Title of paper

3.2 The environmental pillar

The environmental and social pillars place limitations on economic activity. The development process needs to safeguard the ecosystem and use, for example, renewable resources within their regenerative limits. It also recognises the value of the diversity of nature (MMSD, 2002: 19).
In Namibia, there are three crucial areas with regard to the environmental impacts of uranium mining:

• 
  Land conflicts
  
• 
  Water conflicts
  
• 
  Conflicts with tourism
  

Initially, land conflicts mean the impacts of uranium mining on the flora and fauna as well as the soil of the affected area. It can be best described as a land use conflict between mining and conservation. But the land use conflict is multi-faceted and also includes the conflict of mining and other forms of land use for earning a living, especially agriculture. Where mining occurs, the land cannot be used for any farming purposes. These range from subsistence farming to huge meat and crop farms that produce food for all Namibians. The benefit to the whole nation that stems from mining must, in this case, be balanced against the value of agricultural farmland for the surface owners who use it for not only food production but also poverty reduction.

Water is a scarce commodity in Namibia and uranium mining is very water intensive. In 2010, the same amount of water was used in the mining and tourism sector. This might now be different, as only desalinated water will be used in the future for uranium mining. However, water conflicts do not only address the amount of abstracted groundwater for mining purposes, they also look at the potential contamination of groundwater that was used for mining and its likely impacts on the surrounding biodiversity.
In a Namibian context, the conflict with tourism is of overwhelming significance. Tourism is an important sector in the Namibian economy. Tourists come to Namibia for the unique nature experience of enjoying unspoiled desert landscapes. Where uranium mines go into operation, the nature experience is restricted. The situation is complicated by the fact that both uranium mining and tourism take place in the same area, namely the national parks in the Erongo Region. From the ten Namibian tourism hotspots, four are affected by uranium mines already. As a result, the Hospitality Organisation of Namibia (HAN) started an initiative organised by the mining company Bannerman Resources in 2011. The aim of the project was to find options for the co-existence of mining and tourism in the Namib Naukluft National Park. It was planned, for example, to search for an alternative route for the famous Welwitschia Drive as the current one goes through a mining area. Since the beginning of the initiative, however, not much progress has been observed.

A comparison between mining and tourism is also enlightening for the balancing process with regard to jobs. Whereas in 2009, 6,200 people were employed in the mining sector, 33,000 worked in the tourism sector. Together with indirect jobs, the so-called travel and tourism sector creates more than 100,000 jobs in Namibia, many of them suitable for women.

3.3 The social pillar

The social pillar was not further developed in Rio. Generally, it tackles issues like poverty reduction and the demand for lessening the impact of western consumption.
With regard to the social pillar, one has to ask how local communities will be affected when a uranium mine comes into operation. In Namibia for example, the Areva Trekkopje mine is on communal land which is at the same time a communal conservancy. We have to ask what impacts the mine has on the grazing rights and general land use of the traditional community. Can they go on with tourism which is one of the main purposes for the establishment of a communal conservancy? Were the traditional leaders and the community members involved in the public participation process and did they have a say as to whether or not the mine could go up on their land? Will they be compensated for their loss of land? Aspects of how the traditional community will be affected once the mine decommissioned, fall under the social pillar of the sustainable development principle.

4. Sustainable mining – what does it mean?

In newspapers one can often read that companies are dedicated to ‘sustainable mining’. What does that mean? Is there a definition of ‘sustainable mining’? Does it ensure a certain standard of environmental protection and if there is such a standard, is it the same throughout the world?
If sustainable development were used merely for integrating and balancing conflicting interests, not much would be achieved. It would only mean that the three pillars of the sustainable development principle have to be taken into account and somehow balanced against each other. It would not mean that environmental aspects must be balanced and accounted to a specific degree.
Without a benchmark, we are left to guess how economic, environmental and social interests must be balanced. At least we have some general direction if we come back to the Brundtland definition of sustainable development. The Brundtland definition – wide and open though it is - offers some direction by demanding that the ability of future generations to meet their own needs is not compromised.
We can conclude that there is no precise definition of ‘sustainable mining’. ‘Sustainable mining’ only implies that a balancing per se is intended to be undertaken. The outcome of such a balancing process is also very much determined by the economic status of the country. It is very likely that the outcome of the balancing, with regard to the development of a uranium mine, will differ in Namibia from that in developed countries.
This is exemplified by a quotation from the minutes of a meeting between affected parties and Turgis Mining Consultants as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment report for the Ministry of Environment and Tourism for the Trekkopje uranium mine.

A participant asked: “Would this mine be allowed to go up just outside London?”

The consultant answered: “No, it would not, because the widespread poverty that we experience in this country is not experienced there. The United Kingdom has a social security system in place which Namibia does not have.”