Wassenaar, TD & Yates, M 2008, 'Is it Mineral? Is it Vegetable? Perceptions About Ecological Rehabilitation in the Namibian Mining Industry', in AB Fourie, M Tibbett, I Weiersbye & P Dye (eds), Mine Closure 2008: Proceedings of the Third International Seminar on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 347-362, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/852_32
(https://papers.acg.uwa.edu.au/p/852_32_Wassenaar/)
Abstract: Mines are located where viable ore reserves are found, but more often than not, ore reserves are located in 
areas used for purposes such as conservation, tourism and farming. This inevitably results in high impacts 
on biodiversity, land use and sense of place. The importance of sound biodiversity management and 
rehabilitation during the life of a mine and at closure are generally accepted in mining circles today, yet the 
question remains: How well does the mining industry understand and manage these issues? Rehabilitation, 
as generally understood by ecologists, involves the reinstatement of natural ecological processes, with the 
general aim of restoring a fully functional ecosystem of some type. In ecological terms, a mine causes a 
severe disturbance, which can halt or degrade natural ecological processes in various ways. Disturbance is 
a natural phenomenon. Many ecosystems have therefore evolved complex mechanisms to recover their 
structure and function. For many technical reasons, however, the effects of disturbances, particularly those 
that are man-made, usually last decades if not centuries. Indeed, it is often not possible to recover some key 
ecosystem properties at all. To have any chance of success, the industry needs to recognize this disturbance 
to the natural dynamic, and counteract such negative effects through sound rehabilitation management. 
Whilst most mining companies now agree to rehabilitate, many are still unaware of the basic ecological 
concepts in rehabilitation and are therefore unable to develop proper rehabilitation plans. Except for a few 
case studies, rehabilitation planning in the mining industry is still of a low standard with a poor success 
rate. 
To test this hypothesis, and to gain an understanding of its possible systemic drivers, we designed a 
questionnaire that was sent out to a number of mines in Namibia. The questionnaire dealt with four aspects 
of rehabilitation planning and management: 1) incentives, 2) understanding of ecological processes and 
constraints, 3) level of thinking about and execution of rehabilitation plans, 4) capacity and 5) monitoring 
and evaluation. Our results suggest that, in Namibia, most companies rehabilitate because of shareholder 
concerns or perceived reputational risk, rather than legal pressure. Very few respondents knew about basic 
ecological processes, or considered utilizing these in rehabilitation management. Possible explanations 
include environmental managers with little or no ecological training and/or pressure from the mining 
companies to do the minimum that will be accepted. None of the respondents were implementing a properly 
articulated rehabilitation management plan, and only a few had developed some vision for what the land 
should look like after closure. Our findings indicate that although all respondents understood the importance 
of rehabilitation, there are a number of systemic shortcomings that are currently hampering good 
rehabilitation management in Namibia. There is thus an excellent opportunity for restoration ecologists and 
mining companies to engage, for without it, even modest ecological sustainability targets are unlikely to be 
met in the medium to long term.