its representatives to those who hold sway.
No one in Namibia ever requested any assistance from CRP! Namibia does not need any advice from CRP!
Namibia has a plan of its own. It is more than capable to do things the way its considers appropriate and necessary. The Namibian proposed research is more directly aligned to what it needs.
In its presumptuous announcement CRP conveniently failed to mention the fact that the Namibian Government has wisely engaged two highly respected Norwegian-based research groups to advise it, namely
• The Foundation for Scientific and Industrial Research, SINTEF, the largest independent research organisation in Scandinavia.
• The Institute of Marine Research (IMR), the largest marine research institution in Norway and the second biggest in Europe.
Having these two institutions involved the Namibian Government is surely not interested in the one-sided views of a self-serving company which has a subsidiary registered in Namibia with a view to exploiting Namibia’s marine phosphate resources for its own enrichment.
The Namibian scientific studies will be carried out independently of any industry players: clearly to ensure that all assessments are based purely on science and not influenced by interests from any of the industries dependent on the marine environment. In no way will these institutions allow their studies to be influenced or undermined by comments that are scientifically irrelevant and questionable.
These more reputable institutions have standards to live up to. Why would they compromise that?
During the Namibian project’s deliberations it was highlighted that this was a new industry with little knowledge or experience regarding impacts on the marine ecosystem from bulk seabed mining for the Namibian phosphate deposits. Had CRP paid any attention and been scientifically astute it would have grasped the fact that the environment where Namibian deposits are found differs both in the type of the marine phosphate deposit and the environment to that off New Zealand. Site-specific studies are required in any environmental assessment.
Furthermore, CRP would have taken note of the public warning by the Confederation of Namibian Fishing Associations when the latter declared marine phosphate mining “a serious threat to the marine and land environment, people and to the Namibian fishing industry as well as other sustainable industry”. This is one reason why CRP’s involvement in Namibia is and will be closely monitored. Namibians are apprehensive of CRP and its intentions. Its presence in Namibia leaves much to be desired. In fact, it is most disturbing. Full details were presented by Swakopmund Matters in ANNEXURE B of its Submission on 29 October 2014 to the DECISION MAKING COMMITTEE appointed by the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY OF NEW ZEALAND to decide on CRP’s marine consent application.
When the full record of all documentation issued by that Decision Making Committee is analysed one gets the distinct impression that what CRP had presented falls much short of truly significant scientific studies. Most of what had been presented can be classified as desk-top studies with little, if any, scientific substance or value. That CRP had undertaken inadequate research on the actual proposed mining area is part of the official record. CRP’s evidence gave cause for the EPA to have constantly requested further information. During the hearings its scientific team was unprepared due to limited prior research having been conducted. Their hastily assembled reports have not passed the test of robust evidence. This web link is but one indication of how many gaps there were in CRP’s presentations.
The following apt description of CRP’s failure to even impress its own countrymen was given during testimony before that Committee:
“CRP chose to lodge their application even though it was lacking in information and robust data. There has since been over 100 information requests to CRP for further information and data. Leading into and throughout the hearing process CRP’s witnesses and representatives who were supposed to be at the hearing and meet deadlines sometimes failed to meet these deadlines”.
That testimony was concluded with this appeal imploring the Committee to recognise CRP’s application for what it was: “Incomplete. Risky. Uncertain. Flawed. Selfish”.
With the above in mind Namibians and those to decide the future of Namibia’s marine resources will carry out assessments planned specifically and designed expertly for Namibia.
Swakopmund Matters
9 February 2015
(For Swakopmund Matters the environment of the Namibian coastline and its ocean matters)
Carbon Market Watch: Going For Green - Is The Paris Olympics Winning The Race Against The Climate Clock?
New Zealand Defence Force: NZDF Working With Pacific Neighbours To Support Solomon Islands Election
UN News: Ceasefire The Only Way To End Killing And Injuring Of Children In Gaza
ICHRP: US-Japan-Philippines Trilateral Summit Makes The Philippines A Battlefield For US-China Conflict
East West Center: Environmental Journalist Alexander Kaufman Receives East-West Center’s Inaugural Melvin M.S. Goo Writing Fellowship
Compassion in World Farming: Octopus Farm Must Be Stopped, Say Campaigners