PDM Calls for an Audit of All Mining Licences in Protected Areas

The Popular Democratic Movement (PDM) is calling for a comprehensive audit of every mining licence, prospecting right and exploration permit issued within or near Namibia’s protected areas. The proposal places environmental accountability, public access to information and community rights at the centre of the country’s debate over mineral development.

For Australians watching Namibia’s political and economic affairs, the issue has familiar dimensions. Australia’s mining industry links regional jobs, export income and global supply chains with difficult questions about Indigenous consent, biodiversity, rehabilitation and regulatory trust. Namibia faces many of the same pressures, while its protected landscapes support tourism, local livelihoods and a national identity that cannot be measured only through mineral revenues.

Why Protected Areas Require Special Scrutiny

Protected areas are established to conserve ecosystems, wildlife corridors, cultural landscapes and water sources. Mining activity in these locations can create lasting effects through road construction, drilling, waste storage, groundwater extraction, dust, noise and increased vehicle traffic. Even an exploration permit that appears temporary may open access routes and disturb habitats that took decades to protect.

An audit would examine whether licences were granted lawfully, whether environmental impact assessments were properly conducted and whether permit holders have complied with their obligations. It would also need to assess cumulative impacts. Several small exploration projects in the same landscape may collectively cause serious damage even when each application was reviewed in isolation.

Namibia’s parks and conservancies are also economically significant. Visitors travel to places such as Etosha, the Namib-Naukluft and the Skeleton Coast for wildlife, desert scenery and distinctive cultural experiences. Damage to these assets could undermine tourism employment and local enterprise while producing gains that flow primarily to companies or investors outside the affected communities.

Transparency Must Follow The Licence

The PDM’s proposed review speaks to a basic democratic principle: citizens should be able to understand who has permission to extract resources, under what conditions and with whose consent. A public register should identify licence holders, ownership structures, the location and size of each tenement, environmental conditions, royalty arrangements and the status of rehabilitation bonds.

This information matters because the legal holder of a licence may not always be the company that controls the project or receives its financial benefits. A transparent audit can trace beneficial ownership, identify related parties and reveal potential conflicts of interest. It can also distinguish active operations from dormant permits that continue to restrict land use without delivering public value.

The review should include an accessible process for communities to challenge inaccurate records or report breaches. Documents need to be available in practical formats rather than buried in technical offices or scattered across disconnected agencies. Namibia’s parliament, regulators, traditional authorities, civil society organisations and journalists should all be able to scrutinise the findings.

Environmental Approval Cannot Be A Paper Exercise

An environmental clearance certificate should represent more than a procedural step completed before commercial activity begins. Regulators need to test whether baseline studies are credible, whether seasonal conditions have been considered and whether proposed safeguards can work in remote areas with limited enforcement capacity.

An independent audit could compare approved plans with what is happening on the ground. It should review water use, waste management, drilling locations, access roads, camp facilities and rehabilitation progress. Satellite imagery, independent scientific sampling and community observations could help verify company reports, particularly in vast areas where government inspectors cannot visit regularly.

The audit should also assess emergency preparedness. A spill, tailings failure or contaminated water source may affect wildlife and pastoral communities long after a company has left. Licence conditions should therefore include clear liability rules, adequate financial guarantees and a requirement to restore damaged land. When a project changes ownership, environmental obligations must transfer with it rather than disappear through corporate restructuring.

Communities Need A Meaningful Voice

People living near protected areas often experience the consequences of extraction before they see any benefits. Roads may pass through grazing routes, exploration can affect access to water, and restrictions linked to conservation or mining may alter customary land use. Consultation must begin before decisions are effectively settled and should allow residents enough time to understand technical proposals.

Community participation also requires information in appropriate languages and formats. Public meetings in a distant capital are unlikely to reach pastoralists, remote settlements or people whose work prevents them from travelling. Local hearings, independent advisers and clear explanations of maps and environmental reports can make consultation more credible.

