South Africa has not yet conducted a risk assessment nor formally requested a technical review from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for a proposed uranium mining project in Namibia that conservationists say could threaten a vital shared water resource.
Delay leaves questions over cross‑border water safety
The proposed mine, being developed by Headspring Investments — a unit of Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom through its Uranium One operations — would use in situ leaching. That method injects chemical solutions underground to dissolve uranium before pumping the liquid back to the surface.
According to reporting, the technique has raised alarms among farmers, tourism operators and scientists who warn it could allow radioactive decay products, including radon and radium, and heavy metals to enter the Stampriet Transboundary Aquifer System. The aquifer is shared by Namibia, Botswana and South Africa and is described as the only permanent drinking-water and irrigation source in one of southern Africa’s driest areas.
- Government action so far: South Africa’s Department of Water and Sanitation has not completed a risk assessment and has not formally requested the IAEA technical safety review.
- IAEA involvement: The IAEA reportedly completed a technical safety review and submitted it to the Namibian government, but South Africa has not requested the report.
- Local concerns: Stakeholders warn the proposed extraction method could contaminate groundwater used by communities, farmers and businesses.
The aquifer underpins thousands of boreholes used across the three countries, supporting livelihoods and agriculture in the region. Reporting says the project sites are in Namibia’s Omaheke region, near Leonardville.
Environmental and diplomatic implications
The absence of a South African risk assessment or formal request for the IAEA review raises two immediate concerns: first, the technical and environmental preparedness of relevant South African departments to respond to potential contamination risks; and second, the cross‑border governance of a shared groundwater resource.
Reporting indicates South Africa’s Department of Water and Sanitation has said it is waiting for the document to pass through Namibia’s internal ministries and the governance structures of the Orange‑Senqu River Commission. That suggests Pretoria is awaiting Namibian administrative processes before taking further steps.
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Aquifer | Stampriet Transboundary Aquifer System |
| Countries sharing aquifer | Namibia, Botswana, South Africa |
| Mining method proposed | In situ leaching |
| Project developer | Headspring Investments / Rosatom (Uranium One) |
Experts and stakeholders who oppose the method argue that chemicals used in in situ leaching can mobilise radioactive elements and heavy metals, potentially compromising groundwater quality over time. The prospect of long‑term contamination raises concerns for health, agriculture and tourism in the region.
The IAEA’s technical safety review, which reporting says exists, would typically assess such risks and offer recommendations. Without South African engagement, however, any regional assessment remains incomplete from Pretoria’s perspective.
This is a developing issue with cross‑border and environmental governance dimensions. South Africa’s next steps — whether to commission its own risk assessment or to formally request the IAEA review — will affect bilateral engagement with Namibia and long‑term management of a critical shared water resource. The situation also tests regional cooperation mechanisms for transboundary groundwater management.
Further details remain limited. Authorities in South Africa and Namibia have not published a joint position or timeline for assessments, according to reporting. Additional official statements or documentation would be needed to clarify how the three countries plan to safeguard the aquifer and the communities that depend on it.
