Cape Town - Gecko Namibia is prepared to invest R12bn in an industrial park to the north of Swakopmund to ensure that the country derives maximum benefit from the increased mining of uranium.
But the project could cause an environmental uproar in the country.
In particular, Gecko wants to be involved in producing the reagents (sulphuric acid and alkaline chemicals) required by uranium, electricity and water desalination projects.
Gecko’s plans have raised eyebrows among the towns’ inhabitants, the country and even South Africans.
In expectation of the final report by Dr Peter Tarr, the chief executive of the Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment, Sake24 went to enquire from Dr Allan Heydorn, the former head of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) South Africa, what needed to be examined in judging such a development.
He said it was logical for companies to attempt to manufacture the substances required for uranium mining locally, rather than import them. The motivation behind Gecko’s plans was, however, based on the assumption that uranium mining would increase in the Swakopmund environment.
Heydorn questioned these plans in the light of the global trend of moving away from nuclear power stations. He said attention should also be given to the project's long-term impact and its effect on other economic activities in the area.
It is necessary to determine whether it would be fair for the development to take place at the expense of existing structures that form the economic backbone of the region.
Social conditionsNew development projects also have an impact on social conditions. In Gecko’s case many potential jobs are envisioned. But no conclusions have been reached as to the implications of an influx of job-seekers to the area.
There is also the question of what will happen to the 11 250 temporary workers once the industrial area has been established, as the available permanent posts number only an estimated 2 470.
He said there is also great potential for soil and air pollution.
Gecko further contemplates large-scale coal-fired electricity generation for use by all industries that might be established there. But this runs counter to global efforts to reduce noxious gases, and the coal-fired power station could pollute the air and the environment.
As to the new harbour to be built to handle imports and exports, available information from Gecko reflects Heydorn as saying that the implications of a development such as this have not been fully spelt out. Apart from the impact that this type of harbour could have on ocean currents and waves, one also needs to look at its effect on the declining fish industry.
The use of the dredging method to extract the necessary raw materials from the ocean bed is also concerning. It will affect the fish industry, in particular.
Finally, Heydorn refers to the effect that the proposed development would have on aesthetics, the historical value of the area and Swakopmund’s tourism industry.
“The Namibian government and citizens will have to think twice about whether these sacrifices can be justified,” said Heydorn.
The inhabitants of Swakopmund have already established an action group called SwakopmundMatters to oppose the development. They are especially concerned about the possible health hazards of the proposed project, as well as the negative consequences of dumping industrial waste in the ocean.