Before Namibia’s independence, those who were involved in mining, natural resource management, and nature conservation largely ignored the local communities living in or near these areas.
However, this approach changed in 1990.
One outcome was the introduction of the community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) programme and the Nature Conservation Ordinance Amendment Act of 1996. These initiatives established conservancies that empowered local communities to manage their own natural resources.
CBNRM was also implemented to encourage active participation in economic activities, ultimately empowering these communities. It granted them custodianship, as well as the right to use, benefit from, and manage the natural resources.
The full involvement of local communities in decision-making processes is expected to improve resource management from a comprehensive perspective and provide a foundation for strategic grassroots development.
Has this been the case in my area, the Daures constituency, the communal land surrounding Uis and the Ugab River, most specifically in the Tsiseb Conservancy? No!
Despite the existence of such
programmes, bills, and legislation, consultations with affected communities are often conducted merely as a formality, typically involving only a few or selected community members.
These consultations are usually handled by consulting firms responsible for completing the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) applications, some of which lack a clear understanding of the companies they represent. These companies make grand promises about how they will give back to the community, but these are often just to meet the EIA requirements.
Once these requirements are fulfilled, the communities are frequently left to deal with the disruptive impacts, such as dust from large trucks and blasting activities, with little to no follow-up support.
The approach promoted by technocrats behind the envisioned green circular economy and green industrialisation has raised scepticism.
It appears to involve isolated, questionable, and overly optimistic processes that impose the green revolution on communities rather than educating them about the long- and short-term benefits and drawbacks of these initiatives.
Although there are communications about the DGH project shared on social media, most of the directly affected communities lack access to cellphones, computers, and the internet, leaving them in the dark about these developments.
The lack of skills and sufficient knowledge about green hydrogen has significantly disadvantaged local communities, preventing them from benefiting from employment and bursary opportunities offered by the project. I believe any idea intended to improve the country should prioritise inclusivity and transparency.
Elected conservancy management committees, traditional leaders and the ministry of environment tend to overlook the need for community involvement in critical consultative platforms whereas companies acquire clearance certificates to operate without conducting consultations with communities and communal conservancies.
This has resulted in such companies carrying out their mining activities in sensitive wildlife breeding areas where communities have historically been generating revenue from hunting contracts provided to trophy hunters.
Government employees commissioning these recourses are often directors of the same companies that engage in the mining activities, authorising companies to continue freely despite concerns about destruction of heritage sites, grazing and inhabitable areas as well as pollution, providing poor working conditions and negligence with regards to fulfilling corporate social responsibility (CSR) commitments.
It is painful to witness companies achieving high targets and enjoying huge profits while the communities in which they operate struggle with the severe negative impacts of mining activities.
These impacts include increased crime, alcohol and drug abuse, poor road infrastructure, dust and noise pollution, teenage pregnancies, minimised grazing land, and the elimination of access to and disregard to the protection of material
and our cultural disturbance of heritage sites etc.Despite these substantial losses, it remains unclear how, if at all, community members will benefit from these mining activities.
I believe the government is not exercising its duty to uphold the provisions and protections of the Namibian Constitution, Chapter 11, Articles 95, when we are witnessing that companies are paying a mere 2% royalty tax to export thousand tonnes of uncrushed raw ore for so called testing purposes, thereby allowing our precious natural resources to leave the country in its uncrushed and raw form.
It is more worrisome that this is
happening while learners lack textbooks, farmers are without water, there is no medication in our hospitals, and citizens die from malnutrition – all while our resources are exported in the name of job creation, yet they have created safe havens for so-called investors and their nations and future generations benefits.
It is high time that we seriously focus attention on regulating and enforcing CSR at the community level and ensure, that community consultation processes engage the views, concerns, and expectations of communities and that these extractive activities actually transform the lives of ordinary Namibians.
The current trends guarantee that the rich continue to get richer, and the poor are increasingly poorer.
*Jimmy //Areseb is a community activist from the Uis area.