Namibia can draw useful lessons from Australia’s experience with native title processes, Indigenous land councils and environmental approvals, while recognising that each country has its own legal and cultural framework. In the Northern Territory, for example, disputes over land access and resource projects have shown how consent, cultural heritage and benefit-sharing must be addressed early. A permit issued without genuine local legitimacy can remain legally contested and socially fragile.

Economic Development Needs A Fairer Test

Mining contributes to Namibia’s export earnings and can support employment, infrastructure and government revenue. The PDM’s position does not require the country to reject investment or abandon its mineral potential. It calls for development that is lawful, transparent and compatible with the public interest, especially where exploration overlaps with areas held in trust for future generations.

A licence audit can help separate responsible projects from speculative activity. Companies that meet environmental, labour and financial requirements should not be treated in the same way as operators that delay rehabilitation, ignore conditions or use permits primarily for resale. Consistent enforcement can improve investor confidence by showing that the rules apply to all participants.

This question also matters in Australia’s local market. Perth is a major centre for mining finance and engineering services, while Australian investors increasingly examine environmental, social and governance risks before backing overseas projects. Clear Namibian licensing records would help Australian companies conduct due diligence and avoid exposure to disputes, reputational harm or stranded assets. Responsible investors need reliable information, not weaker oversight.

Oversight Should Include Parliament And The Public

A credible audit should be conducted by a body with sufficient independence, technical expertise and resources. It could involve the mining and environment authorities, parliamentary committees, auditors, legal specialists, conservation scientists and representatives of affected communities. The process should publish its methodology so that the public understands which licences were reviewed and how conclusions were reached.

Parliament has an important role in testing the executive’s decisions and tracking follow-up action. If permits were issued without required assessments, the government should explain whether they will be suspended, corrected or cancelled. Where environmental harm has occurred, remediation deadlines and responsible parties should be named publicly rather than left to confidential negotiations.

The PDM’s own organisational information is available through its party leadership structure, which helps visitors understand the political framework behind its policy advocacy. For a matter as consequential as mining in protected areas, internal party accountability and public-facing communication should reinforce each other. Citizens should be able to see who is advancing the proposal and how elected representatives intend to pursue it.

Local Accountability Can Strengthen National Policy

A national audit will be most effective when it is connected to continuing local oversight. Community monitoring committees could record changes in water quality, wildlife movement, dust levels and access to customary areas. Their reports should feed into regulator inspections rather than remain informal complaints with no official response.

Participatory budgeting also offers a useful way to connect resource decisions with visible community priorities. If mining revenues are allocated to roads, clinics, water infrastructure or conservation employment, residents should help identify and monitor those investments. PDM has highlighted this approach through its account of participatory budgeting training for community leaders, linking public finance to practical civic engagement.

Australian readers will recognise the value of local accountability in regional towns, where residents often know quickly whether a promised road upgrade, jobs programme or environmental commitment has materialised. In Namibia, the same principle can help ensure that mining income reaches communities near protected areas rather than being absorbed into distant administrative systems. Town-hall meetings, public dashboards and regular independent reports would give residents a continuing role after a licence is approved.

A Clear Standard For Future Licences

The proposed audit should lead to a durable licensing framework rather than a single political announcement. Future applications in protected areas should face heightened scrutiny, including biodiversity mapping, climate-risk analysis, cultural heritage assessment, cumulative-impact studies and proof of financial capacity for rehabilitation.

Some locations may be unsuitable for mining altogether. Strict no-go zones could protect fragile wetlands, key wildlife corridors, heritage sites and water systems that cannot be replaced through compensation. In other areas, carefully limited activity may be possible under enforceable conditions, provided communities participate and independent monitoring continues throughout the project’s life.

The central issue is whether Namibia’s mineral wealth can be managed for broad public benefit without weakening conservation or democratic oversight. An open audit of existing licences would provide evidence, correct irregularities and establish a fairer basis for future decisions. It would also signal to communities, companies and international investors that development is welcome only when it respects the law, the environment and the people who live closest to the resource.