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
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
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.
Aronson, J., Le Floc’h, E. and Ovalle, C. (2002) Semi-arid woodlands and desert fringes, Handbook of Ecological
Restoration, M.R. Perrow and A.J. Davy (eds), Volume 2: Restoration in Practice, Cambridge University Press,
Aronson, J., Floret, C., Le Floc’h, E.C., Ovalle, C. and Pontanier, R. (1993) Restoration and rehabilitation of degraded
ecosystems in arid and semi-arid lands. I. A view from the south, Restoration Ecology, 1, pp. 8-18.
Bradshaw, A.D. (2002) Introduction and philosophy, Handbook of Ecological Restoration, M.R. Perrow and A.J. Davy
(eds), Volume 1: Principles of Restoration, Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-9.
CoM (Chamber of Mines of Namibia) (2008) Chamber of Mines Annual Review 2006-2007, Chamber of Mines of
Digby Wells and Associates (2008) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management plan
(EMP) for the Valencia Uranium Project, Digby Wells and Associates.
Golder Associates (2004) Guideline documentation for the evaluation of the quantum of closure related financial
provision by a mine, Golder Associates.
Hobbs, R.J. (2002) The ecological context: a landscape perspective, Handbook of Ecological Restoration, M.R. Perrow
and A.J. Davy (eds). Volume 1: Principles of Restoration, Cambridge University Press pp. 24-45.
Lockwood, J.L. and Pimm, S.L. (1999) When does restoration succeed?, Ecological assembly rules: perspectives,
advances, retreats, E. Weiher and P. Keddy (eds), Cambridge University Press, pp. 363-392.
McDonald, D.W., Moorhouse, T.P. and Enck, J.W. (2002) The ecological context: a species population perspective,
Handbook of Ecological Restoration, M.R. Perrow and A.J. Davy (eds) Volume 1: Principles of Restoration,
Cambridge University Press, pp. 24-45.
Namdeb (2008) Unearthing the roots of Namdeb – a brief history, accessed 15 June 2008,
Ninham Shand (2007) Trekkopje Uramin Project Environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) Report, Ninham
SER (Society for Ecological Restoration International Science and Policy Working Group) (2004) The SER
International Primer on Ecological Restoration. www.ser.org and Tucson: Society for Ecological Restoration