SADC Correspondent | Oct 30, 2018 | 0
What due process?
In your last edition a heading reads that “Sandpiper followed due process”. This is far from correct.
If Sandpiper had indeed followed the prescribed procedure in the relevant Act, then why would the Environmental Commissioner have determined otherwise? Why would he have issued a statement to that effect? Does that imply that the Commissioner is at fault? Easy to shift blame to others.
Reading Mr. Wellbeloved’s remarks one gets the distinct impression that he and Sandpiper want to be seen as innocent parties who can do no wrong. They know it all. The rest of us – especially the affected and interested parties they inadequately consulted – are the babes in the wood who fail to appreciate the sterling contribution this project will make and how wrong those are who dare question the fundamentals of this whole scheme and doubt the veracity of the arguments.
He continues to argue that the project would have “some impact on fisheries – moderate to low.” This proves his misconception of what that impact would indeed be. He is so naive. Thinking that seasoned marine biologists do not have more than enough scientific studies and research data to shoot holes in his flimsy arguments. They have spent lifetimes in actual research. They don’t gather their statistics and evidence from laptop studies.
Furthermore, his observation that the impact would “vary depending on the particular fishing sector” is another distortion. Destruction of the fishing industry is precisely what it says. Not a little bit here and a little bit there. Does he really know what goes on in the ocean and the interaction between species? Obviously not, that’s why he also continues to believe that the fishing industry and marine phosphate mining can co-exist. What a fallacy to promote! This view is so misconceived. Fact is that the ocean can’t accommodate both. The one is viable. The other one is highly disruptive of the whole marine ecosystem.
On behalf of